 |
| |
|
|
Moraelin
|
|
Personally I just avoid thinking of it as real, in an attempt to keep whatever sanity (or "humanity" if you've played White Wolf games ) I have left.
It's sort of weird. I can play violent games, but somehow I think of those enemies as "targets" or "npc's", never as people. And given half a choice, I'll prefer a peaceful game like Tropico or (don't laugh) Creatures 3 or The Sims.
Sometimes it's not easy to ignore it, though. I tend to take city building or empire building games more seriously, for some reason. I try to make my people happy. I try to avoid wars. I get pissed off when the AI forces me into a war. And I'll want to hurt it when it razes one of my cities.
There was only one Civ 3 game where I've actually started a war myself, more to see what it's like. I've wiped out the mighty Iroquois, just because they and the Aztecs had all the Silk squares. Then I stopped and thought about it. And I felt like a mutant rat. I mean, for f-word's sake, some million people died... for SILKS? Not even oil or uranium. Silks. I'm a monster.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Calorman
|
|
I think the razing of cities is terrible. Even a small town has a population of more than 10 000. Totally wiping out the city should rank as an atrocity on par with nuclear attacks.
Unfortunately as people have pointed out this probably wouldn't work very well with the city revolt mess being the way it is. Until Firaxis 'fix' it so that large cities can be captured and held without the sudden loss of an army, razing cities is a necessary option.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Badtz Maru
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by oriel94
Is there some way of editing the game with the game editor so that razing makes the other civs mad at you? |
I read in the manual somewhere that razing a city does have a negative effect on how other civs see you, but it's not as pronounced as nuking a city.
I don't see razing a city as killing everyone in it, I believe it's just destroying the infrastructure of the city and driving the population into the wilderness. There would of course be lots of people dying when this happened, but it's not the same as genocide.
I'd like to see some further consequences for razing in future Civ games. For instance, I'd like some way of seeing the population of the squares that don't have a city built on them but are settled by that civilization. Enemy troops moving through would displace these people, possibly leading to overcrowding in neighboring squares. Razing a city would cause the population to rise drastically in the neighboring squares and spread further as the turns go by, as the wave of refugees spreads out. This could lead to the population in neighboring cities going up, which could be a good or bad thing (bad if the city can't afford it or the refugees are fleeing to a city of another civilization, raising it's foreign population).
Showing non-city population would make the early game more realistic, too. You could expand culturally before encountering any neighboring civs, as the populated squares near your cultural border would have a chance of building cities of their own and joining your civilization.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nato
|
 |
West Unite
Aug 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
Razing was a great addition to civ, and a good idea.
However, since I don't enjoy pretending I'm Gengis or Attila or Hitler or someone, I never ever raze cities. Thats just not fun to me ... for entertainment I like to pretend I'm the good guys. Even when I'm conquering a lot, I want to be a nice conqueror (ha ha).
I tried pretending razing wasn't so bad, but who was I kidding. If you "get into" the game at all, razing is just what it is, killing millions of civilians.
What I don't like is that Civ3 really encourages you to raze. Even with a large cultural lead, rush building temples, and all that (which yes I do), it is much more efficient to raze. But I just can't enjoy pretending I'm this invading holocaust.
Thats why I really like my idea of having units in defecting cities removed to your territory instead of deleted. Razing wouldn't be such an almost necesity then.
I do agree that it should be harder not to be a razing monster, and to try to be "civil". I just think it would be funner if not razing was a little more feasible.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Moraelin
|
|
Actually, IMHO razing should be LESS of an option.
Let's take WW2. While the nazis did plan to exterminate the Polish race, the plan was to do it until 1975. Yes, over a whole 35 years. NOT to just raze cities as they come to them.
Why? Because when you push people TOO hard, you get... Warsaw.
What do you think you get when you try exterminating a 1 million people city, with a 20,000 men division. Now think of what happens if you try to do it with some 1000 archers. Right. They will NOT just line up for the slaughter. They'll fight back.
People may accept "hey, they took another neighbour to the death camps, but maybe it won't be me next." Out of sheer fear for their lives. MAYBE if I obey, I'll survive. But when it's sure I WILL be next, for sure, then that fear works the other way around. I have to fight or I'm dead. I'll fight.
IMHO in both cases, both when you try to raze a city AND when they want to culturally deffect, there should be a revolt. A fight between armed civilians and your troops. They'll count as conscripts, but they WILL fight your troops. In a city. You might still win, or you may lose some (or all) of your troops in the fight.
That way, razing in the middle of a war would be less of an attractive option. When you might lose some units if you try to raze, then you might save them for the fight instead. And conversely, knowing you may get to keep the city even when it tries to deffect, you might as well try to keep it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlotteCivver
|
|
I think what is really missing is a size limit for razing.
I can see Ghengis Khan razing a city of size 3. But think of how much easier Hitler's job would have been if he could have just razed Paris. The problem is, Paris is a bloody big place. You cannot just make it not exist anymore.
My suggestion would be that razing should be impossible for a city above size 6.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Moraelin
|
|
Well, yes, but the point is that:
A) At the time of surrender, the population was pretty low, compared to the might of the Roman army. Not quite the equivalent of 1 impi unit razing a size 12 city.
B) They didn't slaughter the population, they took them as slaves. In game terms, that's the equivalent of turning them into workers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Thomas Paine
|
|
I've never had a major problem with controlling occupied cities. Until now.
Currently I'm in the middle of a game where I have fallen behind in culture points. The game placed my Germans in an isolated, barren, and somewhat dinky little island, which made for a rough start. I decided to stick it out, just for the hell of it.
