Sieges and pillaging

[Trifna]

These two things are missing from Civ, are they in MOO3? Here's a copy/paste of what I mean. I'm sure you could try to stop any exterior outcome froma planet with enough firepower and of course pillllaggggeee!!!


First: I mean, pillaging is one of the MAJOR (in fact maybe even before territory conquests) acts from civilizations. Mongols or Romans were doing it at the same time they were making conquests, bringing it all to THEIR people (aka their capitol, generals, bureaucrats, their merchants, etc.). It was done on their own territories also! (For nourrishing troops, for money, to terrorise and destroy economy). It's not like destroying improvement, it's getting profit from it and lot more than just imporvements!

Second: Sieges are the second way used for conquest of cities, obliging citizens to let go their city, walls, etc. Also to starve the people and stop the economy. Maybe it was even used more than directly taking the capitol, prefering to oblige the enemy to get out of the city to battle. A walled city is quite costly to take by direct attack in reality... Thus sieges, and thus richness of war history. Nice to use WITH pillaging

These two things are the nastiests and most important aspects of war.

[Craig P.]

In what sense are sieges and pillaging not present in Civ?

[Alex-C]

Yes, you could "Besiege" the enemy by stationing your troops in their territory, and pillage each time you took a city.

[vmxa1]

I have not done this in civ3, but in civ2 I would sit some units in their city squares and they could not use them. This is true in civ3, but it is harder to have units that could not be attacked. In civ2 it was not hard to have a unit that they could not do any harm to, not so easy in civ3. In Moo2 you could blockade, which is essentially a siege. You could do a partial bombing of the planet or full if your bombs are not effective, this is basically pillaging.

[Trifna]

Sieges aren't about puting your tropps all around, it's about stoping anything coming from the outside or going outside. And it's about obliging the opponent to get OUT of the city and battle. No walls. There's nothing such in Civ 3.

Pillaging is not simply about destroying irrigation and roads. It's more about entering a city and make yourself big profit, taking all that has value, maybe also some kills. It's about steeling, taking the food (for troops), being a serious threat to economic growth since the victim has to start from scratch. Even napoleonian troops were taking food and all from where they passed. Of course, there's a few sort of pillaging: rampaging and destroying all, calmly taking all that has value, or only take food for troops (which killed alot of farmers in Middle Ages).

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Trifna
Sieges aren't about puting your tropps all around, it's about stoping anything coming from the outside or going outside. And it's about obliging the opponent to get OUT of the city and battle. No walls. There's nothing such in Civ 3.

Seems to me what mentioned addresses this. If I fill up your city tiles, I have stopped the coming and going. They tend to send out troops to counter attack. I fail to see how that does not meet your requirements. Troops will come from with in the city and from elsewhere in teh empire.

[Craig P.]

Originally posted by Trifna
Sieges aren't about puting your tropps all around, it's about stoping anything coming from the outside or going outside. And it's about obliging the opponent to get OUT of the city and battle. No walls. There's nothing such in Civ 3.

If I surround a city in any version of civ, there's certainly not going to be anything going or coming in, and if they don't come out and battle, the city will surely starve (aside from whatever they might have in production from the city tile). Sure seems like a siege to me.

Pillaging is not simply about destroying irrigation and roads. It's more about entering a city and make yourself big profit, taking all that has value, maybe also some kills. It's about steeling, taking the food (for troops), being a serious threat to economic growth since the victim has to start from scratch. Even napoleonian troops were taking food and all from where they passed. Of course, there's a few sort of pillaging: rampaging and destroying all, calmly taking all that has value, or only take food for troops (which killed alot of farmers in Middle Ages).

Well, in any version of Civ, if you capture the city you get some substantial benefits, plus the ability to start sacking improvements for cash. In Civ3, IIRC, there's also the option of razing the city. It's not quite the same as the pillaging you propose, but it certainly is more effective, since the previous civ doesn't even have control of the city!

[Trifna]

Look at Rome. Can you do like they did? Capture a city, take all rich people's and temple's wealth.


