Cities Under Siege Shouldn’t Be Tradable

[Joeypr33]

So, I just had one of the most frustrating experiences in Civilization 7, and I need to vent.

I was playing as Rome, going for a militaristic victory. There was a crucial city owned by Lafayette blocking a major choke point that I needed for my expansion. This was supposed to be my forward base for the invasion, so I went all in...three generals, 90% of my army, and a carefully planned siege in rough terrain with mountains and navigable rivers. It took time to set up, and I even had to fend off Confucius (who, for some reason, decided to get involved).

Then, just as I was about to take the city, it suddenly changed colors. Turns out, Lafayette GAVE IT to Napoleon in a peace deal. HOW? The city was under siege...MY SIEGE. That shouldn’t even be an option. To make it worse, all my units got displaced across the city border, completely wrecking my setup. And to top it off? I was in an alliance with Napoleon, so now I couldn't take the city back without breaking my alliance and messing up my entire diplomacy game. Either I had to wait a ridiculous number of turns or completely throw my plans out the window.

At that point, I just shut the game down and booted up another 4x game.

How is this still a thing after six games? A city that’s actively under siege should NOT be tradeable. It makes zero sense and completely breaks strategy. I really hope this gets fixed in a future update because moments like this just suck the fun out of the game.

Has anyone else run into this? Because wow, this was infuriating.

 

[Leyrann]

More importantly, the AI really should not be this willing to give up cities in peace deals.

Oh and peace deals should include more levers than just cities.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Yeh, that's just flat out dumb. Peace deals in general need a lot of work, and I think they should just remove any ability to trade cities between civs. Bring back some form of vassalage instead.

 

[theadder]

It seems reasonable to have a change to prevent the trading of cities that are under siege. I’ve never had it come up, though.

I’ve seen the AI being unwilling to give up cities unless the opponent has significant military force. Prior to the initial patches, it seemed very willing to trade cities.

 

[Leyrann]

Prior to the initial patches, it seemed very willing to trade cities.

It still is.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

More importantly, the AI really should not be this willing to give up cities in peace deals.

This is a clear instance which shows why they should, would make perfect sense to cut their losses on this one and recognise they can't keep it.

 

[stealth_nsk]

AI shouldn't give up cities easy, but giving up city under siege is more like a cool move than a bug.

I don't see good ingame definition of "under siege" to be used to prevent it and I don't see any reasons to actually prevent it.

 

[StargazingDog]

So, I just had one of the most frustrating experiences in Civilization 7, and I need to vent.

I'm curious if the AI offered you a peace deal and you refused.

I got greedy one time. AI offers peace to me, including the city I plan to attack as part of the deal. I decline. I send my troops over. The next turn, the city now belongs to my ally. My enemy offered the same peace deal to my ally!

 

[UWHabs]

AI definitely gives up cities way too easily. I mean, I've had deals where I joined in because an ally was at war, had no direct conflicts with my opponent, and he was still willing to up a city in the peace deal.

Given how much they simplified of the negotiations, and how settlement limits work, I wouldn't actually hate it if basically the only peace negotiations was about whether to return captured cities or not. I find generally, if I want to make peace, it's because I've caught all the cities that I really care about, and I'm happy to just end the war weariness. I also wouldn't necessarily hate if cities stayed in resistance for as long as the war carried on. I do like how it's a good amount of time, unlike in 6 where cities turned too easily into your favour as long as you had the loyalty covered, but it still feels like you should actually have to peace out before you can rebuild.

 

[Leyrann]

This is a clear instance which shows why they should, would make perfect sense to cut their losses on this one and recognise they can't keep it.

They should not be able to give up the city to someone else for the very simple reason that they do not have clear control of it.

At the risk of drawing politics into the conversation, this is like Ukraine selling Donetsk and Luhansk to, well, anyone, really (except Russia). Leaving aside that no one is going to take it because of the geopolitical mess that would result, it wouldn't actually change anything on the ground.

AI shouldn't give up cities easy, but giving up city under siege is more like a cool move than a bug.

I don't see good ingame definition of "under siege" to be used to prevent it and I don't see any reasons to actually prevent it.

Uhm no, it's a ridiculously gamey, exploit-type move. Nothing "cool" about it. It should be impossible because the geopolitical situation would make it effectively impossible in real life. We can't accurately model real-life geopolitics, but we can use simplified solutions.

 

[Joeypr33]

This is solved by giving me the ability to demand that city form Napoleon. And if he refuse to give it should change our relationship to Hostile so I can take it from him.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

They should not be able to give up the city to someone else

Oh I absolutely agree with that.

 

[evonannoredars]

Had a similar situation recently, and aye it was annoying but I put up with it and attacked a different city instead.

I don't see good ingame definition of "under siege" to be used to prevent it and I don't see any reasons to actually prevent it.

Only thing I can think of that would be sufficiently unambiguous is if any walled quarters have been captured, i.e. if the city actively has enemy units within the city walls. It'd make a lot more sense to only be able to trade (or even better, explicity describe it as 'surrender') the city at that point to to anyone who has captured part of the city.

 

[pmarc]

Yeh, that's just flat out dumb. Peace deals in general need a lot of work, and I think they should just remove any ability to trade cities between civs. Bring back some form of vassalage instead.

Well this brings up memory of Civ4 where your war target vassals to a stronger AI and now you can't take cities from them at all.

More on the point, I get OP's frustration, but if the AI is at war against you and another AI, it won't always be clear cut who is taking one particular city "under siege". It is the risk of going 2 vs. 1 against another AI, and it balances a bit the benefits.

There are fewer "trade" options for diplomacy in this game from what I can tell so far, I don't mind it personally because previous versions especially Civ6 made it very easy to take advantage of the AI through trade deals. Not sure if there are some diplomatic exploits this time around.

 

[sixty4half]

More on the point, I get OP's frustration, but if the AI is at war against you and another AI, it won't always be clear cut who is taking one particular city "under siege". It is the risk of going 2 vs. 1 against another AI, and it balances a bit the benefits.

You can't always control that. One game, Peter declared on Confucious and Me on the same turn and the game just had it listed as 1 war with Conf and I on the same side. I was not his ally because I currently do not ally with AI (they be crazy).

Peter could have also just been in 2 wars (technically he was, he was at war with Augustus).

Ended up Conf surrendered to Peter and gave him a city. Next turn, Peter offers me the same city for peace.