enemy units in enemy territory

[TechWins]

When two nations are at war and there are enemy units in the other nation's territory there needs to be more of an effect. As it is now you're not able to harvest that tile the enemy unit is in. I don't think that is enough. I think that all surrounding tiles should lose 1 food, 1 shield, and 1 trade. To not make it too extreme, only once can a tile be effected by surrounding enemies. So if two enemies were on seperate tiles but surrounding a same tile that tile would still only lose 1 food, 1 shiled, and 1 trade. This isn't exactly that far fetched of an implementation, either.

Currently almost all the wars only take place in the cities, since there isn't much benefit fighting outside of the city. Well, this will make it a big loss having enemy units inside your territory. You will be almost forced to go attack those units and get them out of your territory. This will finally give more effect to being in enemy territory.

[Spiffor]

Good idea Techwins.

But even though it'll force players to fight a bit more in open field, I don't think this idea will change as drastically the way a war is fought in Civ. The stake of a war is indeed to conqer or raze cities, and as such it is normal that cities are the center of attention. Besides, at least in Civ3, you wouldn't want to leave enemy units astray on your territory, because they could easily pillage that resource tile you need so much, or this small road connecting two parts of your empire (this is a concern at least during ancient and eraly middle ages).

But otherwise, I think it is a good idea. Gotta hate to see your production pruned by a little bunch of enemy soldiers

[DarkCloud]

Hey, nice to see you around again TechWins- I haven't seen you since the old Civ III ideas posting days (I think)

I don't know about making all surrounding tiles lose one food, trade, etc. but how about making one citizen unhappy in the town for every enemy unit present in their area- and if a section is pillaged- then there is a chance for plague in the city... 10% chance each turn to lose one population until the enemy unit is expelled?

[DrSpike]

Nice idea, though I'm not certain if that is the best way to apply it. It is kind of game dependent, as Spiffor says in Civ3 there are more reasons to fight outside, and the bonus to being inside a city is not as marked as some games.

[Asmodean]

Nice idea. It gives you a great incentive to immediately attack any enemy unit in your territory.

Asmodean

[ChrisiusMaximus]

Sounds like a good idea but on a flipstde troops should suffer attrition when in enemy territory as a balance.

[TechWins]

Hey, nice to see you too, DarkCloud. I still posted a lot up until around 5-6 months after Civ3's release. After that I've been pretty quiet.

But even though it'll force players to fight a bit more in open field, I don't think this idea will change as drastically the way a war is fought in Civ

The whole point of this would be to add an ultimatum to the player. You can either sit back and wait in your cities until the attacker comes to attack you, but the attacker is going to severely hamper that city's food, production, and trade. The other choice would be to go out of your city and attack the attacker yourself instead of staying in a completely defensive position. It adds more strategy to a war for the defender and the attacker. It adds more depth to a war, while keeping it relatively simple. As of now I don't think the occassional resource you have to protect is enough. There needs to be more done to add depth to a war, and I think this would do just that.

how about making one citizen unhappy in the town for every enemy unit present in their area

That would work; it would still eventually give the effect of less food, production, and trade since you will be forced to turn one of your citizens into an entertainer in order to keep your city from going into civil disorder. However, on larger cities it would not do much damage like I think it should. Your idea might be simpler to understand and calculate within the program, so in that side of it, it actually might be better.

It gives you a great incentive to immediately attack any enemy unit in your territory

Exactly!

on a flipstde troops should suffer attrition when in enemy territory as a balance.

That would require a completely new aspect to the game. I'm not sure if even the next Civ installation will have that.

[Trifna]

Wouhou!!
This seems like a simple way to implement sieges! Sieges are sooo important throughout history and have such a prominent place in wars that it seems unconceivable to not including them in Civ.

[Panag]

hi ,

, would it not unbalance the game a bit , .....

have a nice day

[Trifna]

I think that we couldn't just implement this without adjusting some other things too so that we balance the whole thing. But this is nothing exceptional: each time you put a feature into a game you have to balance correspondingly.

PS: Panag, nice to see you sometimes write some posts that actually mean something!

[TechWins]

But this is nothing exceptional: each time you put a feature into a game you have to balance correspondingly.

No one is stating that it is exceptional, but what sort of balancing is needed for it? The whole idea is adding more depth to war. To counteract the damage it does, you simply attack the enemy and force them out. There's balancing for ya.

[Trifna]

I was answering to panag's question. I think that you'll probably need to make so that such a siege doesn't put your supplies so fast that it doesn't have the effect of a siege where it takes some time to really have its effect. You'll have the balance the effects of sieges.

[Commie Chocobo]

That idea is good, coupled with the possibility of unhappy ppl, it would add another level to the game that would just make everything seem just that little bit more nice, and it adds the 'deffence through offence' strategy more likeable

[MrFun]

I think I love this idea -- interesting.