The problems with city centres...

[Lazy sweeper]

After many years in civs, where city centers were just a terrain modifier for defending units, and contained in the walls districts/buildings, to a self-aware city centre with its own health, firepower, and exploded districts outside city walls; the jump is still in the air... no dunks in sight...

I feel the Ai is too smart to make defending units, when there is such a powerful city centre.
No city centre health, and the Ai will be forced to produce units.
This is the biggest problem with city centres in Civ VI.

The second problem is those walls. I can imagine my capital being 1 million people in 2000BC, with walls that grows like a willow tree ring, encapsulating more and more space for its buildings/disctricts. Leaving traces of burned down buildings as time in new games is now persistent*... cemeteries spread as far as the eye can see... archeology sites for what they are, ancient sites nobody knows who has built in the first place... giving back the game that true sense of history and time, that now can bear physical signs persistents as everything these days is open world sth inspired...(* persistent as the traces of a warrior path through the snow...that is kept through savegames...)
Growing bigger than second or third tier cities, which may just be all in the centre hex, without never reaching pop mass to build its first district, but getting food/production from its radius.
But the Ai does not even defends its districts.
Too many science/culture bonuses outside city centre mechanics.

Civ needs to. bring back the importance of city centre to the game.
Growing bigger cities like HK we will have to see how that does. It's completely different tbh.
Can Civ VI still be saved from doom or could a last patch update bring
the ultimate overhaul to the game before a new episode set off??

Just a reminder of how strong and at the same time difficult to defend city centres are...
I made one more vid... I can't read a script whilst I'm gaming.
I'm unable to and too emotive. So do not expect cinematic experience
from my vids. Quite the opposite. They are just meant to show off some idea
and are more a reminder to me of what is going on in that moment in time.

 

[jasper]

Too much rambling, i didnt get your metaphors and have no idea what youre talking about.

 

[Buktu]

Too much rambling, i didnt get your metaphors and have no idea what youre talking about.

Same here, from the post I thought it was a complaint about the AI building too few troops. But in the video (at least in the first few mins, didnt watch the whole one) I see enough units to instantly take back a city he conquered.
And also in my games the AI send garrisions to their city to defend them as long as they have units. So no they are not only relying on walls to defend. It should also be modable to increase the AIs value for units (so they will build more and less other stuff) or lower the production cost (the video is played on epic speed afaik so it takes 50% more time for the defender to produce a unit in a sieged city than on standart which gives you more time to capture the city before the unit finishes).
I also dont get why the city center is unimportant (or should be more important). I mean if you lose it you lose your city. Isn't that importance? Would they be defended by walls if they were unimportant?

 

[Lazy sweeper]

It's something that has to do with the way Ai thinks... I'm sorry for the rambling, but it's difficult to try to think the way the Ai thinks, that's why everything seems so obscure.
I know it, but I'm unable to present the matter differently, or elaborate further, at least for now.
What I try to give focus, is the mechanics that city centers brings to the game in more ways possible.

I think Ai use cities as if they were a unit itself, but it shouldn't be like that. Walls should be just a defence modifier for the real unit that is inside the city.
Not an upgreadable phantom tactics.

Think about partisans in a city which has just revolted, the city is in ruin, but suddenly gets back 100 health. Partisans will be unable to conquer the city.
There's a lot of play features that having self-defendable cities bring with it.

I just happen to have underlined a few and in a confused way, but I hope to further improve the concept less chaotically.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

(the video is played on epic speed afaik so it takes 50% more time for the defender to produce a unit in a sieged city than on standart which gives you more time to capture the city before the unit finishes).

I play on Epic otherwise by the time I get the tech for building Keshig, and the time when I can get a small army out, there will be already cavalry around...

 

[Buktu]

I think Ai use cities as if they were a unit itself, but it shouldn't be like that. Walls should be just a defence modifier for the real unit that is inside the city.
Not an upgreadable phantom tactics.

What is the reson for this though? The people living in the city can hide behind walls and throw rocks or fire weapons at attackers. If a real unit gets garrisoned they get an insane buff anyway (if the unit is modern ofc). Sure you can implement it in another way. I guess there are good points for every idea (including the current one), but why should we change the existing system when the games support cycle seems to be close to the end? At this point I expect maybe a final patch to fix some bug but nothing as big as changeing the whole city combat system (which then has a massive impact on the rest of the game as well).

Think about partisans in a city which has just revolted, the city is in ruin, but suddenly gets back 100 health. Partisans will be unable to conquer the city.
There's a lot of play features that having self-defendable cities bring with it.

