Should stealing land with a Citadel flat out require you to be at War?

[DeAnno]

My main argument for this is that it just doesn't make sense that you can unilaterally take land from another Civ and the only counterplay they have is to ping pong with a GG back at you, or declare war themselves, eating Warmonger penalties and DP declares. Taking land with a Citadel is clearly an offensive act, not a defensive one, and I think we should start treating it like that. The DP system being what it is especially exacerbates this issue, because after Medieval you aren't even really allowed to just have a small scale border dispute war anymore, everything has to be a huge deal.

(PS yes I'm tilted)

 

[Vhozite]

The only problem with that idea is that it would be a huge nerf to late game peacetime GG’s, since there is basically no unowned land left by late Renaissance/Industrial era and the GPTI is not mind blowing in terms of yields. The double time acquisition tenet from Autocracy might also need a compensation buff. I’m not against the idea but it’s just some stuff to keep in mind. I also find the current state of Citadel acquisition to be really annoying.

One thing I will say is that tile stealing outside of war should give malus with every other Civ, not just the one who lost land. It’s extremely aggressive and flavor wise it (at best) displaces a bunch of innocent civilians. I would argue it’s borderline (heh) warfare and should be treated as such diplomatically. Ukraine was not the only country that was upset when Russia annexed Crimea.

 

[Stalker0]

Considering people have also complained that there are too few ways to interfere with your opponent outside of war, I think this is in a good sweet spot. I use it to screw AIs, they use it to screw me...I think it works pretty well.

 

[InkAxis]

I feel like it should still be allowed in some sort of capacity. For instance the diplomatic repercussions could be more severe. Another idea is perhaps making a WC resolution that bans tile stealing, either world wide or for a certain player.

 

[CppMaster]

I feel like it should still be allowed in some sort of capacity. For instance the diplomatic repercussions could be more severe. Another idea is perhaps making a WC resolution that bans tile stealing, either world wide or for a certain player.

I like that. World wide ban tile stealing that results in war if broken.

 

[Zanteogo]

Your actually best to declare war first, steal the land, play defensively without taking any cities and wait for the AI to ask for peace. The small amount of warmonger will decay in 10 or 15 turns or so. A "you stole land" lasts forever (or long time anyways).

Remember, you don't get stolen lands hits if your at war.

 

[Zanteogo]

My main argument for this is that it just doesn't make sense that you can unilaterally take land from another Civ and the only counterplay they have is to ping pong with a GG back at you,

Russian's wave from Chimera. It's pretty much the real life version of what GG's do.

 

[ICanHasName?]

I posted in another thread it might be interesting if the player getting citadeled had the option to either accept or escalate the situation - which would force the offensive civ to either declare war or not build the citadel.

Effectively it means the player taking the offensive action has to eat the warmonger penalty (and defensive pact issues) if the defender is willing to fight for the land. Obviously a system to take land around the citadel in a war settlement would make a lot of sense, regardless of any other changes.

Overall however citadels are an interesting mechanic to generate conflict and allow seizure of key resources. I kindof like seeing hostile borders become these zig zagging messes of opposing citadels 3 tiles apart.

 

[azum4roll]

A "you stole land" lasts forever (or long time anyways).

It resets at war. At least according to @Recursive

 

[Recursive]

Resets for both parties when war is declared - otherwise it lasts forever. I've tweaked the intensity of the penalty a little for next version (more aggression if high value tiles are stolen, a little less otherwise).

 

[Delvemor]

I would agree with increasing the penalty for stealing territory from another player (when at peace) and even extending it to other AI in a similar way to warmonger penalty. It would add a consequence from it other than just upsetting the AI you steal land from.

However I would prefer to keep the Citadel mechanic untouched for the most part. As much as it sucks to be on the receiving end of it, I like to do it myself. Sometimes, I even go as far as planning a city next to a CS with the intention of stealing some of their territory in the future, especially if I lack iron. I would not like to have to declare war just because of that after the AI decides to escalate the situation. THEY should have to declare war on me, not the other way around. If I have to declare war when using a Citadel, it kind of defeats the main purpose of it. "Look... I don't want a war with you, I just want your 7 coal tile"

 

[Vhozite]

"Look... I don't want a war with you, I just want your 7 coal tile"

This just sounds like you want the benefits of war with none of the drawbacks tho or any of the legwork (albeit on a small scale). If I’m willing to fight over my land attempting to steal it by building a super fort on my door step would be a de facto declaration of war. If you don’t want to fight over it but I do why should you be able to take my land?

I don’t know about outright prohibiting peace time tile stealing, but I think there definitely needs to be some counterplay. Right now they plot down their citadel and you can’t do anything about. Your only option is to declare war, and even then they still keep your tiles until you conquer the entire city working those tiles. But then you take the city and suddenly your neighbor has concerns about you warmongering. Even when you destroy the citadel (the thing presumably exerting their power of the area), they keep your land. You can plop down your own citadel 2 tiles away, but you’re forced to steal their land and you can’t even get some of your tiles back.

 

[Stalker0]

This just sounds like you want the benefits of war with none of the drawbacks tho or any of the legwork (albeit on a small scale). If I’m willing to fight over my land attempting to steal it by building a super fort on my door step would be a de facto declaration of war. If you don’t want to fight over it but I do why should you be able to take my land?

