historix69
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 1,412
Military Units and War are a major part of all Civ games.
In Civ1 conquering a city was not a problem since you could (and had to) micromanage happiness for each city ... if the city was unhappy, military units enforced martial law, citizens were turned into entertainers, a temple or colosseum was rush built ... unhappiness was always local and could be isolated and fixed.
I hope with Civ6 they do avoid the city limitation / happiness trap from Civ5 where you can be stuck in a war initiated by AI and have to conquer/raze enemy cities to end the war and the happiness goes down into negative without a way to stop it ... the player should not be punished by game design for successfully taking a city in a war ...
If the player has not the (happiness-)resources or the intention to annex a conquered city there should be a way to neutralize the city via military occupation (under martial law) ... the city would not contribute any yield to the players income nor cause any "unhappiness" ... it would only keep some of the player's military units occupied/busy as occupation army until the city later is returned in a peace treaty, is liberated, destroyed or annexed ... plundering or razing a city should cost no happiness at all since it is "not your city/population" (so your own population should not care unless they implement things like war weariness, pacifism or a Flower-Power-Peace movement ... Civ1 had something like that for democracy)
So occupation would be a little bit like a puppet in Civ5, but would cost military units instead of happiness and the modifier for science, culture, gold, ... would be -100% ... the city would not grow, build no buildings or improvements ...
In Civ1 conquering a city was not a problem since you could (and had to) micromanage happiness for each city ... if the city was unhappy, military units enforced martial law, citizens were turned into entertainers, a temple or colosseum was rush built ... unhappiness was always local and could be isolated and fixed.
I hope with Civ6 they do avoid the city limitation / happiness trap from Civ5 where you can be stuck in a war initiated by AI and have to conquer/raze enemy cities to end the war and the happiness goes down into negative without a way to stop it ... the player should not be punished by game design for successfully taking a city in a war ...
If the player has not the (happiness-)resources or the intention to annex a conquered city there should be a way to neutralize the city via military occupation (under martial law) ... the city would not contribute any yield to the players income nor cause any "unhappiness" ... it would only keep some of the player's military units occupied/busy as occupation army until the city later is returned in a peace treaty, is liberated, destroyed or annexed ... plundering or razing a city should cost no happiness at all since it is "not your city/population" (so your own population should not care unless they implement things like war weariness, pacifism or a Flower-Power-Peace movement ... Civ1 had something like that for democracy)
So occupation would be a little bit like a puppet in Civ5, but would cost military units instead of happiness and the modifier for science, culture, gold, ... would be -100% ... the city would not grow, build no buildings or improvements ...
