Siege

[Comrade Pedro]

In civIV, do you think it's interessting if they include cities sieges?

 

[Hugin]

They sort of already do. Just go to war and place a unit on every square for a city. The city is then effectively under seige, relying on any food it has in its stores, unable to build much due to constricted resources, lacking any lux or strat resource that isn't on the city square itself, etc.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I would like to see sieges, but I wonder how it might be reconciled with the current turn lengths of the game. Possible solution would be twofold. Firstly, seperate the turns into movement THEN combat (i.e. everyone moves, then conflicts are resolved before going onto a new movement turn). Secondly, have combat resolved in a tactical mini-screen, with the combat also broken up into turns (each turn will represent a certain 'fraction' of the main turn) This would allow you to simulate relatively short conflicts-which are over in the space of 1-2 turns (say 2-5 years in the ancient era) or long, drawn-out sieges lasting anywhere up to 6-8 turns (or 10 years in the Ancient era)!
Anyway, just a thought.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Comrade Pedro]

When a town is under siege, the local governor should have the choise to surrender to the enemy if the town is suffering hard hunger....

 

[rhialto]

I think that military units should exert a zoc vs civilian workers. In effect, if a hostile unit is campled near your city, not only is his tile unworkable by teh city citizens, but the entire 3x3 square is unworkable by your citizens. This enbcourages teh beseiged city to go on the offense, rather than relying on substantial defence bonuses from city improvements.

 

[rupertslander]

Cities should be much more difficult to take by storm than they are now - all you have to do is up the defensive bonuses.

I have tried arranging that in the rule editor but the AI soesn't seem to get it and gets slaughetered trying to take the cities by storm anyway.

Also, when you take a city it shouldn't automatically be yours, it should become occupied - you would still get limited benefits from it under occupation but otherwise you should have to negotiate for it in a peace treaty (either that or annex the whole civ and take a major hit on your rep).

And razing cities, especially big ones should not be nearly as easy - even now without a nuke you cannot kill millions "just like that", it should take several turns and destroy your rep.

 

[Comrade Pedro]

And razing cities, especially big ones should not be nearly as easy - even now without a nuke you cannot kill millions "just like that", it should take several turns and destroy your rep.

Scearch in History: For example, the Crusades. When the First Crusade reach Conquer Jerusalem, they literally massacre all arabian citizens in one single day.....

it should be a possibility to local governors to surrender the city to the sieging army.....

 

[rupertslander]

Even after the Crusaders' massacre in Jerusalem the city did not disappear. And its population was also not in the millions.

Massacres which significantly reduce a city's population should be a possibility. As should be voluntary surrender of the city to prevent a sack.

 

[Comrade Pedro]

Yes, it didn't disapear just because they wanted the city for their own. In the Old times, before Rome all civizilations that conquer cities, razed them instantly....

 

[Dreadnought]

This ideas from Rome Total War (oh yea)

You have three options when you conquer a settlement:

Occupy (stays same)
exterminate (3/4ths of city population massacured)
destroy city

 

[Comrade Pedro]

I sware i didnt saw this idea in that game... i dont have it.

 

[MattII]

how about if an enemy unit is on a square, you lose production in, and use of, that square and if the enemy totally surrounds you you begin to starve and no resources can get in or out of a city. Siege walls would be the first things to get destroyed by land attacks. I like the idea (from another thread) where no enemy unit can take a city if the city has walls, except that this should only work if a city has a military unit with defence and the city could then only be attacked by bombarding units.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

The only problem with this, Matt, is that your turn lengths are often more than 20 years long, and how are you going to simulate a 20 year siege? It really just isn't realistic. Now, if you had some kind of 'siege clock', that counted each turn off into more manageable segments for siege purposes (say 1-2 years), then your idea might work. Alternatively, my previous suggestion of battles and sieges being resolved in a 'mini-screen' would allow for more realistic siege effects!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Comrade Pedro]

how about if an enemy unit is on a square, you lose production in, and use of, that square and if the enemy totally surrounds you you begin to starve and no resources can get in or out of a city. Siege walls would be the first things to get destroyed by land attacks. I like the idea (from another thread) where no enemy unit can take a city if the city has walls, except that this should only work if a city has a military unit with defence and the city could then only be attacked by bombarding units.

I disagreed with you. A military unit should be able to make ladders and climb up the walls or etheir make rams to destroy the door.