For sieges, well you cannot starve a city just by beeing around. You really need to destroy improvements. It's not like simply be all around a city and stopping incomes/outcomes (which doesn't stop you from destroying meanwhile). It's about stopping other cities to send food and all.

[vmxa1]

Stronghold may be what you are looking for, I mean there is no food being sent to th cities in civ. it can olny do so much.

[Craig P.]

Originally posted by Trifna
For sieges, well you cannot starve a city just by beeing around.

It won't happen immediately because of the city's store of food, but it definitely will happen, and quickly once the food's gone.

[Trifna]

Originally posted by Craig P.
It won't happen immediately because of the city's store of food, but it definitely will happen, and quickly once the food's gone.

Nooooooooooooooo... It's not a siege, it's units around a city! It doesn't stop incomes until you destroy incomes so it's clear it doesn't siege. Sieges stops ANY INCOMES. You don't get food or shields from exterior territories even if they aren't derstroyed!


Stronghold? You talkiong about the RTS game named Stronghold or...?

[Lemmy]

It doesn't stop incomes until you destroy incomes so it's clear it doesn't siege.

But units around a city do stop income, citizens can't work on a tile occupied by enemy forces.

[Mellian]

You mean RAIDING cities like the Barbarians?

-Mellian

[Xentax]

Sieges: You can hold a blockade over enemy planets in MOO3; but I doubt you can force a surrender by doing so. Ask me again when the game's out and I can give a straight answer

As for pillaging, I'm not sure how much you could do in the post-modern era. I mean, currency is largely electronic already, and would probably be completely so in the distant future. Most of the tangible, valuable components of a planet/colony in MOO3 don't strike me as being mobile or otherwise able to be stolen or destroyed at a profit. You could loot luxury items, I suppose (that still seems to happen today, at least), but I'm not sure if that would have any effects visible from the player's perspective.

[Trifna]

Thx Xentax

Originally posted by Lemmy

Quote:

It doesn't stop incomes until you destroy incomes so it's clear it doesn't siege.

But units around a city do stop income, citizens can't work on a tile occupied by enemy forces.

This is not a siege, it's simply occupying a space. Sieging is to be all around a city and stop it to go on any tile, force him to stay in the city (commerce=0).

[Alex-C]

But surely in the definition of the term "siege" its just occupying space? And if you occupy every space around a city, you are indeed "all around a city", stopping them from going to those tiles and forcing them to stay in the city. I fail to see any valid point in any arguement you try to make in this thread.

[Trifna]

Siege: beeing a round a city and stopping anything from passing. As they did so many times (Troyes, Byzance, Rome...).

It would mean, with let's say a few units, to be around the city and stop all. The number of units needed are depending of which city, simply.

[Alex-C]

Originally posted by Trifna
Siege: beeing a round a city and stopping anything from passing. As they did so many times (Troyes, Byzance, Rome...).

Well thats exactly the situation when u surround a city in Civ, hence "Siege"

[Sollos]

Well, I'll throw in my 2 cents.

Sieges were accomplished through passive and/or active hostility. Passive = blockade. Active = violent assault.

In ancient and Medieval times, a besieging army would often use both methods. On average, 90% of the time would be focused on blockade, during which the besieging army would be doing the following:

1. dying of disease, suffering desertion, etc. (and other force degradation).

2. raiding the countryside for provisions, ransom figures, loot, and slaves.

3. Parleying with the besieged, trying to utilize spies and 5th columns, and doing all sorts of like things to demoralize and/or trick them.

4. Reinforcing, sapping, counter-walling, creating engines, or painstakingly bringing up artillery.

5. And generally building up for the big assault. Ideally, a wall would be sufficiently reduced or scaled so that a crack force could penetrate swiftly.

Romans, Hellenes, and Crusaders were great at besieging. Goths and Mohammedans sucked. Italians and Normans made great fortifications. North European 'Free Company' artillery mercenaries were great at blowing them down.

Once artillery became highly mobile (re: Napoleonic age), fortifications could not be trusted to save you your city.

