Currently at 34/24 Settlements, At War, Needs To Be More Options To Offload Settlements

[Killer Rabbit]

In the modern age, ended up at war with 3 other civilizations. I was already near my max when it started. What am I supposed to do with all of these settlements? One of the civilizations has been wiped out so I can't even give them back. The other two civilizations I'm a turn or two out from being able to declare peace. I've razed a few small settlements incurring the penalties. The other settlements were going to take longer to raze than it would to wait to be able to negotiate peace.

The penalty for taking over other civilizations settlements kind of sucks when you're maxing out your own settlement count. The penalty for razing settlement sucks as it accumulates per settlement in all future wars. It also takes too long. I can't give away cities to other allies in the same war. I can't release them as independents. I really don't want to give them back, but it's like I have no other option.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3429298334

[DailyDoseOfStress]

Here is a PRO TIP. Learn to manage your CIV properly, and dont put yourself into a position where you are struggling to find happiness late game.

PRO TIP x 2, the cities you conquer, give them back in the peace deal.

[Killer Rabbit]

Originally posted by DDoS:

Here is a PRO TIP. Learn to manage your CIV properly, and dont put yourself into a position where you are struggling to find happiness late game.

I'm not struggling with happiness. Even at 34/24 I'm still running a balance of 209 and there are a bunch of happiness buildings that are unlocked and not built. I also have civics I can switch into if I was really desperate to max it out.

Originally posted by DDoS:

PRO TIP x 2, the cities you conquer, give them back in the peace deal.

You replied without reading. One of the civilizations has been wiped so it's a little impossible to do a peace deal much less give them back their settlements.

[DailyDoseOfStress]

TLDR: I usually read the title, comment and move on. If you don't want constructive criticism then don't post. Have a great day.

[wven]

Originally posted by DDoS:

TLDR: I usually read the title, comment and move on. If you don't want constructive criticism then don't post. Have a great day.

This might be the dumbest thing I have read on the internet in while...which is saying something

[Many-Named]

Originally posted by DDoS:

TLDR: I usually read the title, comment and move on. If you don't want constructive criticism then don't post. Have a great day.

lol what, just read the title and then comment?

[Judicant]

Why did you even take all those settlements? Unless you needed to for legacy points, there no reason you HAVE to take enemy settlements, playing defensively and peacing out after 10 turns is perfectly valid. Don’t play war in this civ title like previous ones.

There’s only a handful of non-legacy reasons I’ll take a city:

• It’s in a really good spot, and there’s a good benefit to taking it.
  
• If I let the AI keep that settlement, it’ll keep causing trouble (e.g. a forward settle they’ll use to stage attacks from)
  
• The AI is going too well, and I need to intentionally cripple them.

Tl;dr: Be more discerning, don’t just take everything because you can.

[JDPUK]

Originally posted by wven:

Originally posted by DDoS:

TLDR: I usually read the title, comment and move on. If you don't want constructive criticism then don't post. Have a great day.

This might be the dumbest thing I have read on the internet in while...which is saying something

Agree, hahaha

[Skull]

Going 10 over the settlement cap is your own fault. You don’t need to take everything and it’s mother in law when you war. I don’t know what victory condition you’re going for but there’s no way you can’t do it at your settlement cap.

[The Merchant Guild]

Originally posted by DDoS:

TLDR: I usually read the title, comment and move on. If you don't want constructive criticism then don't post. Have a great day.

actually went out of your way to comment twice on this before reading it, you need to grow u man i know these steam is for everyone but you need a reality check.

[DailyDoseOfStress]

So you wouldn't agree the title says allot in someones message? I have short version turned on for simplicity on what I think is relevant in the steam forums. I did read it afterwards but the title still suggests the clearer message.

Originally posted by JDPUK:

Originally posted by wven:

This might be the dumbest thing I have read on the internet in while...which is saying something

Agree, hahaha

[DailyDoseOfStress]

LOL?

Originally posted by The Merchant Guild:

Originally posted by DDoS:

TLDR: I usually read the title, comment and move on. If you don't want constructive criticism then don't post. Have a great day.

actually went out of your way to comment twice on this before reading it, you need to grow u man i know these steam is for everyone but you need a reality check.

[Killer Rabbit]

Originally posted by Judicant:

Why did you even take all those settlements? Unless you needed to for legacy points, there no reason you HAVE to take enemy settlements, playing defensively and peacing out after 10 turns is perfectly valid. Don’t play war in this civ title like previous ones.

Because I could take them?

If I'm at war, why wouldn't I want to take their settlements away and cripple their economic output? I don't want the enemy to keep their settlements and keep building units to wage war. But to your point, Civ 7 is different.

To your questions of why...

Tecumseh and I have been at odds throughout the game. He and Catherine attacked me in Antiquity and I ended up taking a number of their cities. They've been mad at me since. Tecumseh has settlements that blocked in a couple of ports and owns island settlements that blocks sea traffic down the center, requiring sailing the extreme north or south. He often refuses to open borders. This seemed like a perfect time to resolve that issue.

Catherine kept building tiny settlements between mine, capturing resources that my settlements could have eventually expanded out to and captured. Those tiny settlements I razed, but seems a steep penalty to remove a 5 pop settlement. I wiped her out completely and so now I have 4 settlements I can't peace out of.

At some point, I was just like I'm already this deep over the limit that I'm going to see how far I can go before I feel the negative affects of being over the limit.

[Killer Rabbit]

I'd like to see more options for dealing with captured settlements.

- Being able to make settelements independent.
- Being able to transfer ownership of a settlement.
- Being able to trade settlements.
- When capturing a settlement, have the option of transferring it to an ally in the same war. Especially when it's surrounded by that ally's settlements.
- Remove the -1 penalty when razing low pop settlements. Why should a 5 pop settlement have the ame penalty as a 40 pop settlement?
- Have an option to raze the settlement but turn the pop into migrants returned to the original owner in exchange for a lower / temporary penalty?
- Maybe reduce the time to make peace when the number of settlements captured is greater than 50%? "Hey I'd like to end this war and return the half of your country that you lost back to you, but the game rules require we remain at war for another 4-6 turns."

[taipeiperson//allahtea]

The game actively discourages you from fighting wars, which is hilarious because the commander was such a highly touted feature

[Rudel]

Isn't happiness capping at -35 for cities? Just take the whole world,mit doesn't really matter.