I'm hoping that someone can help me understand some game mechanics here. A little background: I've had Civ 6 since launch, but I pretty much skipped R&F until now, and now that I'm experiencing these features in GS, I'm a little confused. In my current game, which is still only in the medieval era, there have been two emergencies thus far, and both were military emergencies that were triggered by city captures. The first was against Russia for capturing a single Australian city. I thought it was strange that the entire world would be brought together for this as an "emergency," particularly since not everyone knew everyone else yet (creating a bizarre situation where you are meeting with players you can't identify), but this at least seemed to follow the mechanics listed in Civlopedia somewhat: Russia was leading in a victory type (culture, although it was way too early in the game for this to be of any consequence), and they did indeed capture a city. Interestingly, Russia was my ally at this time, so I was not allowed to vote on the emergency, but the Civlopedia confirmed that this is how it's supposed to work, so I figured that's fair enough. Likewise, despite the fact that the whole world was about to go war with my ally, I wasn't obliged to defend him, which was completely unintuitive to me, but again, this layer of the mechanic was at least confirmed by the Civlopedia (evidently, alliances are null and void when "emergencies" are involved). At this point, I thought I could at least make sense of the mechanic, even if it seemed oddly designed. Then the second emergency was called. This time, the Zulus were the target for capturing a tiny (2 pop) Khmer city, but here's the thing: The Zulus were not leading in any victory types. When the vote came up in the World Congress, I was again not allowed to participate, but unlike the first situation with Russia, I did NOT have any special relationship with the Zulus (no alliance or declared friendship) that should preclude me. One other AI civ (Hungary) was also inexplicably excluded from this vote, but other than that, everyone else agreed to embark upon a consequence-free war with the Zulus for the "emergency" of a tiny city being captured relatively early in the game. My assumptions based on the Civlopedia data, which were confirmed by the first emergency with Russia, were shattered now. So now I am left with more questions than I have answers, and I'm hoping you folks can help elucidate things for me: What exactly is required to trigger a military emergency? Does it happen every time a city is captured? Is it just random? Is another civ (presumably, the one that was attacked) deciding to "call" the emergency, or does the game just do it? What determines who can and who cannot vote on emergencies? In my Zulu example above, why was I not allowed to participate in the vote? If the point of the military emergency is to recapture a city that was lost, why is it that anyone can just take the city for themselves? Wouldn't it make far more sense to require them to liberate the city? This is more of an opinion poll, but: Does anyone else feel like this mechanic doesn't really make a whole lot of sense? Why would the whole world consider a single city capture an "emergency," and why would allies not be obliged to defend an ally who is being attacked by literally everyone? Why isn't the city at the center of the emergency required to be liberated, and why does everyone involved remain at war even after the emergency has been resolved? TL;DR: I don't understand military emergencies, and if anyone could answer the 5 questions above, I would really appreciate it. Thanks, everyone!