[Trifna]

Originally posted by Alex-C


Well thats exactly the situation when u surround a city in Civ, hence "Siege"

They BLOCK!!!! Puting ure units all around when it does nothing is not very intelligent, you'll just attack.


See Sollos post that is so complete:

Well, I'll throw in my 2 cents.

Sieges were accomplished through passive and/or active hostility. Passive = blockade. Active = violent assault.

In ancient and Medieval times, a besieging army would often use both methods. On average, 90% of the time would be focused on blockade, during which the besieging army would be doing the following:

1. dying of disease, suffering desertion, etc. (and other force degradation).

2. raiding the countryside for provisions, ransom figures, loot, and slaves.

3. Parleying with the besieged, trying to utilize spies and 5th columns, and doing all sorts of like things to demoralize and/or trick them.

4. Reinforcing, sapping, counter-walling, creating engines, or painstakingly bringing up artillery.

5. And generally building up for the big assault. Ideally, a wall would be sufficiently reduced or scaled so that a crack force could penetrate swiftly.

Romans, Hellenes, and Crusaders were great at besieging. Goths and Mohammedans sucked. Italians and Normans made great fortifications. North European 'Free Company' artillery mercenaries were great at blowing them down.

Once artillery became highly mobile (re: Napoleonic age), fortifications could not be trusted to save you your city.

[Alex-C]

Yes they do block, they block things going in/out of the city but u seemed to wanna argue that. And yes anyone of intelligence WILL just attack the city. My point is that you can besiege a city just just blocking it off with units, whether u bombard or attack is up to you.

Obviously you can't do all the tricks mentioned because the nature of civ is an Empire building game, not something like "Stronghold". But you CAN besiege a city.

[Trifna]

Blocking would mean that I come with three units, I say "siege it" and all incomes from tiles around the city would be blocked, trading and trading revenues also. Units in the city could, if they wish, get out and attack outsite of the walls. Or they could wait some rescue or the siege to stop for some reason (they're attacking, have problems...).

Alex-C, what I think is that I wasn't understood very well... Someone, close this thread!

[Craig P.]

In Civ3, if you have the city surrounded, I don't think it will have the strategic resources available, which would go partway to killing trading revenues.

[Trifna]

In Civ 3, can you, let's say with 3 or 4 units, be next to a city and make it so:
- Trading will be off
- Exploiting tiles outside of the city will be impossible
- Revenue from commerce concerning this city will be off
- Troops cannot enter nor get out of the city without attacking the enemy


Are these 4 things in Civ 3?...

[Alex-C]

Yes, but depending on terrain and technology you may need more units than that Anyway im tired, lets just agree to disagree huh?

[Trifna]

Of course! The number of units you need is depending on a few things. At last I got myself understood.

And I do accept your peace treaty for I guess I made my point enough

[Alex-C]

Well i hope the treaty lasts longer than mine ever did in MOO2

[Craig P.]

Originally posted by Trifna
In Civ 3, can you, let's say with 3 or 4 units, be next to a city and make it so:
- Trading will be off
- Exploiting tiles outside of the city will be impossible
- Revenue from commerce concerning this city will be off
- Troops cannot enter nor get out of the city without attacking the enemy

Typically, more than three or four units are required, depending on the location of the city relative to the coast (and naval units might be required to enforce a naval blockade). For the second item, it's necessary to also occupy the tiles that are to be unexploitable, surrounding the city is not sufficient.

With sufficient units, though, all but the third (revenue concerning the city will be off), yes, those are all in Civ3. The civ owning the city will still be able to spend their money there to rush production (or they can take money out by selling off improvements). Then again, since exploiting tiles is off at this point, there won't be a whole lot of commerce revenue left (just the city tile itself plus whatever bonuses there might be).

[Trifna]

Yeah... you have to occupy all while in reality you'd only have to occupy around the city. And it doesn't cut alot (nor trade, not commerce...), and your units can get attack one by one and it brakes the thing... etc. Would you also accept a treaty?...