Conquer city missions tend to be too demanding

[Thrake]

city conquest.png (2.57 MiB) Viewed 328 times

Here's an exemple: I'm at peace with a major and I am requested to:
- get ready with full blown war against a human player (setup logistics, build up an army I currently don't have because this is turn 29)
- actually declare war soon, instead of pursuing more realistic short term goals, such as building up an economy or racing for minors. Often times it also means 30+ turns at war because there is rarely just the one city to conquer.
- take the capital within 7 turns. In an ideal situation I would need at least one turn of strategic movement (I don't have the logistics to do it currently), 1 turn to build up readiness, which would leave me with 5 turns to take a city 7 hex away. In practice I would need an extra 2 or 3 more turns of preparation to actually recruit recruits and get some OHQ out. The distance is relatively small so it may be achievable in ideal circumstances here, would it not be a player city.

In that case I'm "lucky" as I don't have good relations with the major but factions don't mind demanding to go to war with players with whom I have a victory pact. There's even a demand to go to war "only". That's very demanding to get foreign affairs dictated randomly, but at least it's easy to do as long as I'm ready to deal with the consequences (ie. planned to do it in the near future anyway) and declaring a bit earlier than otherwise planned is acceptable.

This is to compare to demands such as build a level or two of mines/private assets/BP assets, recruit another 3 leaders etc. I basicly never fail these and they are often logic short term goals that would be achieved anyway.

I suggest the following changes:
- remove this demand against majors. instead it would be go to war, or if already at war, conquer city could happen, although a few more turns would make it more acceptable. The current implementation could stay to conquer minor cities.
- demanding to go to war against majors with major ongoing cooperation should not happen. This would be level 2+ of economic treaty or any level of military or research treaties.
- there could be a new demand to reduce (or increase) treaty levels instead although perhaps at the exclusion of victory pacts. If there's no treaties then instead it would be a demand for war.
- demands that request a change in diplomatic relationships (treaty levels, war status) should check that this isn't gamed and ignored the next turn (declare war and sign peace the following turn,...).
- add a make peace demand; this is after all something that some parties should want.

[Xmudder]

They also don't give you enough time, I fail most conquer city missions because they are too far away and I can't get there in time.

[fibol]

Agree, conquer city missions should have their duration doubled. Often it'd take me about 8 turns just to walk there even if I didn't encounter any resistance.

[Bellrock]

Thank you for bring this one up!

I find most early game missions are too unrealistic to accomplish and therefore, have to decline them. It’s just not the Conquer city demands either, its’ most of them in general.

The big problem is the given turns to accomplish, and the distance from my location make it impossible to accomplish. You simply can’t build the logistics needed to support the demand at this point in the game. This in part, due to turns required to build said logistics, but the additional need to develop and gather the metal and IP necessary to build the said logistics. Then there are military units needed and all metal and IP these units require. It’s typically not possible at the start of the game, give the game mechanics as they are.