Siege

[The Caltrop]

LIKE BLOCKADES...But,if an land-locked city is garrisoned in such a way that you do not wish to risk troops in taking it by force, perhaps you could besiege it? You surround the city with at least 1 unit per side. As farmers cannot get their produce into the city, or miners their ore, or all the other products now in CIV 4, perhaps all industry in the besieged city's influece ceases for the duration of the seige. Starvation and reduced 'hammer' production would ensue.
As well, the garrison would lose health... And perhaps cities would autonomously surrender if under protracted siege?

This has probably been discussed before...

 

[Meleager]

You can already do this...

Just put a military unit on every square the city has acess to and no one will be able to collect rescources in that city.

Though that is a bit extreme. Reducing this to just 8 units in a good idea.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think a few things will improve a siege. One is if ZoC counted for eliminating tile use of multiple tiles, and another is if food is truly tied to population growth in a better fashion. Thirdly, being in such a situation should result in a massive-and immediate drop in happiness, and should be the basis for a possible defection to the enemy (depending on population and cultural strength).

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Meleager]

It should also reduce their defence bonus after a while...

 

[Bismark2990]

Yeah, as stated above, it can already be done to an extent. You can block the ability for a city to gain bonuses from the surrounding terrain and somewhat "starve" the city into submission ( which also decreases it's defensive value depending on what level the population is at when you decide to attack). I haven't read anything about your suggestions being used however. But, needless to say, the ability to starve a city into surrendering is a great idea and would alter strategy used in civ warfare.

Nice Idea...

 

[apatheist]

If you occupy the 8 tiles immediately around the city square, it's pretty stupid that the city can still work the outer 12 tiles.

 

[Vilati Timmadar]

Just destroy the improvements on the outer 12 tiles.

It may be stupid, but the city will starve to death either way...and its production will be almost useless...plus: no more ressources from outside.

 

[apatheist]

Even if you destroy the improvements, they can still work the tiles, just with less productivity. Besides, it's just not sensible. If you can reach those outer tiles to get food, how come you can't get iron? You should only be able to work tiles you can reach. Finally, destroying those improvements means having to rebuild them when you capture the city.

 

[Vilati Timmadar]

Finally, destroying those improvements means having to rebuild them when you capture the city.

Well, that's the way of every war...it's just realistic...

How do you think a RL city and its surrounding area looked like after a long siege??

 

[apatheist]

Depends on how far out you went. The besieging army had every interest in keeping farms stable and running because they needed the food. The area immediately around the city might have been destroyed, but the armies would probably try to avoid destroying things further out. After all, if they wanted to capture the city, it was because of the area the city commanded. Laying waste to that area would render the victory hollow.

 

[crooked jimmeny]

I beleive the primary applicatins and strengths for seige should be as follows:
BOmbardment seige;
catapult- use for mass damage upon block infantries(sword,axe,spear, archer). The catapult can bombard and is highly effective against general infantry, attack or defense, and greatly reduces fortified improvements. Champions crusaders and kinghts are not as vulnerable to this as they are more accomplished warriors.
Ballista, are cheaper and quicker to build uses of catapults that can't attack see units though do multiple damage while combating and are highly affective against catapults.
Ballistas can also be built on ship units.
Trebuchets are the most expensive and longest to build yet their bombardment strength is greatly increased and they can bombard sea units as well are a damn near requirement against full defended cities(walls, wall mounts, battlements, and full garrison.
Trebuchets are also the anit war elephant unit.

 

[Vilati Timmadar]

The besieging army had every interest in keeping farms stable and running because they needed the food. The area immediately around the city might have been destroyed, but the armies would probably try to avoid destroying things further out. After all, if they wanted to capture the city, it was because of the area the city commanded. Laying waste to that area would render the victory hollow.

Well, that's not correct. The besieging army was pillaging as much as possible to draw the defender out of its castle/city and try to defend his home. A "normal" siege didn't last long enough so that farms could've been useful. On the contrary: The besieging army, mostly consisting of farmers and peasents themselves, often disbanded itself when it was time for the harvest.

Plus: Discipline was not very high in middle age armies, so the interest of keeping the area intact was very low (at least for the "I-love-pillaging"-average soldier; in most cases the commander of the Army was just like him and pillaged the best things first). The main goal was to defeat the enemy. If that wasn't possible, the goal was to make as much damage as possible and come back next year. Farms can be rebuild.

I'm strongly against "surgical sieges", that would just be unrealistic. The system as it is now should be altered a little (that a surrounded city cannot work the tiles outside the siege-ring), but it's fairly good as it is.

 

[apatheist]

You make a good point, Vilati. It still doesn't make sense that I cannot block you from working tiles when I've surrounded your city. How are the farmers getting through? How is the food getting back? If I surround the immediate 8 tiles, the outer 12 should be unreachable.