 |
| |
|
|
Harlan
|
|
Berkeley, CA, USA
Aug 2005
time: 21:15
|
|
On one hand this feature is neat, on the other hand I don't like it. Its nice to have another option on conquering a city, but completely destroying a city seems to go too far.
What would be much better would be to have the raze option destroy a random bunch of buildings, and kill a good amount of population as your army runs amok, but leave the city still standing as a burned wreck of its former self, instead of completely destroying it. You'd get a good chunk of gold for all the buildings you destroyed. Plus now you can create culture buildings that were already built and would have yielded you no culture points, and you're able to have your citizens grow faster from the smaller city.
Having a large city get completely destroyed is completely unrealistic IMHO. It just never happened in history, unless the city was razed multiple times or small to begin with. The reason is that some of the city had always fled to the countryside, and when things settled down a few weeks or months later, they'd drift back to the city and it would go on. Take the destruction of Carthage. Completely "destroyed" for a moment, but it never disappeared from the map, and grew again to be a large city under Roman control, with the same name.
The Mongols were other great city destroyers, often killing 50% of more of a city's population, but they also almost never completely destroyed them. Balkh is the only large city I can think of that they completely destroyed, and that took several razings after they rebelled. The others always bounced back, even when every single man, woman and child was killed, again because of the fleeing to the countryside factor.
Realism is one thing, I also think less than complete destruction of a city is better gameplay and more fun. Lets say you're a looting barbarian civ like the Vikings. You don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Instead the strategy is to weaken towns, have fun looting them, then let them bounce back so after some time you can go in and do it all over again (once weakened, they're less able to successfully defend themselves the next time, so you can come back and "harvest" the city from time to time). If razing is less than total destruction, than this could be a viable game strategy.
Also, I think challenges make a good game. Completely destroying a city completely removes the challenge of having to deal with a hostile population at all. Just as completely overrunning a weak enemy may be fun at first but quickly becomes boring, so is conquest without any management consequences (assuming you're willing to completely ruin your reputation).
Conclusion: razing is a great idea, but please tone it down from complete destruction! This way, if you want to completely destroy a city you can still do it - just leave it undefended and raze it several times.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
introvert
|
|
Adelaide, Australia
Aug 2001
time: 14:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by UberKruX
they would drag it over to the nearest city you silly goose. |
No. It would be destroyed, just as happens in Civ or CivII when a city with a wonder is destroyed. The wonder goes with it.
Indestructible wonders probably means they can't be sold (as in Civ & CivII) and can't be destroyed by attacks of any sort. Or such is my guess.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
manofthehour
|
|
here the problem with unlimited razing. Someone could just hit one city with everything they have. For example in one turn 20 offensive unites attack one city. So they take the city and then burn it to the ground. Imagen that as a sneak attack. Your at peace and than one turn later you are missing a size 20 city. An attack that you could never recover from.
That is why there needs to be a cap around 12. And the larger the city the more punishment every dishes out.
One more point. If they destory a city of yours and than 2 get revenge you destory one of theres you should be punished less.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Blake
|
 |
Brainfallocatione
Oct 2000
time: 17:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by manofthehour
One more point. If they destory a city of yours and than 2 get revenge you destory one of theres you should be punished less. |
Nah, then the avenging faction would be no better than the original offender. Altough prehaps as more cities are razed on a global basis the penalty gets reduced for everyone, basically as people get used to the concept of cities being trashed they get resigned to it, and no longer put up such a fuss.
What I think is there should be a pillage city option, the invading army enters the city, pillages it (destroying a couple of pop points, some infrastructure, and gets cash $$$ value of what they destroyed), then that city becomes unusable for a number of turns (say for 10 or 20 turns it suffers 0 pop growth, and produces no production).
This city can be pillaged again, but with the following penalties:
Only once per turn.
No loot cash (everything which wasn't bolted down was stolen the first time round)
One fifth of the population tries to escape, each military unit in the base can prevent 1 unit of population escaping.
Partisans are generated in surronding tiles, the number depending on city population and garrison levels.
For example:
A size 21 city garrisoned by 3 enemy military units is pillaged.
3 population points are controlled by the garrisons
Of the remaining 18, 4 escape.
These 4 create 2 partisans outside the base and 3 population points which are randomly allocated to other bases in the beseiged nation.
17 population remains, of which 3 are executed, leaving a size 14 city.
Overall: 3 population points are killed, 1 is converted to two partisans, and 3 escape to other cities.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Harlan
|
|
Berkeley, CA, USA
Aug 2005
time: 21:15
|
|
"modern cities have been destroyed: Stalingrad, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, that small city the Nazis destroyed, etc. But those have really been rebuilt"
That's not even true. All those cities continued to exist, and at no time had 0 population (not to deny the horror of the Japanese victims, but the bombs dropped on those Japanese cities were small potatoes compared to the bombs today). Perhaps the only city in modern times to really go down to 0 population is Phnom Penh in Cambodia, under the Khmer Rouge. Yet even there most of the infrastructure remained, so it bounced back quickly after the insane Khmer Rouge lost power.
Blake,
We're thinking on similar lines, but I think my solution is simpler: on conquering a city you can pillage it, which means its pop goes down by 4 to 6, it loses most of its buildings, and you get a big amount of gold (more gold the more valuable buildings destroyed). If the city is only size 4 or so, it probably disappears, otherwise it takes more pillagings to destroy the city.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dainbramaged13
|
|
Dumbass
Mar 2000
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by PGM
Lose the attitude kid. If they announced Great Wonders as non-destructible, and introduced us to the city-razing concept a couple of days ago, I think some questions are in order. They will at least have to admit that the concept of Great Wonders as being indestructible is wrong, restrict the use of the razing option, or whatever. Either way, I believe that overlooking game items is not the way to go. At least not for those of us who never played the game, because Mr. dainbramaged13 has already obviously had the pleasure to do so. I love it when enlightened people share their knowledge on these types of questions with a mere peasant... (*humbly takes a bow*) |
sorry it just seemed really obvious to me.. i was a little harsh though. sorry
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-09-2001 21:30
im sorry but hello! of course the wonder will be gone! what else would it DO! I hate it when peopel ask these types of questions...
|