I know that the patch is out soon, but what I propose in this piece is not included, and very radical- at the same time, I think it would make this a far richer gaming experience, and would like input from anyone who thinks that making a mod for tyhis would be possible (if at least for just myself as not to bring the lawyers upon me)
There have been many thread on the combat system, the idea of cultural borders, city razing, strategies of conquest and the current cultural defection system. My ideas would, i think, make these features better, make the game both less random and more challenging, and on top of that, more realistic (there we go again...)
The basic idea is to change the system by which cities change hands militarily- add a new state in which cities can exist (like disorder or WLTKD) called occupation. This state would begin in a city the moment it fell to enemy military forces, and wouuld end in one of three ways- the city is finally under the firm control of the invader, the city is destroyed, the city is abandonned by the attacker. Why the last one would occur will become clear later. This state would also change the rules on razing, defection, and cultural borders.
A single unit should not be able to raze a city of 12, period. (for those who want to go into the 'turn=1year' argument, I say, a turn equals whatever we want it to equal in real time, from 1 billion years to 1 billionth of a second, so that argument makes no gaming sense) So, how would this work? When you take the city, you get a choice, install a governor, or "we have other plans". By choosing this second option, you have the ability to pillage the city you just took. When you pillage a city, each unit pillaging kills a certain number of pop. point and destroys an improvement (not great wonders). By doing this, you also get a sort of reward, either money (gold looted from houses or temples) or a slave (worker). You also make the remaining citizens more likely to revolt. Now, different units would do different damage. This is because certain types of units and weapons are better at killing people in towns than others. First, only units that can already pillage can do this (i.e, not airplanes or arty), second, all units before industrial, except for the cavaalry, kills 2 pop. per turn (so, want to detroy that size 12 city? Bring 6 legions). Cavalry kills 3. All units after that 4 pop, except for tanks and modern armor, which only kill 2 (anyone who plays hardcore wargames knows, you don't use tanks in cities. Ask the russians at Grozny). Before the last pop. point dies, you get a message, asking if thats what you really want to do. If yes, city gone. If not, city left with just pop. 1.
Lets say you said yes to installing a governor, or are in the progress of killing everyone (did not bring enough legions!). The city has a chance to revolt. Firt, you are given a warning. Second- the game creates acertain numbers of 'units' out of the resiters in your city and they engage the garrison in a abstracted combat, wherein they get a chance to hit and do damage or kill, and you get to fight back. The combat stats for this type of combat are not the regular ones. Inf. gets a bonus over mounted units, and armor (except mech inf) suffers a major penalty. This means that inf. becomes crucial for securing cities, not only from enemies, but from revolt. This sort of battle may go on for turns, with the player being able to bring in reinforcements, and also able to use arty or bombers to bomb the city to kill resiters. Mobile units get to retreat as they do normally, inf. does not (killed in city). Combat ends when you crush the uprising, or they drive you out. If the enemy is driven out, two def. units create in city and city leaves occupation status.
Lets say you won the battle, or did not face resitance. What about cultural borders? Well, I say that the notion that all cultural buildings are destroyed is foolish (did the germas burn down Notra Dame?) and the idea that a city looses its cultural luster after taken is also silly. So, how would it work? Well, no cultural buildings are detroyed when you take over, though buildings you destroy pillaging, or ones detroyed in bombarment are different. When a city fall, its cultural points are cut by 75% and the borders redrawn accordingly. While in occupation, no new cultural points are accumulated at all- so until the people of the city trust you, you get no culture from them. This is more harsh than the current game. Once they do trust you, your buldings begin producing culture again, but they start as new. If a city returns to the previous owner, they return to their old borders.
How do you gain their trust? Make them happy. That's it. Of course, if the siege was very bloody, and if many buildings were detroyed, or if pillaging occurs, or if you try to plant your own citizens in, the old pop. will be harder to make happy. Basically, the worse you treated the original pop, the more it will hate and resit you. The more you were nice, the more they will accept you.
Now, as I said, you have the chance to give up a city. If you pull every unit out, you will be asked if you intend to maintain the city. If yes, it remains yors (just open to attack), if no, it returns to the origninal owner in the current condition (no new units formed immidiately, and the city will be in a state of disorder the first turn, period [no gov]) .
So how does this change gameplay and make it better? First, it makes conquest with small armies harder, unless you are taking small cities. The idea of having a few modern armor and overrunning the place becomes very dfficult since they can't kill a city very fast, and are not good at defending it from the inside. Combined arms does become vital. We players have the ability to know what we must do to maintain a city, and it is based on common sense. One is able to be both a enlightened conqueror, and ghengis khan, whichever they want to be. Also, it makes diplomacy far more interesting. One could have an economy of pillage, in which you terrorize your neighbors by carrying out raids to pillage cities and then pull back. This can be both fun and is realistic (instead of vassals, have people live in uttter fear of you). I would add that this also affects MPP rules. Lets say you have an Mpp with someone. They attack and take a city. As it stands, you have to join them if the other side counterattacks, even though your friend was the aggressor. Here, any units in an occupied city or in its cultural border are considered hostile, and thus you can rightfully counterattack them, and MPP parterns don't have to join. I think this would make MPP more usefull as a real dfensive pact, and make them harder to hijack for offensive reasons (sorry folks).
Well, any comment at all? I know it was long, but I also think these are good ideas. We will soon see if the forum agrees. (in the next five days, no post... Hope not)