Fast forward five millennia. 1000 A.D., and the nasty Egyptians have made it more than clear that the Teutonic barbarians (me) will not be tolerated on their Pharaoh's soil. Naturally my knights plow effortlessly through their cities; but will the citizenry capitulate? Never! Every Egyptian city I capture reverts back almost immediately, rush-built temples not withstanding.
Why? It's all in my advisor's report. "The Egyptians are not impressed with our culture."
It is now 2010 A.D. There are still thriving cities in Egypt, cities with names like Nuremburg and Bonn, where once stood proud Thebes and Memphis. And the proud culture of Pharaoh, with his Colossus and Sistine Chapel? Ravaged! Erased! Viciously torn forever from the pages of history! The price for unholy pride.
Later the Greeks paid the same price. Purged. Eradicated. Not one column standing.
At the game's onset, I hadn't anticipated becoming the scourge of the Civilized World. It was a mantle thrust upon me by circumstance. Much like Attila and the Khan, my people's native soil was poor. No iron, no horses, no saltpeter. It was kill or be killed. In this game, things got brutal. I didn't care for it, but razing cities became a German thing. By the Industrial Age, I had become quite used to slaughtering millions; genocide became businesslike, precise, disciplined. Germanic. And necessary.
The moral of the story: If you loathe to raze others, raise a culture that others will love. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Marquis de Sodaq
|
 |
... no, a Marquis.
Jul 2000
time: 23:17
|
|
To those of you who wish to be kinder, gentler oppressors : City razing results in the creation of workers, each worth a population point. You raze a size 6 city, you get 2 workers. What happens to the other 4? Some die, others flee. That's what refugees are. So no, you didn't just kill the entire population, only a third of it. 
In game terms, what happens to the culture points of the city? I imagine the previous ruling civ keeps all the points it collected since settlement. Do the current points just start adding to your own civ's total?
I only raze a city if...
1. I cannot defend it from counterattack, or
2. the AI settled in such a lame spot that it isn't worth keeping.
I jog in a pile of workers to make the majority of the citizens of my nationality. I've yet to lose one. [crosses fingers...] Altho I haven't invaded a fully settled foreign continent yet, either.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FNBrown
|
 |
of the Sierra Nevada foothills
Dec 2001
time: 21:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq
I only raze a city if...
1. I cannot defend it from counterattack, or
2. the AI settled in such a lame spot that it isn't worth keeping.
|
I adhere to the same policy. Most cities are worth more standing than they are as smoldering piles of ash, unless they're completely poorly located. I've razed cities on three kinds of occassions:
1. I'm attacking an opponent who has a ton of reinforcements nearby. Losing the city may have negative tactical implications, and always has negative financial ones. I hate how a percentage of your treasury is distributed across all cities - including the newly conquered ones. I mean, as if the first thing I'm going to do is cart a truckload of cash into a war zone.
2. The AI has put its cities too close together, especially if my objective is conquest of an entire region. If all I'm doing is establishing a tactical base of operations in a foreign country, or flexing a little muscle, I usually don't mind being crowded, but if I'm trying to capture a continent, I think long-term, and if the cities are too packed together, I'm going to thin them out a bit.
3. The AI missed an obviously superior nearby location for the city. This happened just once. Where there's a narrow land bridge between continents, putting the city on the "bridge" square makes it a convenient canal, and can make naval travel much more efficient. Last time I conquered Germany, they had missed the "canal" square by one, so I razed the city, and re-settled where it suited my needs better.
As for the moral implications of razing a city, well, I personally can't wait until I can play a game long enough to get ICBM's and start nuking them. But, hey... that's just me. ;-)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dainbramaged13
|
|
Dumbass
Mar 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
ive never razed a city
i always win by domination, military, and sometimes culture. I do the 'surgical strike' type of attacks and take out many cities quickly, in a couple of turns, usually with many fast units. I also always keep a high culture rating at home, so i dont usually have to worry about cultural defection. Therfore i never raze a city and i find it much easier to do that than to rze and rebuild with settlers... after all they cost 2 pops a pop! ( :-D )
i build a big base through early conquering, then stay to myself for 300-700 years, depending on how long it took me to conquer, and then kill the remaining civs one at a time
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grrr
|
 |
of Hamilton, New-Zealand.
Dec 2000
time: 18:17
|
|
I love razing cities, but I hate the enemy doing it.
For instance I was playing against a friend and he nuked and razed ROME in the year 1980AD, as an obvious result, my Civ fell apart, mainly due to the loss of about 10 wonders.
Methinks a solution to this problem would be NEGATIVE culture. eg if I raze Delhi which has a cultural value to the Indians of 2562, I should lose say 1281 culture points, and this will definately prevent razing. Personally I only raze cities in stupid places, like glaciers. Another point, it should be possible to raze cities at any time. I would find it useful to be able to raze my own cities if under attack and 99% likely to be taken over.
Another useful thing would be an ETHNIC CLEANSING order for military units. OK, I am not the new hitler. But it would be nice.
Last edited by Grrr on 06-01-2002 at 05:46
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GeneralTacticus
|
 |
of Melbourne, Australia
Dec 2001
time: 15:17
|
|
I like the idea of having the citizens of a city fight back when you try to raze it. I think that it should be something like this:
Every two citizens is counts as the most recently obsolete draft unit for the defending civ (even if they don't have drafting), so when they've got musket it's pikemen, rifles it's muskets, etc. When you try to raze the city, you fight them. Every two of those units you kill, the city loses a pop point. Once you've killed all the defenders, you raze whatever's left. And I think that the same mechanism should apply when the city tries to defect, only you don't burn everything afterwards, and at some point they should give in.
I think also if you attack a city, there should a somewhat randomised system, with one of each of these 'armed citizens' joining the fight per three or four pop points. That would mean that it would be even tougher just to take big cities, not only to hold them.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-12-2001 03:07
, making razing cities so easy and preferable to keeping.
|