City defends itself (a strategy i would like to see to defeat it)

[Chalks]

In what sense?

City of size 15 heals 2 per turn takes 2 per unit.
City of size 25 heals 7 per turn takes 2 per unit
City of size 25 with blahdiblah defenses heals 7 per turn takes 1 per unit, cannot be defeated by these units.

The tipping point being the point at which you heal for more damage than can be dealt per turn by the units. Like 6 warriors being unable to capture a modern era city.

I do not think this will be the case. Developers have already commented that an unsupported city is pretty much doomed. My guess is that 6 offensive units of an era will have no difficulty in taking a standard city of the same era that is unsupported by a defending army.

I find it difficult to believe that you're going to lose a large modern era city to 6 barbarian warriors, even if you are unable to get reinforcements to it.

Such a city will be very defensible, but economically weak.

I don't see why having only two attackable sides makes a city economically weak. What about on a peninsula of a small inland sea? Perfectly possible to have a very large and productive city that cannot be easily attacked on all sides.

Why are extra mechanics needed to deal with this? If you want to starve it, then just pillage the farms.

You don't, I never said you did. They can't farm land that's currently occupied and you can pillage improvements to decrease food production of tiles you are not occupying.

That was the whole point of my post, that we don't need additional mechanics to simulate sieges if city strength is based on population and you can starve them in the same way you currently can.

My only concession is that starvation may take a very long time - so perhaps civil disorder caused by starvation could further reduce a city's defences. A pretty simple mechanic which makes logical sense because it's probably easier to capture a city if the people who live there are rioting because they hate their current leaders (when they're supposed to be the ones defending the place).

 

[Ahriman]

I find it difficult to believe that you're going to lose a large modern era city to 6 barbarian warriors, even if you are unable to get reinforcements to it.

Uhh.... not really the point. As I said:

My guess is that 6 offensive units of an era will have no difficulty in taking a standard city of the same era that is unsupported by a defending army.

I don't see why having only two attackable sides makes a city economically weak.

Most of the time a city with 4 mountain tiles around it is gonig to be in a very mountainous region, and these tiles cannot be worked, so all else equal the city will be weaker.
But I think if you have incentives to deliberately build cities in harder to reach places, that's great. There will be other factors (worse access to land and fresh water) that balance this.

so perhaps civil disorder caused by starvation could further reduce a city's defences.

This counts as a new mechanic. Also, I don't really like the idea that being besieged by the enemy will somehow make your population more likely to rebel or less likely to defend the city. In general, they hate the enemy, not those defending them, and accept a greater latitude for the government to act with martial law (executing any troublemakers).

Can you think of examples of historic sieges where defenders were significantly weakened because of increasing demands and unrest by the civilian populace?
I'm thinking cases like the siege of Derry or Stalingrad or Antioch, which if anything are the opposite. Unite against the common foe, etc.

 

[Chalks]

Most of the time a city with 4 mountain tiles around it is gonig to be in a very mountainous region, and these tiles cannot be worked, so all else equal the city will be weaker.
But I think if you have incentives to deliberately build cities in harder to reach places, that's great. There will be other factors (worse access to land and fresh water) that balance this.

But the "mountains" were not the significant part - the impassable terrain was the point so replace "mountains" with "inland sea tiles" and the point remains the same.

This counts as a new mechanic.

Well, well done for recognising that city defence is a new mechanic, but I would like to think that I could indulge myself in speculating about the detail about a brand new mechanic, since saying "civil disorder will not affect city defence" is just as valid speculation.

The population of a city affects its defence. It seems entirely reasonable to say that perhaps civil disorder will affect this.

You find the idea of an invading civilization encouraging the citizens of their enemy to rise up against their current leaders to be completely unrealistic? The Japanese attempted it during their invasion of Indonesia during WW2, the US did it during the first gulf war despite not following through.

Oh, and that's not to mention when you're attempting to liberate cities, then you can probably go ahead and list every single liberation in history.

The Germans defending Paris might have a bit of trouble from civil disorder when their city is surrounded by allied forces.... not exactly the shock of the day.

Occupied cities rebelling against their captors and decreasing the defensive bonus of their city when it is under siege by their own armed forces seems like a pretty nice and very simple mechanic that I'd like to speculate about. If I'm allowed. Since we (including you) know nothing about the city defence mechanic what so ever.

