New concept:Claiming

[Civciv5]

I have a new concept:claiming.
For example:You are playing Earth map and you are China and you control all of China and Tibet.
Then India declares war and conquers Tibet,Mongolia declares war and conquers Northern China.After you made peace you can "claim" your lost lands.
Which will cause 1 extra unhappiness in each lost city.
Each 20 turns a International Congress is held and leaders vote that claims are approved or rejected.
If your claims are granted,all lost cities are returned to you,IF the leader who currently owns the cities agrees.
If he rejects,the player who has lost his cities (in this case China) receives soldiers nearby the lost cities,and automatically is at war with Mongolia,leaders will be angry at Mongolia and negotiate a trade embargo against it or will be angry or in the worst case denounce them.
Mongolia can claim this cities too,but no extra 1 unhappiness because they do not originally own the cities.
Players can also claim tiles that are not owned yet.
But they will not be granted in the International Congress,except if you previously owned those tiles in the past.
Claimed tiles can be worked by workers and every player can pass them with units.
You can't claim the whole world.
If a AI refuses to accept that the cities are returned more then 3 times,cities will revolt and spawns rebel units that fight for China.
What do you think?

 

[krc]

Seems overly complex.

First, the probability that the AI could be programmed to vote sensibly in an International Congress about claimed cities is zero. (This also ignores the question of whether any such congress is sensible in early ages. Who gets to attend and vote when you have not yet met all civs?)

Second, the probability that the AI would ever agree to return cities that it had captured in a war is also zero. (Nor do I expect that it could be programmed sensibly, other than to just say no.)

Third, there are very few instances I can think of where I would agree to return a "claimed" city to an AI civ. (The exception might be to dispose of cities with extreme unhappiness.) If I just conquered it and you still want it, then come and try to take it back. And if the "International Congress" wants to give it back, then you can convince them to DoW and try to take it back for you.

And I think "claiming" tiles is unworkable. What happens when someone builds a city next to your claimed tile?

 

[ShahJahanII]

How about this:
You can claim tiles, but you will have to further enforce your rule using military to put down rebellions or gold to fund expansion.
You will start with less unhappiness than had you just settled, but there will be more rebellions and you will have less control of the area.

Very general, but could be a good think.
Nice idea

 

[Optional]

I'm not sure what the main thing is you are trying to achieve with this.

Currently there's a hefty diplo penalty for going to war in the game. I can understand a 'claim' system can be good for making a war more legitimate.
Claiming a city because it once was yours could then be regarded as a ligitimate claim, and as such a subsequent war would not be subject to a diplo penalty, at least not from civs that are neutral or friendly to the claimant. It might be different for civs that are allied with the civ that you are confronting with the claim.
Also when another civ settles ridiculously close to you you might have a reason for a claim, or when a civ 'steals' a City State from you.
I believe a 'claim' system to act as a Casus Belli and give you a legitimate reason to go to war would be best.

But I see nothing good in automatic soldier spawning, and an unhappiness factor will just be a nuisance, no fun. Also remember there is already an unhappiness factor in play for occupied cities.

Claiming tiles I don't understand, to be frank. We have a couple of ways to expand to individual tiles already; besides ordinary culture expansion we can buy a tile of we can culture bomb an area.
With the existing system you see imediately who owns which tile, when you start to work with 'claimed' tiles you're introducing something that can't be easily read on the map anymore. I think to stick to clarity is best.

 

[Civciv5]

Leaders vote for the nation that they are most friendly with,if every leader is friendly towards you,you win,but if every leader is hostile towards you,you lose.
The 1 extra unhappiness is caused by unhappy people,logic right?
If Belgium was conquered by Germany(again),I would be unhappy too,same for all other countries.
This happens in real world too,Tibet was conquered by China and now the people are angry and there were and are revolts,Palestine was temporarily conquered by Israel and fought for independence,which happened.
Japan conquered much of China during WWII and people were unhappy and fought for their lands.
Etcetera...
If someone settles a city near a claimed tile (wich means that the leader owns it),you will not be able to pass through it anymore without declaring war and you can't work them anymore,but you can still claim it.

 

[CYZ]

This seems very complicated.

Isn't the unhappiness from occupying cities represented in unhappiness already? And isn't it easier if you negotiate a trade deal involving the formerly owned cities?

I wouldn't introduce such a complex mechanic for such a small part of the gameplay.

 

[Pouakai]

Also seems open to abuse. eg. 'I'll claim ______ so everyone will hate ______'

 

[Bechhold]

Perhaps adjust the suggestion to say claiming certain areas of geography as your sphere of influence and claims to settle said area?