I dislike the way city damage is done in the current setup. By city damage I don't mean city health, I mean the loss of population and buildings.
Disagreement with current situation
Right now you can shoot away at a city, even if it's at 0 health (at which point nothing will happen). When you take over a city however, huge damage is dealt to population and many buildings are destroyed. I don't know the exact workings of this mechanic though.
In history however, cities were often taken with minimal damage. Or not taken but still causing massive damage as well. Especially siege units, but also looting by melee/infantry were the main causes of death and destruction.
So it's fair to say that no damage from bombardment and massive damage from invading is unrealistic. And even bad for gameplay (no way to take a city with minimal damage, no way to damage a city without taking it).
My suggestion
I agree that upon taking a city damage should be dealt to population and buildings. I however don't see why this should be so massive. So first part of my suggestion is to lower population loss and destruction of buildings, at least half of what it is now.
My second part focusses on bombardment damage. I think hitting a city with ranged or air units when it's health is zero should cause population loss and a chance of building destruction.
Obviously this damage should be based upon the damage dealt. I think a loss of 1 food per damage point is fair. If you hit a city enough you'll take out it's food supply and cause loss of one population. At which point the food supply is filled up again, you can bombard untill it runs out again and loses another population. Lower population cities will obviously run out of population earlier (lower food reserve).
Example:
10 population city with 10 food and 0 health is dealt 5 damage by a ranged or air unit. It loses 5 food and no population.
10 population city with 10 food and 2 health is dealt 5 damage by a ranged or air unit. It loses 3 food and no population
10 population city with 2 food and 2 health is dealt 5 damage. It loses 3 food, which causes it to go back to 9 population, but fills up the food reserve minus one (remaining damage).
10 population city with 10 health and hit by a 10 damage attack or lower suffers no casualities.
Third part, buildings. Basicly every attack has a chance of destroying a random building. Chance is based on production cost of building and damage done. So 1 damage to a 0 health city has perhaps a 10% chance to destroy a monument and a 0.1 % chance to destroy a museum. Same for a 10 damage attack on a 9 health city (1 damage remaining). a 10 damage attack on a 0 health city obviously has a big chance of destroying a monument.
These two effects should be effective at the same time. Thus a 10 damage attack on a 0 health city will cause food (and possibly population) loss and also have a chance of destroying a building.
Effect on gameplay
This will allow you to try to take a city with minimal damage. Take it down to 0 health, don't bombard any further and take it. Minimal population loss and buildings destroyed.
It also allows to destroy a city without or before taking it. Keep hitting it with ranged attacks and air units when it's health is down to slowly take out population or destroy buildings. At some point it's population will be so low it will be easy to reduce it to 1.
This will greatly increase you choices for taking and razing cities. Creating a new layer of gameplay. However warfare does not need another boost. So causing building and population loss should not be too easy. Perhaps it should be 0.5 food per damage point and chances of building destruction should be relatively low (rocket artillery should have a good chance of oneshotting monuments).
Points for debate
Is it possible to totally raze a city without taking it? I say yes but what do others think?
How much population and building damage should be causes? what is balanced and fair?
Should ruins give a defensive bonus? I say yes.
Is this post too long?
Disagreement with current situation
Right now you can shoot away at a city, even if it's at 0 health (at which point nothing will happen). When you take over a city however, huge damage is dealt to population and many buildings are destroyed. I don't know the exact workings of this mechanic though.
In history however, cities were often taken with minimal damage. Or not taken but still causing massive damage as well. Especially siege units, but also looting by melee/infantry were the main causes of death and destruction.
So it's fair to say that no damage from bombardment and massive damage from invading is unrealistic. And even bad for gameplay (no way to take a city with minimal damage, no way to damage a city without taking it).
My suggestion
I agree that upon taking a city damage should be dealt to population and buildings. I however don't see why this should be so massive. So first part of my suggestion is to lower population loss and destruction of buildings, at least half of what it is now.
My second part focusses on bombardment damage. I think hitting a city with ranged or air units when it's health is zero should cause population loss and a chance of building destruction.
Obviously this damage should be based upon the damage dealt. I think a loss of 1 food per damage point is fair. If you hit a city enough you'll take out it's food supply and cause loss of one population. At which point the food supply is filled up again, you can bombard untill it runs out again and loses another population. Lower population cities will obviously run out of population earlier (lower food reserve).
Example:
10 population city with 10 food and 0 health is dealt 5 damage by a ranged or air unit. It loses 5 food and no population.
10 population city with 10 food and 2 health is dealt 5 damage by a ranged or air unit. It loses 3 food and no population
10 population city with 2 food and 2 health is dealt 5 damage. It loses 3 food, which causes it to go back to 9 population, but fills up the food reserve minus one (remaining damage).
10 population city with 10 health and hit by a 10 damage attack or lower suffers no casualities.
Third part, buildings. Basicly every attack has a chance of destroying a random building. Chance is based on production cost of building and damage done. So 1 damage to a 0 health city has perhaps a 10% chance to destroy a monument and a 0.1 % chance to destroy a museum. Same for a 10 damage attack on a 9 health city (1 damage remaining). a 10 damage attack on a 0 health city obviously has a big chance of destroying a monument.
These two effects should be effective at the same time. Thus a 10 damage attack on a 0 health city will cause food (and possibly population) loss and also have a chance of destroying a building.
Effect on gameplay
This will allow you to try to take a city with minimal damage. Take it down to 0 health, don't bombard any further and take it. Minimal population loss and buildings destroyed.
It also allows to destroy a city without or before taking it. Keep hitting it with ranged attacks and air units when it's health is down to slowly take out population or destroy buildings. At some point it's population will be so low it will be easy to reduce it to 1.
This will greatly increase you choices for taking and razing cities. Creating a new layer of gameplay. However warfare does not need another boost. So causing building and population loss should not be too easy. Perhaps it should be 0.5 food per damage point and chances of building destruction should be relatively low (rocket artillery should have a good chance of oneshotting monuments).
Points for debate
Is it possible to totally raze a city without taking it? I say yes but what do others think?
How much population and building damage should be causes? what is balanced and fair?
Should ruins give a defensive bonus? I say yes.
Is this post too long?
