Realms Beyond Balance Mod for Civ6

[Krill]

I have a suggestion for an occupational penalty fix. I don't think it is codeable without the SDK though.

For every city lost to capture or raze by a civ (not by barbs) that civ loses 20% of all outputs except food, for each city lost, until a peace treaty is signed or the city is recaptured.

That will make players want to give up minor cities, or they can't replace units and will die so the occupation penalty is not a long term issue.

[TheArchduke]

Make it 10% and I am convinced that this is actually an idea. The problem here is that you NEED something like.

After 5 cities being lost you need to accept peace. MP players will refuse to peace even with 0% yields, don´t you think. I like your idea though.

[Krill]

That was why I said 20%. A player can refuse to sign peace, but when they make no production, they can't build units, so they just die. They can't even stop the disintegration at 20%. 10%, and they can still play spoiler.

Or you add in a mechanic whereby a player starts to lose cities at set intevals after losing a certain number of cities: ie, the cities cede from the player and become AI controlled city states (irrevokable, so even if the losing player signs peace, they will not get that city back except through further warfare). The point is to remove items punitively from a player that has lost the war so that they can no longer play to harm a specific player.

[Rowain]

And how do you make sure the attacker signs peace in this situation?

Lets say you capture 5 minor cities and can now make it completly impossible for the defender to do anything with his core cities by not signing peace with him.

Why is the defender forced to take peace just because the attacker wills it but he can't force it onto the attacker himself?

[Krill]

Why is the defender forced to take peace just because the attacker wills it but he can't force it onto the attacker himself?

Because the loser is losing and if you get to the point where you lost 5 cities you should lose. ie, You made mistakes, and you should have made different decisions, like sign peace earlier, or not settle cities you couldn't defend.

Jesus, the idea that you can lose a war and still expect to force your will onto a person (in game) is just bizarre.

[Grotsnot]

Jesus, the idea that you can lose a war and still expect to force your will onto a person (in game) is just bizarre.

But of course the notion that if you lose any 5 cities means you deserve to be completely eliminated is totally reasonable.

[Krill]

Civ 4 MP used to be played with 2 city elimination. 5 cities is nothing in comparison, in the context of a game that can't be played with more than 6 players because there is no pitboss.

[Banzailizard]

What if it was tied into the loyalty system? Granted not everyone has R&F, but this could be for R&F games only.  Loyalty already impacts yeilds and at the high end the player will be loosing cities from it.  Since loyalty's penalties scale, if losing cities adds a per turn malus to loyalty, it adds a timer for the player who lost cities to try and respond.

[Rowain]

Why is the defender forced to take peace just because the attacker wills it but he can't force it onto the attacker himself?

Because the loser is losing and if you get to the point where you lost 5 cities you should lose. ie, You made mistakes, and you should have made different decisions, like sign peace earlier, or not settle cities you couldn't defend.

Jesus, the idea that you can lose a war and still expect to force your will onto a person (in game) is just bizarre.

Do you lose a war if you lose 5 border cities which can easily happen the way some units can move?  

Civ 4 MP used to be played with 2 city elimination. 5 cities is nothing in comparison, in the context of a game that can't be played with more than 6 players because there is no pitboss.

Yeah the 2-cities eliminate works so well that we played a lot of games with it didn't we?


EDIT: Just to be clear: I absolutly agree that the Occupation penalty is shit. It is a nuissance in SP and has absolutly no place in MP. But short of coding it out there is no way to save the situation.

[Krill]

Why is the defender forced to take peace just because the attacker wills it but he can't force it onto the attacker himself?

Because the loser is losing and if you get to the point where you lost 5 cities you should lose. ie, You made mistakes, and you should have made different decisions, like sign peace earlier, or not settle cities you couldn't defend.

Jesus, the idea that you can lose a war and still expect to force your will onto a person (in game) is just bizarre.

Do you lose a war if you lose 5 border cities which can easily happen the way some units can move?

I actually can't think of a single game, in RB Civ 4 history, where someone lost 5 cities in a single war and was still relevant. You will also note that in civ 4 it is only cities that you founded that counted toward the city elimination count.

So...yes, actually.

Civ 4 MP used to be played with 2 city elimination. 5 cities is nothing in comparison, in the context of a game that can't be played with more than 6 players because there is no pitboss.

Yeah the 2-cities eliminate works so well that we played a lot of games with it didn't we?

We don't need to, in civ 4, for various reasons: cities come out of revolt so the benefits of warfare remain available, however in civ 6 the benefits don't exist because of the occupation penalty (note, if the occupational penalty is removed, then such a system is not needed). Then there is the lack of settler scaling: if cities just magically disappear and settler costs keep on scaling the map actually empties of cities, and this reinforces conquest as a VC as there is no way to grow via conflict, so it takes longer to reach other VC, so there are more turns to fight and kill people. If production drops to 0%, the cities don't disappear in civ 6 and they can just be captured, and this problem doesn't occur. In fact, it promotes interaction between the remaining players to fight over the remaining cities.

However, the benefits of a city elimination mechanism are that it stops the losing player from throwing the game and disproporionately harming one player over another, and this is a complaint that has been leveled at various players in civ 4.