Some random obervations from the streams

[qadams]

Does anybody know if gaining experience is capped when fighting barbarians, like in Civ5?

The first level comes normally. After that you get one xp.

Ah, well, that will have to be changed with a mod.

 

[jekke]

I would say attacking unprotected civilians should result in a negative diplomatic modifier because it is a war crime. That would create at least some counterbalance.

only in the modern era or so. During most of the human history such actions were mere parts of the war.
I would say, turning captured guy into a worker is totally fine because it represents enslaving a unit, and what do you do with slaves? you put them to work.

 

[boghog]

only in the modern era or so. During most of the human history such actions were mere parts of the war.
I would say, turning captured guy into a worker is totally fine because it represents enslaving a unit, and what do you do with slaves? you put them to work.

Sounds good. And you should be able to return the captured unit to avoid diplomatic repercussions. But when you do, the settler should revert to being population.

 

[Zanteogo]

only in the modern era or so. During most of the human history such actions were mere parts of the war.
I would say, turning captured guy into a worker is totally fine because it represents enslaving a unit, and what do you do with slaves? you put them to work.

I hope not. The community patch project adds this and it's doesn't add much in a positive way. You end up taking civilians regardless just because the nature of wars and because the AI is just too stupid to pull them out of cities that are being attacked. This causes a never ending diplo hit for the rest of the game.

 

[darko82]

Here is a good observation:

 

[StittsvileJamie]

only in the modern era or so. During most of the human history such actions were mere parts of the war.
I would say, turning captured guy into a worker is totally fine because it represents enslaving a unit, and what do you do with slaves? you put them to work.

They should become a slave unit - a builder with one charge.

 

[Louis XXIV]

An alternative suggestion would be to let them be a settler, but the only function would be to settle them inside your own cities (for an additional population), not found new cities. I don't think we've had the resettle option since Civ3, but we also haven't had settlers cost population since then. We also haven't truly had foreign nationals measured in the population count since then either. Given that, the option to resettle settlers to move population around would be a good idea and would be far better balanced when it comes to capturing enemy settlers than allowing them to become a full-fledged city.

There's also historical precedent for this - particularly in the Middle East. Just to use the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah as examples since they're widely known, the Assyrians conquered the northern Kingdom and resettled the population in a way that they were never heard from again (likely in Nineveh), the Babylonians conquered Judah and resettled them in Babylon, leading to the Babylonian captivity period (Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel and the Lion's Den, etc.).

If you really want to add flavor, make it so razed cities produce captured settlers as well (or make this the Assyrian unique ability).

 

[agonistes]

I would say attacking unprotected civilians should result in a negative diplomatic modifier because it is a war crime. That would create at least some counterbalance.

Hmm. Shouldn't the modifier only be applied or 'logged' for those diplomatic relationships with civs that have certain governments or civics? I can't help but feel some leaders just wouldn't give a darn. Some might even applaud it. As is the case in RL.

In a similar vein, I was thinking just last night how nice it would be to have more options for open borders. Like, "You may move up to 2 units at a time through my territory," or "you may only move non-military units through my territory," or even, and this would be really cool, some sort of drop-and-drag way to permit access to only a portion of your territory. Or maybe the AI shows you the route they want to take, and you can okay it, and they won't deviate from that route. Or coastal permissions only.

Stuff like that.

The more options for diplomacy the better, imo.

edit: maybe they can make Ed Beach sit at a console and RP the diplomacy for every civ in every game being played. Possibly a delay in turn speed though.

 

[stealth_nsk]

It looks like many recent posts in this thread should descend into the abyss of "Ideas and Suggestions" subforum

 

[juanpavo]

the abyss of "Ideas and Suggestions" subforum

Couldn't have described it better myself.

 

[pietro1990]

So I watched a lot of streams and i am not happy about the new diplomacy mechanics especially the warmonger penalty. I thinx its a step backwards from brave new world.

in brave new world they made a warmonger penalty for declaring war verry little and taking cities high. This actually made sence.

however it seems in civ 5 declaring war gives you a huge penalty but if you are atacked and take cities you dont get a penalty.

