What does the cede peace deal do?

[nzcamel]

Glad I read this! I keep getting offered to cede cities I have taken from Arabia and kept thinking well I've got these why do I need for you to cede them?!

The AI is pretty good in the game I'm playing. Twice Brazil and Arabia have taken me by surprise and one particular attack by Arabia took one of my cities and threatened my little empire! Just managed to counter attack in time though. Best battle Ive had on a Civ game in ages - probably better than anything I had on Civ V for sure.

I'm pretty sure you're supposed to end up with a worse relationship with a leader if you have taken a city of theirs and they never ceded it, than if they do cede it.

 

[Victoria]

Try it @nzcamel , when I looked into it in detail it seemed just broken. As long as you choose to keep the city before the deal, that is key.

 

[kaspergm]

There's also the war-weariness thing. If they cede the city to you, will the city still provide additional unhappiness if you're in war with them later?

But either way, I agree what others have said: The current system seems completely bugged. It's impossible to know what the developers intended from the game texts (and lack there-of), but the fact that they will denounce you for occupying one of their cities they ceded ages ago - and they do this all the time - makes absolutely no sense logically. If this is intended behavior, then the wording is extremely misguiding.

I remember one time testing what happened with warmonger penalty with third party civs when making a peace deal where cities were ceded and then reloading and making another peace deal where cities were not ceded. I must admit I don't remember the exact conclusion, but I do remember I thought what I observed was very illogical. My hunch tells me no difference between the two cases, although like I said, I'm not sure.

 

[nzcamel]

Try it @nzcamel , when I looked into it in detail it seemed just broken. As long as you choose to keep the city before the deal, that is key.

Yeah, it seems broken to me. I think it's a great mechanism, and I hope they fix it sooner rather than later.

 

[Victoria]

Fighting Congo tonight, smash in and take on of his 3 cities and I keep the city. Kongo offers to cede the city for peace but I ask for cede and his other city, of course he says no. I then just ask for the other city and he says yes... War over, no occupied city. Annoyed Kongo but no slowness in growth.

 

[nzcamel]

Yeah, I suspect it's just the notification you get sometimes "you occupy one of their cities" which is either faulty or poorly worded.
I'm fine if a lesser penalty still exists for holding a ceded city, as long as it isn't as high as for holding an unceded one.

 

[ShinigamiKenji]

My opinion is that the mechanic should work like this:

• Non-ceded cities in a peace deal: No growth, adds war weariness, able to negotiate ceding later
• Ceded cities in a peace deal: Normally functioning cities, and able to give their capital back
• In EVERY case there should be a "Occupying their city" diplomacy penalty. You can't say that they "ceded their cities" when it was either that or facing total annihilation. But it should decay over time (but very slowly, like 1 point every 5~10 turns).
• You can liberate traded cities whenever you want (not conquered cities)

 

[nzcamel]

Casus belli for liberating cities shouldn't apply to ceded cities imo. I don't know if they do or don't...

 

[Joch]

In a game pre-last patch, I had a long running on-off war with Sumeria and in my experience, this is how it works:

1. you conquer a city and are still at war, city is occupied with resultant growth penalties;

2. you conclude peace, but city is not ceded as part of negotiations. City is yours with no further penalty, but original owner will keep denouncing you every few turns because you occupy one of their cities. This may also increase the "warmonger" penalties, since other Civs were also denouncing me;

3. you conclude peace and city is ceded as part of negotiations. City is yours with no further penalty and original owner will not denounce you.

This was before the last patch.

 

[nzcamel]

I've continuously (the whole time the game has been out I mean up till now) been denounced by AI who have ceded cities to me. I think they do it less than an AI who hasn't ceded the city (maybe...? Lol); but they still do it.

 

[Victoria]

I thought it was -12 for ceded, -18 for non ceding. Will check tonight

 

[Keoni Fo]

What I've noticed is if you capture a city during war and they cede during a peace deal it is as if it is your own city. If they do not cede the city you will receive warmongering penalty and anyone can Liberate the city from you. I believe if it is cede it can not be liberated.

 

[Victoria]

This is a very old thread, should be closed really.

When you capture a city in war and get say -8 warmonger, when you go for peace deal you have 3 choices

1. Give the city back and you get +8 warmonger points for doing so
2. Just keep the city.... no difference in warmonger points but the city is considered your for everything but victory points
3. Get them to cede the city to you, you get an additional -8 warmonger points

 

[leandrombraz]

Firaxis need to either fix this mechanic or explain what they was trying to accomplish with it, because that make zero sense.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Putting aside the fact that they're not trying to make the AI act like a human player (the vanilla Civ V AI was a good example of why this is a bad idea), the relevant diplomatic modifier is "you occupy one of their cities". If they use the game term "occupied" to indicate a city that has not been ceded, then the term should be removed from that diplomatic modifier and changed to something like "you captured one of their cities". That's if it's intentional and not so kind of bug.

No, the vanilla civ 5 AI was not a good example of why making the AI try is a bad idea. Given the state of that AI such a statement is *overwhelmingly* disingenuous towards the design philosophy that players in a game should behave like players in a game and not play a different game entirely.

Civ 5 AI was terrible, and its actions in no way resembled that of semi-competent players, to say nothing of players who actually knew what they were doing.

 

[UWHabs]

This is a very old thread, should be closed really.

When you capture a city in war and get say -8 warmonger, when you go for peace deal you have 3 choices

1. Give the city back and you get +8 warmonger points for doing so
2. Just keep the city.... no difference in warmonger points but the city is considered your for everything but victory points
3. Get them to cede the city to you, you get an additional -8 warmonger points

Still feels like in the middle case, the city should be remaining in "occupied" status. Maybe not prevent growth totally, but if it had -50% to growth and all other yields, then there would actually be a reason to consider taking those extra warmonger points.

 

[historix69]

In ancient times they simply razed the cities and sold the population as slaves if cities did not surrender / pay tribute ... no Warmonger Malus, no Liberation problems later.
e.g. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tyre_(332_BC)

 

[Victoria]

My fave baddy Mithridates Eupator was knocked the the deck when an ally ship accidentally knocked into his war barge. The price of this was the entire city was enslaved.

I do remember reading somewhere that Tamerlane/Timur used to say to cities "surrender and I will only kill half of you" and also had chained enemy slaves in front of his army going into battle

This is why warmonger points are less earlier and the whole razing -20 perm is just dumb. The fact it does have a degradation value indicates it may be a bug.

 

[Duuk]

I hate to be That Guy and necro post...

but I can't seem to find ANYWHERE on Google (and that's a lot of Civ6 Wikis) that actually explains, in detail, what the "cede" thing actually does.

Because apparently it's definitely NOT intuitive.

 

[SxSnts9]

The cede mechanic was not fully implemented. It doesn't work in any sort of rational or intuitive way.