 

[Ahriman]

Well, well done for recognising that city defence is a new mechanic

Eh? Having starvation effect city defense through civil disorder would be a new mechanic, and you claimed you weren't calling for any new mechanics.

The Japanese attempted it during their invasion of Indonesia during WW2

Attempted is key. I've never seen that they were particularly successful.

The Germans defending Paris might have a bit of trouble from civil disorder when their city is surrounded by allied forces....

Occupiers defending their conquest is very different from people besieged in their own city.
Also, Paris wasn't really attacked; the Germans didn't try to defend it.

And neither of these examples is a siege.

Occupied cities rebelling against their captors and decreasing the defensive bonus of their city when it is under siege by their own armed forces seems like a pretty nice and very simple mechanic that I'd like to speculate about

This also seems to me like it might be unnecessary. There is already a mechanic to model this in Civ4: occupied cities have lower culture and so have lower city defensese.

We don't know though if culture still impacts city defenses, if not then we could consider an alternate mechanic. But using culture (or city defenses that have to be rebuilt once a city is captured) seems more straightforward than having unrest affect military power. They've usually kept civilian and military spheres pretty separate in Civ.
And I still don't see how it would need to tie in with starvation.

 

[Chalks]

Eh? Having starvation effect city defense through civil disorder would be a new mechanic, and you claimed you weren't calling for any new mechanics.

*new mechanic* reacting to civil disorder is just as much a "new mechanic" as *new mechanic* doing anything, since it's like, a new mechanic. That we know exists. How it reacts to anything other that population size is entirely unknown.

We don't know though if culture still impacts city defenses, if not then we could consider an alternate mechanic. But using culture (or city defenses that have to be rebuilt once a city is captured) seems more straightforward than having unrest affect military power. They've usually kept civilian and military spheres pretty separate in Civ.

How does "they've usually kept civilian and military spheres pretty separate in civ" gel with the concept of using culture (an utterly unrelated, civilian aspect) to increase city defences? And how is it better than the mood of the people who are defending the city in the first place? Especially when in Civ 4 the happiness of the city can be increased with a military presence, making the concepts already linked.

The idea of cities becoming better defended because they have more art galleries and libraries is laughable.

When we know they are completely changing the way city defence works, why do you think they are going to stick with arbitrary aspects of the old system - especially ones that make little sense?

 

[Ahriman]

The idea of cities becoming better defended because they have more art galleries and libraries is laughable.

It would, if that's what it really represented. But of course it isn't. Its using culture to represent the depth of nationalism, national unity, and loyalty to your faction, since its something slowly accumulated slowly over time in cities.

It makes a LOT of sense. Its modeling precisely what you want; a newly conquered city that you're occupying against the will of the occupants will not be as defensible as one that is full of your core loyal supporters. The culture produced by various different factions is how we *identify* whether or not a city is "loyal" or is being "occupied". That's how you know, in a WW2 scenario for eg, that Paris isn't a German city; it has a ton of French culture but very little German culture. So France will get big bonuses defending it, but Germany won't.

"Culture" in Civ was never just art and poetry.

why do you think they are going to stick with arbitrary aspects of the old system

Uhhh....
"We don't know though if culture still impacts city defenses, if not then we could consider an alternate mechanic."

Why the hostility?

The OP wants new mechanics for sieges so that cities can be captured passively without losses. I don't think that's a good idea.
And I think that any other changes need to be carefully considered in terms of their design goals.

Design goals we want include:
a) Its easier to capture a city the more units you have surrounding it.
b) You can attack "fast" and take high losses, or you can attack "slow" with lower losses
c) You can weaken a city through starvation and blockades.
d) Cities that are controlled by "occupying" powers have lower defe

If we can accomplish these design goals with as few extra mechanics is possible, then we have a better desgin.

a) Is accomplished though flanking bonuses (already announced) and city hit point healing (as in post #15 in this thread).
b) Is accomplished by having siege weapons that can gradually be used to damage cities (eg through bombardment) or infantry that can just storm them.
c) Is accomplished by pillaging or occupying farm tiles, and through a mechanic where larger cities are harder to take (more hit points?), as you suggested.
d) Is accomplished through Cultural defense, or possibly some other mechanic.

So, no need for passive conquest of cities by just surrounding them.

 

[Chalks]

I agree that a new system of passive city capture is not required when cities will already become significantly weaker through starvation.

