[R&F] Can't attack free city because another civ's worker won't move!

Locutus494

Locutus494

Chieftain
Joined
Aug 1, 2018
Messages
8
Location
Michigan
So I'm in a game with Russia directly to my north and Scythia directly to my East and Rome to my Northeast. Right in between Russia and Rome is the city-state of Nan Madol, who I've been longtime suzerain of. Russia and Rome have both gone to war and captured Nan Madol a few times, triggering an emergency which I have won handily each time, liberating Nan Madol. Now, I have been at war with Russia for a while, just stomping all over them. In the middle of this, Scythia, whom I've been on good terms with and do not want to go to war with, attacks and captures Nan Madol. I reject the emergency, seeing that Nan Madol (now Scythia's city) will succumb to loyalty pressure from Russia and become a free city in just five turns after Scythia captured it. So I plan on capturing and liberating it when it becomes a free city. Now the problem. When Nan Madol turns to free cities from Scythia, there's a Scythian worker in the city that isn't kicked out when the city breaks away! It just sits there turn after turn, not moving. Because I'm not at war with Scythia, their worker blocks my movement, preventing me from attacking the city! Why the hell wasn't the worker kicked out of free Nan Madol's territory like the rest of Scythia's units when it changed hands? This has to be a bug.
 
Last edited:
The ideal situation is units in a rebelling city are ejected.

What would be bad is if units in the rebelling city are destroyed. I don't think the AI could handle it.

As it is, units in a rebelling city stay there. Yes, it can make it hard to capture a city. This happened one time when an Indian city rebelled. They had a worker there so I couldn't take the city to liberate it. Later on, they eventually moved the worker.

On the other hand, this can work towards your advantage. If you have a unit in the city and it rebels, your unit can't be melee attacked. Furthermore, if your unit is a melee unit, it is threatening most (if not all) hexes of the city (exception being anything across a river). So a single melee unit in the city can keep the whole city under siege and it can't be attacked by other melee units.
 
Halcyan2 said:
The ideal situation is units in a rebelling city are ejected.

What would be bad is if units in the rebelling city are destroyed. I don't think the AI could handle it.
Click to expand...
Sure, that's what used to happen before the Spring Developer's Update fixed one kind of ejection bug and introduced this one instead. However, if or until FXS decides to fix it, the above mod is the only corrective fix I've seen unless someone else decides to do one where the units are ejected instead. From what I've observed the occurrences where this has been an issue have been relatively small anyway - maybe 2 or 3 times a game on average. Annoying, yes, but nowhere near game-breaking and with the mod enabled the destroyed units have hardly hampered the AI so I wouldn't mind if FXS adopted that mechanic.
 
So, I downloaded that mod and loaded a save before the city became free, and got around it this time (still had to liberate the city several more times from Scythia and Rome, but that's another issue entirely... :shake:)

Now much later in my game, I captured an Aztec city that they put RIGHT on my borders, so of course it had to burn. When I captured it with a destroyer armada, there was an Aztec mechanized infantry and a settler in the city. But for some reason, instead of capturing the settler, it just disappeared. I'm aware of the bug that if there's a civilian unit (like a great general) in formation with the military unit that you use to capture a worker or settler, it will just destroy the worker/settler instead of capturing it, but I didn't have any other unit attack except the destroyer. Is this a bug, too, or did they change it to make settlers in cities move to another city upon capture like great people do? I also already saved and reloaded with the garrison fix mod disabled to see if it was killing the settler when I captured the city like it's meant to do with free cities, but that didn't change anything.
 
You should just lose the garrisoned unit. That's the simplest solution.
 
Replying to the topic, not your post above specifically.
 
Locutus494 said:
Is this a bug, too, or did they change it to make settlers in cities move to another city upon capture like great people do?
Click to expand...

They don't move to another city as far as I can tell. I've had this as well where I expect to capture a builder or settler, but I do not for some reason. It seems kind of random.
 
Locutus494 said:
When I captured it with a destroyer armada, there was an Aztec mechanized infantry and a settler in the city. But for some reason, instead of capturing the settler, it just disappeared. I'm aware of the bug that if there's a civilian unit (like a great general) in formation with the military unit that you use to capture a worker or settler, it will just destroy the worker/settler instead of capturing it, but I didn't have any other unit attack except the destroyer. Is this a bug, too, or did they change it to make settlers in cities move to another city upon capture like great people do? I also already saved and reloaded with the garrison fix mod disabled to see if it was killing the settler when I captured the city like it's meant to do with free cities, but that didn't change anything.
Click to expand...

Disgustipated said:
They don't move to another city as far as I can tell. I've had this as well where I expect to capture a builder or settler, but I do not for some reason. It seems kind of random.
Click to expand...

Think Settlers/Builders in cities you capture are destroyed now, not captured? Not randomly, always. Not sure when this changed, but that was my impression.

Could be wrong, though. I've only been playing test games for the past few months and I don't take enemy cities in those games. I'm going by memory from earlier this year, and that's always an iffy proposition.
 
SirWill90 said:
I’m not following either, Archon... how can the player lose a unit that is owned by another player and in a city that can’t be attacked?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that if you have units inside a city center when it rebels, then you should lose the units within. That way there won't be anything like random units still left in a Free City.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

King Phaedron
3 Civilizations are China locked on this map - Secret of Evermore
Replies
3
Views
1K
fomrat
F
P
City State being attacked by another Civ
Replies
17
Views
1K
Possum Pie
P
King Phaedron
The Best Map I've ever made - a dramatic Soulblazer!
Replies
3
Views
897
SaboteurINT
SaboteurINT
J
been playing a bunch of Kupe games
Replies
6
Views
3K
Futumch
Futumch
Navelgazer
Favorite "Builder" Civs?
Replies
8
Views
2K
Glennarrison
G
Top Bottom