I don’t know about outright prohibiting peace time tile stealing, but I think there definitely needs to be some counterplay. Right now they plot down their citadel and you can’t do anything about. Your only option is to declare war

Declaring war is the counterplay. Or you use a citadel of your own to take some of that land back.

 

[Vhozite]

Declaring war is the counterplay. Or you use a citadel of your own to take some of that land back.

Taking the nearest city linked to the citadel is the counterplay, which is a fair bit more work than a simple declaration, especially when the only goal is to defend myself. What’s more, war doesn’t actually stop or limit tile stealing in any way. It’s just the default retaliatory action when someone makes you mad enough.

edit: popping your own GGs only gets some of your land back. Of course you might take some of there’s to but there is no guarantee what you get is even valuable to you. Also it doesn’t really fix the self defense issue; I don’t want their land I want to keep mine.

 

[Favorius]

Make citadels can only claim unowned tiles. Problem solved. Compensate autocracy tenet for the loss.

 

[a3kov]

I really like the idea that using citadel during peace time should give strong negative diplo with all peaceful civs (probably those that don't tolerate warmongering)

 

[Delvemor]

If you don’t want to fight over it but I do why should you be able to take my land?

Oh I'm probably ready to fight over it, I just don't want to break my research agreements with Pacal and Isabella, they both have a defensive pact with you. Maybe you only have 1-2 Great Generals and can't afford to use one for your own citadel. Maybe you already have a coal monopoly anyway and you just don't care. Maybe I have defensive pacts of my own with AIs you would rather not be at war with. Just because we can have a war over that coal doesn't mean it is desirable. Just like going to war against Russia over Crimea is clearly not worth it either.

I will steal that 7 coal tile of yours and maybe in the future you will steal my uranium. Would you like my uranium ? I mean look at all those Great Generals you got there, do you really need 5 of them ?

popping your own GGs only gets some of your land back. Of course you might take some of there’s to but there is no guarantee what you get is even valuable to you. Also it doesn’t really fix the self defense issue; I don’t want their land I want to keep mine.

I agree that there should be a way to eventually get back all your land without having to just take their city. I don't know if it's possible but being able to plant your own citadel on any pillaged citadel in enemy territory close to your own borders would do the trick.

 

[Vhozite]

I will steal that 7 coal tile of yours and maybe in the future you will steal my uranium.

This sentence is correct but also everything I cannot stand about tile stealing. It’s just a given you’re gonna take my coal and there is nothing I can do about, which is dumb.

Russia/Crimea situation is not the same because its a big country bullying a weaker neighbor who won’t fight back. It’s not worth it to fight over it but the option isn’t magically impossible. They annexed the peninsula because nobody was gonna fight, not in spite of that fact. If I’m willing to declare war over you trying to take my land how do you still just take it? If you want to argue the land is in dispute sure but it doesn’t just come under your control no matter what, especially if I already have troops there.

Another similar real world example is China trying to claim islands in the South China Sea. The country is trying to stake claims on land and sea that isn’t theirs and other countries like the US have a naval presence there to deter them. The area isn’t just theirs because they’ve built fortifications there; there is active political and military resistance that isn’t all out war.

 

[JamesNinelives]

There are a couple of other things I don't think have been touched on:
1) Using GGs pre-emptively. I tend to grab land on my borders before the AI does, and having citadels in strategic locations effectively prevents them from stealing certain tiles from you because of how citadels need to be placed.
2) Diplomatic relations. I've found that the AI will use GG preferentially against the person they dislike the most. Doesn't mean it won't ever happen but you it's less likely if they either don't hate you or even just hate someone else more.

That said... it's still annoying. But it's also fun to use myself! From my point of view, the main counterplay is still just using your own GG. And I do sometimes wonder if AI has an advantage in that it can afford to spam troops, so earns GG/GA points quicker. Which is not perfect, but I think the current situation is still very much improved from what it used to be - mainly due to better diplo logic from @Recursive. I think the improvements/bugfixes to defensive pacts should also go some way to making GG use less egregious.

I think giving a global penalty for stealing territory would be unhelpful. Particularly because the people who have the most Great Generals and are most to be willing to do things that provoke people (i.e. steal land probably) also don't really care about diplo penalties. So I think doing that would hurt peaceful civs the most. I try to use citadels on neutral territory where possible, but as mentioned at a certain point in the game there is little neutral territory left.

On a seperate note there is the niche case of using a GG to reclaim territory that was lost during war - so it's not always agressive. In that case the people on that land might actually be glad to be reconnected.

 

[CppMaster]

I think giving a global penalty for stealing territory would be unhelpful. Particularly because the people who have the most Great Generals and are most to be willing to use citadels to do things that provoke people i.e. steal land probably also don't care about diplo penalties. So I think doing that would hurt peaceful civs the most. I try to use citadels on neutral territory where possible, but as mentioned at a certain point in the game there is little neutral territory left.

IMHO it would be good giving global diplo penalty. Peaceful civs could use citadels that don't steal tiles, just for better defense and more unit supply. If they use them to steal land then they are not as peaceful and it should be noted by other civs.