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

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).