This is the old mechanic of civ 5 vanilla where you had to trick the AI to declar war on you so you can take all their cities and peace out and no penalties... This was changed at brave new world where you actually got a major penalty if you capture city regardless if you started the war or not.

 

[narmox]

So I watched a lot of streams and i am not happy about the new diplomacy mechanics especially the warmonger penalty. I thinx its a step backwards from brave new world.

in brave new world they made a warmonger penalty for declaring war verry little and taking cities high. This actually made sence.

however it seems in civ 5 declaring war gives you a huge penalty but if you are atacked and take cities you dont get a penalty.

This is the old mechanic of civ 5 vanilla where you had to trick the AI to declar war on you so you can take all their cities and peace out and no penalties... This was changed at brave new world where you actually got a major penalty if you capture city regardless if you started the war or not.

The tradeoff in Civ6, if an opponent declares war on you and you capture cities, and during the peace deal your opponent refuses to cede the cities, these cities will NOT grow. I'm not sure what happens if you completely eliminate your opponent, however.

EDIT: actually I think that if you get war declared on you and you capture cities, they canNOT be ceded at all, leading to cities that never grow.

 

[stealth_nsk]

So I watched a lot of streams and i am not happy about the new diplomacy mechanics especially the warmonger penalty. I thinx its a step backwards from brave new world.

in brave new world they made a warmonger penalty for declaring war verry little and taking cities high. This actually made sence.

however it seems in civ 5 declaring war gives you a huge penalty but if you are atacked and take cities you dont get a penalty.

This is the old mechanic of civ 5 vanilla where you had to trick the AI to declar war on you so you can take all their cities and peace out and no penalties... This was changed at brave new world where you actually got a major penalty if you capture city regardless if you started the war or not.

It's not like this. You have high penalties for surprise wars. Formal wars and, especially, wars with Casus Belli have much less warmonger penalty. Conquering cities may have not so high penalty, but keeping or razing them does.

 

[pietro1990]

It's not like this. You have high penalties for surprise wars. Formal wars and, especially, wars with Casus Belli have much less warmonger penalty. Conquering cities may have not so high penalty, but keeping or razing them does.

what do you mean by keeping them? Olso i noticed that a occupied city doesn't grow how do you make it grow again?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

what do you mean by keeping them? Olso i noticed that a occupied city doesn't grow how do you make it grow again?

You have the option to relinquish captured cities during the peace deal in exchange for reduced warmonger penalties. If you choose not to relinquish the cities, other civs hate you more.

 

[stealth_nsk]

what do you mean by keeping them? Olso i noticed that a occupied city doesn't grow how do you make it grow again?

The city has half production (and probably doesn't grow) until you first declare peace. During the negotiations you could return city to previous owner, keep it or make previous owner agree the city is now yours. If you just keep city, you're considered an occupant.

 

[Big J Money]

I didn't realize there was so much nuance to city conquering. I really like this!

You take the cities as a measure to force peace, then you return them (after pillaging it all, mwahahahaha)

Heck, why did I never try this in MP??

 

[Grumpbeard]

The city has half production (and probably doesn't grow) until you first declare peace. During the negotiations you could return city to previous owner, keep it or make previous owner agree the city is now yours. If you just keep city, you're considered an occupant.

I want to make sure I understand this, because I haven't seen it on a stream yet, though I haven't watched many due to time. So at the end of a war, during peace negotiation, if you captured a city, there are the following options:

Cityname, Cede
Cityname, Return

So Cede gives up all rights to the city, and return gives it back to the owner, and if neither is in the peace deal, it remain "occupied"? Is that right?

Are ceded cities eligible for the reconquest cassus belli?

 

[stealth_nsk]

So Cede gives up all rights to the city, and return gives it back to the owner, and if neither is in the peace deal, it remain "occupied"? Is that right?

Yes, if I understand correctly, cede means giving rights to the conqueror.

Are ceded cities eligible for the reconquest cassus belli?

I don't know. Probably not.

 

[Deggial]

Not an observation, but a question:
Roads seem to update only in your territory on epoch-change.
Are they updated in no-mans-land if a trader is sent on them again? I would expect so, but was this actually confirmed in any of the current let's plays? I don't remember so (but honestly haven't payed explicitely attention. Did anybody?)