Does the city have very good ranged defence like in CIV5?

[Eagle Pursuit]

Except that if you declare a "surprise war" I think you get the warmonger penalty regardless of taking cities. I could be wrong though but the diplo screen shows the option to "declare a surprise war" with the note "+10% warmonger penalty" under it. Why would it say "+10% warmonger penalty under "surprise war" if the penalty was only for taking a city?

I think I recall in that description of surprise vs justified that you get less penalty for a justified war, but you can still rack it up by taking cities.

 

[GMAK2442]

Here are some of the big changes that we know so far about civ6 combat and cities:
- Walls are now required for the city to have a ranged attack. So a new 1 pop city will not be able to range attack anymore.
- Walls do add a second "health bar" to cities. The attack will need to bring the walls down to 0 HP and then take the city's HP down to 0 before taking the city. This will obviously make taking walled cities harder.
- Walls also give the encampment a ranged attack. So a walled city with an encampment will have 2 ranged attacks
- Melee units now require a "battering ram" support unit stacked with it in order to attack walls.
- Districts mean that battles will most likely take place further from cities since players will want to defend their districts.

Of course, it will come down to what the attacker has and what the defender has. It looks like cities without walls will be easier to take since they won't have a ranged attack or extra HP. So attacking cities without walls will most likely be easier in civ6 than in civ5. Conversely, walls adding an extra HP bar and a ranged attack will mostly make walled cities tough to take unless you have a lot of battering rams/catapults.

Personally, I think these changes make a lot of sense because they are more realistic. Historically, unwalled cities were more vulnerable whereas walled cities required tough sieges.

From the video I've posted in the edit of my first post, it look like there is no ranged attack. Maybe they did not construct wall.

So if you can construct wall than it's a good and bad news. Good because the rush will be and bad because town will be god like after a while.

 

[King Jason]

I'm thinking that some wars are going to involve me coming in, reducing the walls to 0HP in order to disable the city's ranged attack, then pillaging all the tiles, before running away. Just to avoid the warmonger hit of taking a city. Mess 'em up and leave 'em.

I agree. I look forward to seeing two things in regards to pillaging districts;

A.) The yields granted for pillaging districts.
B.) How, exactly, Districts get repaired after being pillaged.

These two pieces of information could re-shape the entire view of warfare. Recent information on pillaging has told us that the rewards we reap are associated with the districts pillaged; Destroying a campus gives you science. Furthermore, Ed mentioned that you destroy a district 1 building at a time and he seemed to suggest a cap of 3 buildings (by the way, that seemed new to me).

Also unclear is if we get a reward each time, or only when the entire district is destroyed. So a fully completed Campus would take 3 "pillages", whether each one costs a movement or an entire turn is unclear, either way.. we'd either generate 3 sums of science over time or one burst at the end. My assumption is a reward for each pillage.

In regards to repairing the district, I think there are three possible options;

-keeping with previous versions, repairing a district could be done by a builder using one of it's charges; I assume 1 charge per building.
-The city must rebuild the building, likely at a reduced cost.
-The city must rebuild the building entirely.

Really though, in any combination of the above, whether the yields are generous, minuscule, come over time or in big bursts... The fact that you can walk into a city and specifically take out it's science, or income, or production while retaining your own infrastructure and reaping a reward leads at the same time leads me to believe it will be entirely viable to wage wars against enemy civilizations without hang any specific goal beyond crippling their infrastructure.

This is the most exciting aspect of warfare in my mind.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I think I recall in that description of surprise vs justified that you get less penalty for a justified war, but you can still rack it up by taking cities.

Possibly. Obviously, we don't know exactly how it works yet. If warmonger points only come from taking cities that would create a weird situation whereby you could declare a surprise war but take no cities and therefore incur no warmonger penalty. So I imagine that even a justified war might give you a small amount of warmonger points just from the DoW and then more warmonger points if you take cities. The "+10% warmonger penalty" would mean that a surprise war generates 10% more warmonger points.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

So if you can construct wall than it's a good and bad news. Good because the rush will be and bad because town will be god like after a while.

Well I don't think a walled city will necessarily be "god like". Again it would depend on its size, terrain, and composition of the siege army. In the medieval era, when you get the castle, your cities will become much stronger but then again, when the attacker gets the cannon, they will have a strong attack to take down the city walls. Just like in real history, I think there will be periods where cities are tough to take and other times when they become easy to take depending on the tech on both sides.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

It might be god-mode with the right bottlenecks in the terrain, but only until bombers are made.

And remember, you might be safe from naval attacks up on your cliff, until someone gets the promotion to scale cliffs (the E3 Q&A).

 

[Ryika]

Well, let's just hope they have less mountains this time around. The bottlenecks in Civ 5 are pretty annoying and really take away a lot of the fun that could be rolling into an opponents territory if only half the map didn't represent the Himalayas.

 

[mjs0]

Possibly. Obviously, we don't know exactly how it works yet. If warmonger points only come from taking cities that would create a weird situation whereby you could declare a surprise war but take no cities and therefore incur no warmonger penalty. So I imagine that even a justified war might give you a small amount of warmonger points just from the DoW and then more warmonger points if you take cities. The "+10% warmonger penalty" would mean that a surprise war generates 10% more warmonger points.