I dont quite understand this part. If a city flips and becomes a free city it keeps it current health doesnt it? At this point partisans cant take over the city because they already have done so. Or do you talk about the spy action where you can spawn partisans? That has nothing to do with city health either.
If you are talking about conquered cities it actually makes sense that a city gets hp back with the current city combat rules. I mean if the city stayed at 0 HP a single crappy unit can take a city from a highly promoted veteran unit without any issues. And sure the city might be ruins but even ruins are hard to take from something like a panzer army.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

I dont quite understand this part. If a city flips and becomes a free city it keeps it current health doesnt it? At this point partisans cant take over the city because they already have done so. Or do you talk about the spy action where you can spawn partisans? That has nothing to do with city health either.
If you are talking about conquered cities it actually makes sense that a city gets hp back with the current city combat rules. I mean if the city stayed at 0 HP a single crappy unit can take a city from a highly promoted veteran unit without any issues. And sure the city might be ruins but even ruins are hard to take from something like a panzer army.

Revolting doesn't mean to a free city. Revolting as in Civ 2, the city stays to the conquerer, but shuts down, in revolt, and the Partisans are basically yuor units, ex-citizens, that spawns around the city.
If the conquerer has a good army within the city, Partisans will block routes to the city, and allows for your armies to try and get back the city, or, even conquer back the city for you, not free city.
I don't see this possible in CIv VI anymore, but hopefully in Civ VII there could be a comeback of Partisans- otherwise they would just be revolters. Partisans by definition belongs to the civ that founded the city... by having city health Partisans will never be able to get back the city. It's a far batter concept than Loyalty to my view, if we have to make a comparison. Such I see partisans. Loyalty and City health breaks gamplay in many ways, If Loyalty would give more or less partisans, that would be something different, but Loyalty should be revised with culture. Strong cultural cities should be conterfight loyalty pressure, and give stronger Partisans.

 

[Buktu]

So you where talking about mechanics that are not in the game right now. I didnt notice that, thats where the confusion came from.

as in Civ 2

Before I get to the next point I just want to point out that I didnt play 2 (a little bit of 5 and mostly 6) so I dont know how it works there. So I have to assume it from your ideas.

Loyalty and City health breaks gamplay in many ways

Then again you just make a statement but dont say WHY those mechanics break the game in your opinion. I get that you dont like the mechanics but that is not enough to make them game breaking.
Especially when you consider that loyality does something a little bit similar to your ideas. If a city flips by loyalty it creates units for the free city. Sure they dont belong to you but I dont see a point in an AI or even the player getting free units because he was unable to defend his city (or keep it loyal). The bigger the loyality issues are the faster a city flips so the sooner the units appear. And if the city gets taken back und flips free multiple times there will be more units overall. Which is kind of this part

If Loyalty would give more or less partisans, that would be something different

in a way. Also a high loyalty towards your empire means that the city can join back in your empire faster (as long as the attacker does not reconquer it after it gets free) so there even is a mechanic to get back undefended cities without the need of partisans.
Also low loyalty affects the cities yields so effectively a city get shut down once the loyalty is low (it even starts at 50% loyalty which means 50% reduced yields).

So basically all your ideas are already in the game. A little bit different than you know it from the older games perhaps but in the end the mechanics do kind of the same which does not justify to call it game(play) breaking imo.
They sell less copies if they just remake the old game with new graphics all the time anyway so there is a good chance that these mechanics will be different again in the next game.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Too much rambling, i didnt get your metaphors and have no idea what youre talking about.

City centers equals more power than any unit at any given time equals AI will not build ANY unit bc useless. No units No fights. See the problem???

 

[Lazy sweeper]

And also in my games the AI send garrisions to their city to defend them as long as they have units. So no they are not only relying on walls to defend. It should also be modable to increase the AIs value for units (so they will build more and less other stuff) or lower the production cost (the video is played on epic speed afaik so it takes 50% more time for the defender to produce a unit in a sieged city than on standart which gives you more time to capture the city before the unit finishes).

It should. It does not. Not in my experience. Yours might differ. In civ V there was heavy artillery in defence of every city, even there there was city HP, but now it's way more powerful.... so much that either that is pulling the Ai some off trigger, or I don't know enough anyway to say further injustice to what I am doing already... I'm trying to be more sensitive.


ps. the rest of the gameplay it was snowballing every single city, with only one Carolean defending the whole of sweden, and nothing else. The vid purpose instead was to highlight that no matter the health of the defending unit, if the HP goes zero but the unit was 100% HP, the city falls whilst the unit could have survived the attack.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Then again you just make a statement but dont say WHY

City HP equals AI not building units.
I don't get the mechanics of the Loyalty scheme flipping HP of the city or not, as if it has anything to do with Ai not building units bc of city HP.... it's a paradoxical nonsense....