My tiny comment about civil disorder affecting the defensive bonuses of a city is because it could be argued that starving a large city is an infeasibly slow task.

We do not know anything about the intrinsic city defence system what so ever. We do not know if culture affects it, we do not know if civil disorder affects it. All we know is that population size and improvements affect it.

The defensive bonus of stationed units in Civ 4 is an entirely different system to self defending cities in 5 - just because you see something similar does not make it unreasonable to speculate that a different system may be in place.

Culture may have been twisted to model "loyalty" in 4, in your interpretation of the mechanic, but since we ALREADY model the mood of the population via another mechanic, perhaps it would be sensible to use that one instead? Rather than picking something else and saying "oh, it also means the mood of the population in certain contexts" - after all, we are talking about an entirely different system to handle city defence.

I didn't read the article where "thou shalt not differ from the civ 4 template" was one of the core components of civ 5.

 

[Ahriman]

Culture may have been twisted to model "loyalty" in 4, in your interpretation of the mechanic, but since we ALREADY model the mood of the population via another mechanic, perhaps it would be sensible to use that one instead? Rather than picking something else and saying "oh, it also means the mood of the population in certain contexts" - after all, we are talking about an entirely different system to handle city defence.

Except that happiness doesn't really achieve what we want. I might capture a city and it instantly gets high happiness because of all the luxury resources I control.

What we want is for cities that have been "yours" for a long time to be loyal to you and have higher defense, whereas cities that have not been "yours" for a long time are not loyal to you and have lower defense.

Culture does this. Happiness doesn't, because happiness is not necessarily well-correlated with length of ownership.

However, we don't even know if culture is still something that exists at a city level or not in Civ5, so its hard to conclude much.

 

[Chalks]

What we want is for cities that have been "yours" for a long time to be loyal to you and have higher defense, whereas cities that have not been "yours" for a long time are not loyal to you and have lower defense.

I'm not sure why this would be what we want.

I mean, say you capture a city and your civilization is awesome so the standard of living in that city becomes really high for a couple of years and everyone loves you and they're glad they are now part of your mighty empire... why would that city be difficult to defend?

Equally, if there was a city that you've had since the beginning of time but it's in a terrible condition, extremely low happiness, disease and starvation... why would that city be really easy to defend because a bunch of people who hate you happen to have been controlled by your forces for a long time?

Rebellion within a city attempting to aid the attackers should... well, it should aid the attackers. That's basically what I'm talking about here - the idea that an invading force can use an uprising within the enemy city to assist in its capture.

You seem to be advocating some sort of inherent aura that cities gain purely for being in your control for a long period of time. I don't see what real world concept that is attempting to model. If the people hate your nation and love the invaders it doesn't matter how long they've been miserable in your territory for.

 

[Ahriman]

You seem to be advocating some sort of inherent aura that cities gain purely for being in your control for a long period of time. I don't see what real world concept that is attempting to model

Nationalism, ethnicity, culture.

The problem with happiness is that you can change it temporarily. So for example you could temporarily bump up the culture slider to make people "happy" to get the military defense bonus, and then take it back down a few turns later once the threat has passed.
Do you really think that if the Nazis had suddenly pumped a bunch of consumer goods and "circuses" into Paris that the French resistance would have evaporated in love for Germany, and that they would have fought with the Germans against the liberating Allies?

Whereas culture is something that accumulates over time, so you can't game it.

 

[Neo-Dar]

i like what the arguments going on but i have to intervene before firaxis sees this in the way that i would like to hear about tweaks that would keep the basic idea without changing gameplay atrociously please try to keep that topic.

 

[Chalks]

Nationalism, ethnicity, culture.

The problem with happiness is that you can change it temporarily. So for example you could temporarily bump up the culture slider to make people "happy" to get the military defense bonus, and then take it back down a few turns later once the threat has passed.
Do you really think that if the Nazis had suddenly pumped a bunch of consumer goods and "circuses" into Paris that the French resistance would have evaporated in love for Germany, and that they would have fought with the Germans against the liberating Allies?

Whereas culture is something that accumulates over time, so you can't game it.

But culture accumulates over time regardless of the happiness of the city. No matter how much the citizens want to join the other force, there is this "weight of time" hanging over them.

