[R&F] Cede City
- Thread starter Cymsdale
- Start date
Stylianos
Chieftain
If you conquer a city and it is not ceded to you (at the peace deal) then it will never grow and it also has loyalty penalty !
Cymsdale
Prince
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2005
- Messages
- 397
That seems to make sense, except it isn't actually true.
Liquid Egg Product
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2016
- Messages
- 7
It seems like ceding means the civ revokes claims to ownership for it.
If an enemy cedes a city to me, they won't denounce me in the future for occupying "their" city.
Don't know if there are other effects, though.
If an enemy cedes a city to me, they won't denounce me in the future for occupying "their" city.
Don't know if there are other effects, though.
SomeGuyHere
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2017
- Messages
- 10
Honestly, I’m surprised the loyalty in R&F wasn’t something they made play into this. Makes holding non-ceded cities harder.
Last time I looked this up it had something to do with warmonger penalties but was broken because you got more diplomatic penalties (well warmonger points) from not having them cede it.
I do know a non-ceded city doesn’t count in your score. So, if that matters in your game there’s that much to take into account.
Also - https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/cede-city-nonsense.619656/page-2#post-14964306
Last time I looked this up it had something to do with warmonger penalties but was broken because you got more diplomatic penalties (well warmonger points) from not having them cede it.
I do know a non-ceded city doesn’t count in your score. So, if that matters in your game there’s that much to take into account.
Also - https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/cede-city-nonsense.619656/page-2#post-14964306
Last edited:
Craig_Sutter
Deity
I am certain that I have had AI leaders constantly bring up that hold one of their cities despite them having ceded it...
They do. I don't have a problem with this though - just because they were forced to surrender their city doesn't mean they should be happy about it.
The Cede mechanic is intended to allow the city to shed its Occupied anti-growth status and (now) Loyalty penalty, which I think it now does? Previously this penalty was dropped just because you ended the war, but I thought they fixed that?
Cymsdale
Prince
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2005
- Messages
- 397
If you end the war without them ceding, and you end it with them ceding, it appears to make no actual difference. At least one that is obvious in any kind of tooltips or game mechanics.
Tech Osen
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2016
- Messages
- 1,941
Far as I know this is what should happen but it's another bug that hasn't been fixed for several patches.
pgm123
Emperor
- Joined
- May 21, 2017
- Messages
- 1,168
I can't tell if this is what is intended or if things were changed during development. We tried getting clarification on the cede mechanic shortly before the reveal and we were told that it's the same.
I don't think I had an "occupy" penalty during one play I had, but I could have just missed it.
Maximo the Xth
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2011
- Messages
- 193
Actually there is an effect: You get additional warmonger penalties. And you can demand less in the peace treaty. So there are only downsides. Just don't do it.
leandrombraz
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2014
- Messages
- 1,443
When the AI cede a city to you it allow you to trade the city to other leaders. It also give you more warmonger penalty, that's the only effect it have in the game. I didn't try to use cede in R&F yet but Sarah said that it wasn't changed, so it should still be completely useless and something you should avoid like its the prague.
Cymsdale
Prince
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2005
- Messages
- 397
There is still an option to request it when you work out the peace. So it's unclear if it's meant to do something and it's a bug that it doesn't, or if the mechanics were changed and the diplomatic option is now pointless and distracting.
Jackanape
Warlord
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2002
- Messages
- 190
Yeah, in R&F the AI will still cede cities and then ***** about it for millennia afterwards...
Seems to me that if they ceded it to me in both peace talks and SIGNED TREATIES, that they could just shut up about it after a while. Not to mention that with the new alliances, I now have to listen to their allies saying the same thing every ten turns...
Here's a hint: .
That city you gave me 1500 years ago? Yeah, I don't "occupy" it any more...
Seems to me that if they ceded it to me in both peace talks and SIGNED TREATIES, that they could just shut up about it after a while. Not to mention that with the new alliances, I now have to listen to their allies saying the same thing every ten turns...
Here's a hint: .
That city you gave me 1500 years ago? Yeah, I don't "occupy" it any more...
leandrombraz
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2014
- Messages
- 1,443
They complain about occupation because of the -18 penalty for occupying a city. Trade a city back to the AI, any city, it will remove the penalty.
Jackanape
Warlord
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2002
- Messages
- 190
I understand the "mechanic" part of it, and you are 100% right.. It's the "gameplay" that I object to. So I have to capture an extra city for every war I am drawn into in order to make it worth my while...?
I think that's what everyone refers to as non-immersive. Bottom line, if we have signed a treaty wherein I am given a city, well, that's it then, isn't it?
I think that's what everyone refers to as non-immersive. Bottom line, if we have signed a treaty wherein I am given a city, well, that's it then, isn't it?
Trav'ling Canuck
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2018
- Messages
- 2,959
nzcamel
Nahtanoj the Magnificent
I thought in R&F they were going to do away with the whole mechanic. They haven't, which is fine (I like the idea); but could they please fix the stupid thing!!??
That's the idea to me. It doesn't work.
Yep.
It hasn't worked right for the entire existance of Civ VI.
I shouldn't have to. I don't mind if leaders who have have ceded a city have a negative modifier against you for it, cos let's face it...who wants to do that!? But it should be reasonably lower than if you do actually occupy it; and they shouldn't keep complaining about it forever more (not as overtly) and denouncing based on it.
That's the idea to me. It doesn't work.
Yep.
It hasn't worked right for the entire existance of Civ VI.
I shouldn't have to. I don't mind if leaders who have have ceded a city have a negative modifier against you for it, cos let's face it...who wants to do that!? But it should be reasonably lower than if you do actually occupy it; and they shouldn't keep complaining about it forever more (not as overtly) and denouncing based on it.
cvb
Prince
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2017
- Messages
- 446
Yeah, it is a bit unfortunate, that the publication of the other half of the CEDE mechanism is pushed back to the release of the second expansion ...It hasn't worked right for the entire existance of Civ VI.