 

[Lazy sweeper]

What is the reson for this though? The people living in the city can hide behind walls and throw rocks or fire weapons at attackers. If a real unit gets garrisoned they get an insane buff anyway (if the unit is modern ofc). Sure you can implement it in another way. I guess there are good points for every idea (including the current one), but why should we change the existing system when the games support cycle seems to be close to the end? At this point I expect maybe a final patch to fix some bug but nothing as big as changeing the whole city combat system (which then has a massive impact on the rest of the game as well).

Bc it could be an experiment and we could learn smth useful on how the Ai respond?
It was implemented at five, and... why only forward (thinking)?

 

[kaspergm]

It should. It does not.

This is only partially true. The AI will send a unit to the city center if it can, but will then leave it idle there, even if attacking out of the city will potentially kill an attacker unit and break a siege.

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

This is only partially true. The AI will send a unit to the city center if it can, but will then leave it idle there, even if attacking out of the city will potentially kill an attacker unit and break a siege.

This is why I try to always bring a builder with me against an AI defended city.
In some cases the unit inside it will make it too hard for me to take (like a crossbowman when I have only a few battered warriors or swordsmen that are barely able to siege the city).
Send the builder out on an open square next to that city however, and there is a high chance for that crossbowman to run out of his city to capture my builder, leaving him exposed to get killed on the next turn.
Almost feels like an exploit at times tbh.

 

[Buktu]

It should. It does not. Not in my experience. Yours might differ. In civ V there was heavy artillery in defence of every city, even there there was city HP, but now it's way more powerful.... so much that either that is pulling the Ai some off trigger, or I don't know enough anyway to say further injustice to what I am doing already... I'm trying to be more sensitive.

I didnt play too much of V and mostly on lower difficulties so I cant say much about that part. Anyway as I stated earlier, as long as the AI got units it uses it to defend its cities the way @kaspergm explained it. Sure it is silly not to attack with ranged units from inside the city in most cases but that is another concern than building no units.

ps. the rest of the gameplay it was snowballing every single city, with only one Carolean defending the whole of sweden, and nothing else. The vid purpose instead was to highlight that no matter the health of the defending unit, if the HP goes zero but the unit was 100% HP, the city falls whilst the unit could have survived the attack.

You could just check how many units sweden lost that game (if you played till the victory screen) in your hall of fame, I bet they had more than just one carolean in the whole game. They might have waisted their units against barbarians/city walls or whatever but that is again unit handling not unit building. For example I just checked a dom victory game in my hall of fame. Gitarjas most build unit was the AT Crew, she build 26 if those (and lost 23, again bad unit handling not unit building) in total she fought 539 battles in 287 turns. In the same game Hungary lost 22 Machine Guns which seems quite impossible if the AI stops to build units after they get t1 walls. Machine guns require advanced ballistics, a tech that needs steel to be unlocked. Steel unlocks urban defence though so all of Mathias' cities had defences before he could get to MGs.
The thing is the slower your game speed is the harder it is for the AI to build more units when you attack them. If a unit takes you 3 turns to build on epic but you take the city in 2 it will not finish. If you play on online that unit will just take 1 turn so you will actually get to see it.

Also a city siege does not need to end with all of the defenders dead. Lots of battles end with surrenders while the remaining troops are getting caputred. So it is 100% possible to take a city even with some hostile forced left in it. Look at Stalingrad for example where around 100 000 soilders were captured.
Also even if you have 5 billion soilders in a beseiged city once they are out of ammo they can't fight any longer as well.

City HP equals AI not building units.

This statement is as shown above simply false. It is true that the AI should build more units or (preferably) use its units better instead of throwing them away but it is simply wrong that they dont build any units because of city walls.

I don't get the mechanics of the Loyalty scheme flipping HP of the city or not, as if it has anything to do with Ai not building units bc of city HP.... it's a paradoxical nonsense....

I don't get what you are trying to say here tbh. But city HP has nothing to do with building units afaik.

Bc it could be an experiment and we could learn smth useful on how the Ai respond?
It was implemented at five, and... why only forward (thinking)?

Why should they go back to VI and switch up basic rules in their (most likely) last patch (if we even get another one)? If it does not work properly (and chances for this are quite high considern most of their prorammers are already working on another game whether it be VII or a spin off) they will leave the game in an unplayable state (preventing every profit they can still get out of this game with things like the anthology version of the game) that is not going to get fixed. Why make an experiment in a patch (IF, big if!, we are ever going to get another) with the only purpose to fix some of the remaining bugs?
If they implement it in VII (or a spin off) though that would be fine. VII is going to get plenty of patches where they could balance and finetune such a mechanic. Also they can build around city combat in VII around this from the start which and not as a last second change to (working) systems. Chances are higher for this idea to be successful and practical if it is core mechanic in a game since everything else in the game is balanced around this as well.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Why should they go back to VI and switch up basic rules in their (most likely) last patch (if we even get another one)? If it does not work properly (and chances for this are quite high considern most of their prorammers are already working on another game whether it be VII or a spin off) they will leave the game in an unplayable state (preventing every profit they can still get out of this game with things like the anthology version of the game) that is not going to get fixed. Why make an experiment in a patch (IF, big if!, we are ever going to get another) with the only purpose to fix some of the remaining bugs?
If they implement it in VII (or a spin off) though that would be fine. VII is going to get plenty of patches where they could balance and finetune such a mechanic. Also they can build around city combat in VII around this from the start which and not as a last second change to (working) systems. Chances are higher for this idea to be successful and practical if it is core mechanic in a game since everything else in the game is balanced around this as well.