This situation is not a simulation of anything real, it's a flawed approximation of "loyalty" that assumes the populations are unquestioning drones (negating the concept, since cities are always loyal multiplied by the length of their existence and the number of cultural buildings (which makes no sense at all))

The issue with the short term nature of "happiness" should not be a problem with what I am suggesting.

I am not saying cities are easier to defend the happier they are. I'm saying there is a modifier of "is in civil disorder" that gives a defence penalty.

Most of your cities will be normal most of the time, so when you are under attack you won't be able to game the system to increase it. If you're under attack to such a severe degree that your city starts to riot the only "gaming" of the system you can do is make every effort to quell the resistance in the city. Which makes perfect sense from the perspective of the simulation.

The only "gaming" of the system is the whole point of the system - to add an small extra detail to the "siege" concept since this concept does not exist to any significant degree in 4 and 5 is a chance to flesh it out.

This is some potential flesh.

 

[qwerty25]

I thought you were supposed to stop the army before they got to your city. Assuming they surrounded your city it would be brought down quickly if surrounded. (City defense can't hold for very long) At least I thought it worked that way.

 

[Ahriman]

But culture accumulates over time regardless of the happiness of the city.

Yes, it does. Why is that a problem? It doesn't matter how unhappy the French were with their government, they're still not going to welcome an outside invader.
In almost every case in history, no matter how oppressed they are, mostly the population of a nation rallies to unite against an outside invader.

No matter how much the citizens want to join the other force

Being unhappy with the government does NOT equate to wanting to join the other force.

This situation is not a simulation of anything real

Nationalism.

it's a flawed approximation of "loyalty" that assumes the populations are unquestioning drones

No, its an approximation of loyalty that represents the very strong human tendency to favor their Own Kind over that of Outsiders.

I'm saying there is a modifier of "is in civil disorder" that gives a defence penalty.

Define "is in civil disorder". If you mean explicit Civ4 style city revolt, where the city can't build anything, then fine. Civ4 already gives no city defenses in outright rebellion. I have no problem with that. But that's a very minor issue for rare occurrences. Cities are almost never in outright rebellion except right after being conquered. So your case of "oppressed masses welcoming an invader" never happens.

If you mean any time when unhappy faces > happy faces, then I disagree.

Assuming they surrounded your city it would be brought down quickly if surrounded. (City defense can't hold for very long) At least I thought it worked that way.

Yes, this seems to be their announced intention. Which is why any extra mechanic is somewhat superfluous. The combat engine isn't going to be about city combat anymore, so there's no particular need for lots of detailed mechanics to deal with it.

 

[Sonereal]

Do we really need a need siege system? Since Civ5's war won't come down to Stalingrad-esque slugfests every time a battle happens inside a city, a siege system is unnecessary. Its already possible to "siege" a city already (cut off roads around the city/pillage tiles/air raids/etc.) an official system isn't needed.

Plus, by the time you reach an enemy city, the enemy has either A.) Been defeated in the field or B.) Is still trying to reach the battlefield. Unless you can get all your forces and siege machines ready to strike at the city ASAP, the enemy is probably going to hit you before you hit a city.

 

[Chalks]

Which is why any extra mechanic is somewhat superfluous.

Why don't you understand that the self defending cities is an extra mechanic that we know basically nothing about?

How a brand new mechanic that we know nothing about reacts to the rest of the game is not an "extra mechanic" in itself.

The extra mechanic is already there. Sorry! there's going to be an extra mechanic. Sorry you don't like that, but there is. It's confirmed. It will react to other aspects of the game in *some way*. Trying to speculate on what aspects of the game it will be affected by is not creating a new mechanic because we already know there is a new mechanic.

And, for like the third time now, the Civ 4 "+X% defensive bonus to stationed units" system that can be reduced by siege units is a completely different system to a city being able to defend itself and attack nearby units based on its population size and improvements.

Yes, I know it's got the word "defence" in the description, but I'm hoping that at some point you're going to get to grips with the fact that the old Civ 4 system is completely out the window and it's replaced with a brand new mechanic.

So, how the brand new mechanic reacts to anything that has not been explicitly stated is unknown. Your assumption that it works exactly the same as an different mechanic that we know is going to be removed is completely without basis beyond lack of imagination.