I have seen +10% quoted in many places, but I see +50%.

Screenshot from E3 video:

Spoiler :

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I have seen +10% quoted in many places, but I see +50%.

Screenshot from E3 video:

Spoiler :

My bad. The text was hard to read on my computer so I got the number wrong. Thanks for correcting it. +50% actually makes more sense too because a surprise war should carry with it a serious penalty.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Except that if you declare a "surprise war" I think you get the warmonger penalty regardless of taking cities. I could be wrong though but the diplo screen shows the option to "declare a surprise war" with the note "+10% warmonger penalty" under it. Why would it say "+10% warmonger penalty under "surprise war" if the penalty was only for taking a city?

You get +10% more penalty for the city
(Take 3 cities in normal war=200 points, take 3 cities in surprise war=220 points)

 

[SupremacyKing2]

You get +10% more penalty for the city
(Take 3 cities in normal war=200 points, take 3 cities in surprise war=220 points)

It is actually 50% but I get your point. But shouldn't a surprise war increase your warmonger points even if you don't take any cities?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

It is actually 50% but I get your point. But shouldn't a surprise war increase your warmonger points even if you don't take any cities?

Well there is a base warmonger penalty for declaring war, however it isn't particularly big compared to the city.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Well there is a base warmonger penalty for declaring war, however it isn't particularly big compared to the city.

that is what I was trying to get at. There has to be a base penalty just for the DoW. And presumably the +50% penalty from a surprise war also modifies that base warmonger penalty from the DoW too. An extra 50% should make just declaring a surprise war a big enough to affect you even if you don't take any cities.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I hope they re-design warmonger penalty.

First of all, I think it woudl be fair that Civs will judge you based on the difference between theirs and yours warmonger penalty.

So if Cleopatra has conquered a capital, and you conquered only 2 cities, she can't hate you because you are "a warmongering menance to the world", but someone like Teddy, who hasn't conquered, could despite you because A. he's got his agenda kicking in and B. he's got no warmonger penalty.

 

[m15a]

I hope they re-design warmonger penalty.

First of all, I think it woudl be fair that Civs will judge you based on the difference between theirs and yours warmonger penalty.

So if Cleopatra has conquered a capital, and you conquered only 2 cities, she can't hate you because you are "a warmongering menance to the world", but someone like Teddy, who hasn't conquered, could despite you because A. he's got his agenda kicking in and B. he's got no warmonger penalty.

That bugs me too. Especially when you've allied with these civs in the past. (Okay. Maybe I allied with each civ individually in distinct wars of conquest. And I *guess* some would call that warmongering.)

I think warmongering for taking over cities should be less than Civ V overall, anyway. Where's the fun in going to war if you can't get more land out of it? (Hmm. Guess I do sound like a warmonger...)

 

[x2Madda]

I hated civ4 mp in many ways and 1 reason was the ''ability'' to conquer a neighbor capital on turn 5 because he started with a worker and got no unit to defend his city.

I hope that it will not be the case for civ6. Maybe we will need certain type of units to capture a city to prevent cheesy play à la civ4.

We are both MP players and while the Civ4 model was less than ideal, the civ 5 model was also less than ideal. If you didn't have overwhelming numbers then you just wasn't taking that city because MP games are played on quick so its not uncommon to be out-teched and then out damaged by a tall opponent if you "wasted" turns preparing your army to invade.

A failed invasion would always lead to the forever war as well which you were probably going to lose as you were now tech + hammers behind your opponent!

Their does need to be a point where an early rush will not work, i.e. an army of 3 warriors should maybe fail but I don't welcome the community balance patch idea where a city siege takes a very long time.

Its odd because a siege in real life could last a very long time but games of MP already don't last a long time as a losing player is just going to disconnect long before the battle is over. To that end, promises of new MP options promoting faster games, is very welcome news and I hope to hear more about it in the future. I would welcome no war games, so that players who aren't good at warfare (a lot of them in my experience!) won't feel turned off by the MP and will still have a chance to win.

Mods in MP will also allow this and is my most exciting feature regarding civ6, yet!

 

[stealth_nsk]

We know cities without walls have HP (confirmed in video). Speculation: even if they don't have ranged attack, they still could retaliate to melee attackers. Theoretically it could retaliate to ranged attackers too, although it could be not the case.

So, I believe even without units and walls city should be able to defend against 1 warrior; maybe even a bit more.

 

[Tabarnak]

We are both MP players and while the Civ4 model was less than ideal, the civ 5 model was also less than ideal. If you didn't have overwhelming numbers then you just wasn't taking that city because MP games are played on quick so its not uncommon to be out-teched and then out damaged by a tall opponent if you "wasted" turns preparing your army to invade.

Ideal is a civ game 100% focused on mp. My dream!!! Still need better AI

 

[Plus Ultra]

Ideal is a civ game 100% focused on mp.

My dream is exactly the opposite

 

[stealth_nsk]

Let's be honest, consequent turns mechanics of Civilization game is not well-suited for MP. So yeah, it should be SP-first. Although it would be good to see diplomacy and other things working well in MP.