Make it optional, maybe add more options down the line, to enable-disable features.
User friendly, more options means more replayability, equals more attractive, more sells?

Is it possible to even make a mod that would allow for cities to suddenly become only defence modifiers on top a defending unit?
I'm not able to look into moddability, but it would be an option, not a breaking the game patch I'd advise surely
not advocating for a negative impact on the game as a finished product.

AC Origin added a god like feature two years after its final release, opening up a whole world of modding options, that the
game only benefitted from it, the youtube videos are testimony of the success of the operation.

Can I be the zombie nation? There's more at stake than just city HP Afaik.

 

[kaspergm]

This is why I try to always bring a builder with me against an AI defended city.
In some cases the unit inside it will make it too hard for me to take (like a crossbowman when I have only a few battered warriors or swordsmen that are barely able to siege the city).
Send the builder out on an open square next to that city however, and there is a high chance for that crossbowman to run out of his city to capture my builder, leaving him exposed to get killed on the next turn.
Almost feels like an exploit at times tbh.

Oh, that is kind of an exploit. Reminds me of one of my favorite exploits of Civ5: Pillage enemy farms for health, then bring in one of your own workers to repair their farms and pillage them again. Iirc. if you had Pyramids and one of the Liberty(?) policies you could repair a farm instantly which basically meant infinite health for a besieging unit. At least they did fix that in Civ6.

 

[Buktu]

Make it optional, maybe add more options down the line, to enable-disable features.
User friendly, more options means more replayability, equals more attractive, more sells?

More options you can toggle on and off as you want are great and I didn't mind if they added something like this.
But I doubt that this feature adds lots of sells and would cost Firaxis more than they could earn with it. Those devs don't work for free and lets be fair who looks at a list of CiVIs features and picks the game just because you can toggle city health on and off especially at this late stage of its lifespan? Most fanatics already bought the game and casuals don't bother with such a mechanic too much. They wait for a sale and get the game no matter which mechanic is used.
Also there is still the risk of the mode beeing bugged or completely unbalanced with just minimal chances for any fixes. Combine that with the AIs missing ability to get along with the NFPs modes well and you have another strong reason not to add such a feature to the game at this point.
Then again if they put something like this in CiVII, made it a part of the core game and maybe even advertise with the feature it would be different again.

Is it possible to even make a mod that would allow for cities to suddenly become only defence modifiers on top a defending unit?
I'm not able to look into moddability, but it would be an option, not a breaking the game patch I'd advise surely
not advocating for a negative impact on the game as a finished product.

Since I am not a modder I can't tell if it is possible or not. And then again a mod is a toggleable option which is fine. If you don't like it or it doesn't work you switch it off again. That is completly different to just changing core elements of the game without the option to get rid of those changes if they dont work.
Also a mod is nothing official. So if you posted this as an idea for a mod not as a request for the main game we would not argue about this.

AC Origin added a god like feature two years after its final release, opening up a whole world of modding options, that the
game only benefitted from it, the youtube videos are testimony of the success of the operation.

I didn't play AC Origins so again I can say much about this. But in general an RPG is quite different to a TBS game. So just because things work for one game they don't have to work for another game. They can but it is not given.
If my quick google search is not too far off I think you are talking about the Animus Control Panel? That looks like a great feature to be added to the game indeed. It is still something completely different to what you were requesting for CiVI at the start of this thread though. Giving everyone the option to change some values like fire dmg from 100% to 120% is not the same as changing a whole combat system for everybody.

 

[Alaindor]

This is why I try to always bring a builder with me against an AI defended city.
In some cases the unit inside it will make it too hard for me to take (like a crossbowman when I have only a few battered warriors or swordsmen that are barely able to siege the city).
Send the builder out on an open square next to that city however, and there is a high chance for that crossbowman to run out of his city to capture my builder, leaving him exposed to get killed on the next turn.
Almost feels like an exploit at times tbh.

I never even thought of doing that! It certainly does feel like an exploit, although you could argue it costs you a builder, but certainly worth it if you are rewarded with a full city. "Honeypot" strategy, I'd call it, it wouldn't work against a human player though.