 |
|  |
 |
|
red_jon
|
 |
Uni of Wales Swansea
Oct 2000 time: 05:15
|
|
I had a good idea for destroying cities. When you order a city to be destroyed, one population point should be destroyed per turn. This means that small cities can be easily eradicated, but large cities will take ages to destroy and so the enemy may have a chance to reclaim the city before it is wiped out.
There should be no limit on the city size that can be eradicated - New York could be destroyed, but it would take a very long time.
For example, the Aztecs conquer Paris, which is size 23. It takes the French 12 turns ro recapture the city, by which time it has been rediced to 11. Whilst a city is being 'genocided', it should not grow, nor build things, produce taxes or science.
With this feature, if you knew you could not hold on to an enemy city for a long time, you could at least damage it.
What do you lot think?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
dainbramaged13
|
|
Dumbass
Mar 2000 time: 00:15
|
|
supposedly, once you take over a city, you can either destroy it or take it over, (see news item) i like your idea better, where it actualy takes a certain number of turns to eradicate it. Not so slowly though.. maybe 3-5 pop points per turn
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Christantine The Great
|
|
Massachusetts
Jun 2000 time: 00:15
|
|
A turn is approx. a year, right? Would it take decades to wipe out a city with 1,000,000 citizens? I don't think so. If you really want to you can just line them out and kill them. Small groups of resistance fighters do not make a single population point. Maybe a one turn delay between a city being wiped off the map so the owners have a slim chance of getting it back at best.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999 time: 05:15
|
|
Genoside might be tough to do during fighting. A unit taking a city might have other things on its plate than killing farmer John, things like defending the city from counterattacks. In other words, no reducing or disbanding cities if there is still a unit of that cities nationality or an allied nationality adjacent.
However, the population might start fleeing, swelling nearby cities...and they might not be such happy citezens either. Call em 'refugee citizen points' or something. Takes a while to assimilate them and they are more prone to unrest, eat but don't work, that sort of thing.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
d_dudy
|
|
i can't believe he came up with a serious and good idea but he did. i think he's completely right it should take many turns to destroy a large city and its improvements
|
|
|  |
 |
|
dainbramaged13
|
|
Dumbass
Mar 2000 time: 00:15
|
|
quote: Everybody who says that you should be able to do this and that in a turn because its a year is plain stupid and doesnt know **** about civ.
Is it realistic that armor moves 3 squares in a year?
Is it realistic that it takes 20 years for a modern ship to move around the world?
No, but its fun.
Btw, i dont think you should be able to destroy cities in a turn. the gameplay in especially multiplayer but also singleplayer would suffer. |
this was quoted form a post by donjoel in the 'city capture options' forum. Although he says it a bit harshly, I agree with him cmplete ly.
Last edited by dainbramaged13 on 23-09-2001 at 18:22
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Pembleton
|
|
Cyberspace
Apr 1999 time: 23:15
|
|
quote: Originally posted by red_jon
Perhaps the improvement 'concentration camps' could speed the process up, say by having 2 population points die per unit.
|
Is there any way we can killfile members of this forum? Why do I have to subject myself to such stupidity?
|
|
|  |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|