Why? There are huge administrative costs and risks associated with ruling a huge empire and foreign peoples. A cost not seen in Civ 6. Remember why Rome fell apart again? Why don't we see that happening in Civ 6?
I agree there are costs and risks and that is what I am trying to address. But there were also benefits and that part cannot be ignored.
Certainly there are exceptions throughout history, but most of the rebellions the Romans faced were not from 'peoples' seeking 'freedom' in some idealistic way. Such things were mostly led by opportunists who believed they saw a chance to slice off a piece of the empire for themselves. Sometimes it was
foederati who revolted because payments from Rome became slow or stopped.
Even those so-called barbarians who essentially took over running the empire in the west had enough brains to try and preserve as much infrastructure as possible. They even preserved many Roman laws for those who were still considered "Roman" citizens. As the Normans moved through Europe and into the Mediterranean, they did not raze cities. They indulged themselves with the wealth of their conquests and often adopted much of the culture. Sure, you can throw up some exceptions, but more often than not cities did not stop production, or cease commerce or become dens of despair simply because a new tyrant took over. Were that the case, few cities would have ever survived to the modern era.
As I tried to point out earlier, the real challenges that face such empires is not well addressed in Civilization6. Opportunism, more than anything, is what caused decay in virtually every empire, large and small. The Mongol Empire began disintegrating because of infighting between the Khan's many successors more than anything. That makes for a very weak central power base. That in turn allows for opportunism in the outlying areas.
The Holy Roman Empire, upon the death of Charlamagne (who was known for building infrastructure) broke apart because Charlamagne bequeathed his empire to three sons who immediately began slicing it up. The Ottomans, as they made their conquest of the Eastern Roman Empire, had little interest in destroying the markets and trade routes that were so profitable. In the beginning, there was even some tolerance shown to the Greek Orthodox church.
You rightly pointed out that Wealth and Glory were prime motivators for conquests. But the real wealth wasn't found in chests in the palace. The real wealth was in the infrastructure and many a conqueror understood this. Of course, sometimes the conqueror simply removed the conquered population in favor of his own people. I am sure some saw it better than knocking everything down and starting from scratch.
But, getting back to the game mechanics, we must ask ourselves what, traditionally, are the major challenges of holding an empire (or any polity) together? Well, two of the most prevalent motivators of intra-empire strife were.....Wealth and Glory. When the ambitious individual saw a chance, they took it. Sometimes it was met with failure. Sometimes, the ambitious party was from outside the empire but saw the ripe fruit waiting to be plucked. Whatever the case, the two most effective counters to this were Intimidation and Prosperity. The Intimidation factor was not only meant for the basic populace, but mostly for the local nobility and administrators who might be harboring thoughts of glory and wealth of their own. It was also intended for those neighbors who were awaiting that hint of weakness that would allow them to ride in.
Prosperity was also intended mostly for the nobility and administrators, who in turn kept the local population in check usually by keeping them busy and fed. The comfortable Duke or Count or Burgermeister who had a nice home, nice things, little to do
and a few concubines on the side was less likely to risk it all just to become more responsible for it.
These are the sorts of things I would like to see reflected in the game. Not some abritrary "hey, we don't want to be conquered!" mechanic. Although it would become far more appropriate in the late game when 'nationalism' is a far more widespread ideal. How the conquered city reacts should be very much dependent on how the conqueror treats it. Each act could have its share of bonuses and penalties.
So you're empire needs cash and you decide to strip the cities coffers bare, as well as its great works. You even get some gold from 'dismantling' some wonders or other buildings. Thats great in the short term, but how well can the city perform now? What burden has it become? How happy are the people?
Your empire needs labor, so you reduce the population by one half (converting it into cogs to be spent elsewhere) for slave labor. That certainly doesn't make you a hero to the people.
You don't like their religion, you don't like their culture, its all incompatible with what you've been building so you masscare the whole lot and slowly send your own settlers in to repopulate. However, it takes time for all those districts to get up and running again and their maintenance cost goes way up.
Your armies need manpower, so you impose conscription. You can levy one melee unit per unit of population immediately, but that unit starts at half the strength of a regular. Also, its a major hit to the 'loyalty' factor...as well as any other 'health' guage for the city.
Maybe you want to be benign and you do nothing but let the city run as it was. There is no immediate penalty, but all yields are reduced by half anyway. Why? Corruption is more rampant when the administrators don't believe anyone is really looking. Loyalty might drop after the initial conquest, but the people might start to ease up if their lives are not overly upset in the meantime. It would simply be a long process before the city could fully integrate into the workings of the empire.
You want to be a great benefactor. You flood the conquered city with bread and circuses. The nobility is happy, the merchants are happy, even the peasants are happy and the city prospers....until you finally pull the funds and hope the city does well on its own. There could be a precipitous drop of loyalty for as long as the funds were in place.
The main theme here is, that conquest of the city is not, by itself, cause for any major change in the city's operation. It all depends on how the conqueror treats the conquered and in my opinion,
that is what should be reflected in our game.