As you said, the Civ 4 *entirely different* mechanic of city defence is reduced when a city is in civil disorder. Perhaps the *brand new* defence mechanic based on population size and improvements will also have a penalty for being in civil disorder, and such a situation can be triggered by a prolonged siege against a city that dislikes its current owner and wants to join the invaders.

Cities already rebel and attempt to join neighbouring nations. The idea that a particular city is never going to welcome invaders when civ 4 has culture flipping is crazy. "Yeah, yesterday we wanted to join you guys, but now there's a war on so I'm going to send all my sons out to die trying to repel you!!". Totally.

 

[Ahriman]

Cities already rebel and attempt to join neighbouring nations. The idea that a particular city is never going to welcome invaders when civ 4 has culture flipping is crazy. "Yeah, yesterday we wanted to join you guys, but now there's a war on so I'm going to send all my sons out to die trying to repel you!!". Totally.

I'm sorry, but how is the presence of Culture flipping an argument against using Culture as the
means of determining faction loyalty? Precisely the opposite is true.
So your argument, which says "sometimes cities will change loyalty if flooded with overwhelming culture, therefore culture shold not be used to represent loyalty" is a total failure.

Culture flipping precisely represents that the citizens aren't really loyal to you anymore; they are increasingly loyal to the other power. But WW2 Paris was not about to culturally flip to German. So "Yeah, yesterday we wanted to join you guys, but now there's a war on so I'm going to send all my sons out to die trying to repel you!!" isn't happening.
In fact, we have the opposite. Germans attack and conquer Paris. In Civ3 terms, Paris is in danger of culturally flipping back to France, resisting the occupiers. In Civ4 terms, Paris will be harder for the Germans to defend, because they have little local cultural value.


How could you possibly interpret cultural flips as meaning that happiness should be used to gauge local loyalty to your empire?

 

[Chalks]

How could you possibly interpret cultural flips as meaning that happiness should be used to gauge local loyalty to your empire?

I'm not saying happiness should be used to gauge the loyalty. I'm not saying anything about loyalty. Or happiness for that matter.

I'm saying that civil disorder should decrease the defensive ability of a city to make siege a more viable offensive option.

You're the one banging on about loyalty. And yes, your own argument does indeed agree with itself.

If civil disorder makes cities more likely to join your civ through culture pressure, it should also make them easier to capture since those defending the city are currently rioting against those they are meant to be defending.

 

[Ahriman]

I'm saying that civil disorder should decrease the defensive ability of a city

Again:

"Define "is in civil disorder". If you mean explicit Civ4 style city revolt, where the city can't build anything, then fine. Civ4 already gives no city defenses in outright rebellion. I have no problem with that. But that's a very minor issue for rare occurrences. Cities are almost never in outright rebellion except right after being conquered. So your case of "oppressed masses welcoming an invader" never happens.

If by civil disorder you mean any time when unhappy faces > happy faces, then I disagree."

Its impossible to evaluate what you're saying unless you make it clear what you mean by civil disorder.

to make siege a more viable offensive option

How does a siege cause civil disorder? A siege normally leads to martial law, and widespread acceptance of this by the populace ("there's a war on, don't you know!").

Why is a focus on siege warfare important, when they've made it clear that they're moving to a system of warfare primarily about field battles?

What is clear to me is this; a very French city (ie one with lots of established French culture) will be easier to defend by the French civilization, and harder to defend by the German civilization.

But a city that is Happy should not necessarily be easier to defend than a city that is Unhappy, particualrly if if is a happy Paris being occupied by Germans vs an unhappy Paris being defended by France.

 

[Chalks]

Its impossible to evaluate what you're saying unless you make it clear what you mean by civil disorder.

As in "city is rioting" for X turns, like you get when you capture a city or have severe unhappiness.

How does a siege cause civil disorder?

Civilians are unhappy. Civilians riot. Civ quells resistance with *new method since you can't just station a bunch of units in there any more*.

Invasion happens. Unhappy civilians find themselves under siege by a powerful and glorious nation. Nation uses espionage equivalent to stir up unrest and support for the attackers, or simply relies on the effects of starvation to make them want to capitulate. City riots. Defenders have a harder time defending from both attackers and rioters/saboteurs from their own population, as represented by a reduction in hit points, or heal ability, or damage output, or another facet of the new city defence system.

Seems to make sense.

Otherwise sieges are "stand around until they starve enough" - which works, but it is a bit shallow and potentially very slow.