Realms Beyond Balance Mod for Civ6

[Krill]

Also to be clear, I would not suggest a linear -20% output if I were designing a whole new system. I would go without something that didn't kick in until you lost a couple of cities, and then had multiple components to both force a losing defender to want to sue for peace and that would make it better for an attacker to not want to take over a player in a single war. But if the question is how to work around the occupational penalty system, which is brutal to an attacker by essentially removing the profit from attack until a defender is killed, any counter system has to offer that exact outcome as the "or else" if they don't settle for peace.

[T-hawk]

to both force a losing defender to want to sue for peace and that would make it better for an attacker to not want to take over a player in a single war.

What exactly are you trying to make happen here? I honestly can't figure out what you're trying for -- you're saying that losing 2 or 5 cities is a lost game, but you're also trying to force that losing defender into peace to keep playing?

[Krill]

I'm suggesting a route to allow conquest of cities to be an economically viable option: the losing defender can either accept peace, which removes the occupation penalty, or die in some fashion, to some number of players, with the cities going to whomever is able to take part in the conquest, so the cities come out of occupation on the death.

[Grotsnot]

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

I honestly don't understand why this is a problem. If you don't want spite thrown your way, develop domestically until your strength is properly overwhelming. Why do we need to accelerate snowballing?

Sure, occupation penalty is annoying. But it seems just as frustrating for a good suckerpunch to be all it takes to score an elimination. Civ 6 already lacks whipping & drafting, so how exactly is one supposed to eat the initial 20-40% penalty and not inevitably circle the drain?

We shall not fight on the beaches, we shall not fight on the landing grounds, we shall not fight in the fields nor in the streets, we shall not fight in the hills; we may as well just surrender

(Take all this with the mountain of salt that I'm a naive idealist who implausibly thinks peacing out for <100% Warscore is possible and desirable. And that playing on without a chance at 1st can still be fun)

[Krill]

I wholeheartedly agree, no one should just role over and give up. I'm talking about a defender literally emptying cities to throw everything at one attacker, which has occured. It still comes up now and then, but nothing like it used to. It's really just an academic point about the benefits of such a mechanism.

[Cornflakes]

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.

I can think of a game PB9 where I eliminated Azza and then promptly lost the entire conquests. But I managed to claw back into contention, before succumbing to the RL horrors of modern-era stack-of-doom warfare. Although now as I think back I'm not sure how many self-founded cities I lost. Maybe I just lost conquered cities. Screenshot are sadly dead

[Krill]

Yeah, that's where all those rules about what counts as a loss matters. This whole occupation mechanism ends up being overly complicated. Can it work? Sure. Can it be understandable? Yes, with a bit of effort. Is it worth it? I seriously doubt it for civ 6, unless you want to put in as much effort as we have with RtR if not more.

[MJW (ya that one)]

PBEM #1? I'm sure Ruff_Hi lost at least five cities in that game. Also, Rego would have won if he counted tiles properly and would have lost far more than five cities.

PBEM 18 was a solo TBS win because the artist would have just walked in and gold would have been offered for it anyway if he had been aware of his illegal move.

[Alhazard]

I think Krills solution is bad but proposing it at least starts some discussion. Maybe a rework of the loyalty system allows conquerred cities to overcome the occupational penalty?

[Bacchus]

Is there really no way to set occupation penalties to 0, without removing the status itself?

Also, what DOES happen with Loyalty under occupation?