 |
| |
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:20
|
|
Although I've never had a "Culture Flip" problem in Civ3, I have had something like this happen to me in "Birth of the Federation" where a planet has revolted against my rule!! (Damn those insolent retches!) Before you say "what has that got to do with Civ3?!" In order to stop this situation, you had a number of "improvements" like martial law, re-education centres and the like. My point is that, aside from my obvious beef that culture should be just one of a number of factors behind a decision by a city to break away (as I have mentioned in previous posts!), you should be able to build improvements like these which both reduce the chance of flipping, and increase your assimilation rate of captured cities! The flip side, of course (no pun intended) is increased unhappiness, especially in neighbouring cities!
Oh, and for the record, I think your idea is absolutely brilliant Myrrdin!
Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kryten
|
|
Nottingham, central England
Dec 2001
time: 05:20
|
|
Please forgive me for repeating one of the posts that I put into another thread....
"....in all my history books I can find NO record of any Democracy EVER razing a city (Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were close, but even these cities still exist and were not 'wiped from the face of the earth'). Likewise, although Communist governments tend to kill a lot of their own people, I can find NO record of them EVER razing an entire city. The same with Monarchy; many cities sacked yes, but none razed and totally wiped out so that the city no longer exists.
I'd therefore think that only Despotic governments (such as the Nazis and Mongols) should be able to raze cities (I know that the Roman Republic razed Carthage and Corinth, but when you consider their harsh taxes and inhumane treatment of slaves....well, they may have called themselves a Republic, but to the people they conquered they were Despots! Certainly all the Roman emperors should be classed as despots, even the good ones!)."
So I agree with Myrddin's idea and think that it is a very good suggestion  
Last edited by Kryten on 19-06-2002 at 13:37
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jethro83
|
|
Newcastle, Australia
Mar 2002
time: 15:20
|
|
Yes. The above suggestion definitely makes more sense than what exists now.
But you should still be able to raze on top of that, only when you do raze, you get extra gold on top of what you gained from entering the city, and a worker for every pop point of the razed city. I've lost count of how many times the settler-puking expansionist enemies have plopped cities down in terrible places. I want to at least still be able to remove poorly placed cities, and relocate their people to a proper location.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zachriel
|
 |
U.S.A.
Dec 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kryten
Please forgive me for repeating one of the posts that I put into another thread....
"....in all my history books I can find NO record of any Democracy EVER razing a city (Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were close, but even these cities still exist and were not 'wiped from the face of the earth'). Likewise, although Communist governments tend to kill a lot of their own people, I can find NO record of them EVER razing an entire city. The same with Monarchy; many cities sacked yes, but none razed and totally wiped out so that the city no longer exists.
I'd therefore think that only Despotic governments (such as the Nazis and Mongols) should be able to raze cities (I know that the Roman Republic razed Carthage and Corinth, but when you consider their harsh taxes and inhumane treatment of slaves....well, they may have called themselves a Republic, but to the people they conquered they were Despots! Certainly all the Roman emperors should be classed as despots, even the good ones!)."
So I agree with Myrddin's idea and think that it is a very good suggestion |
Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were razed for all intents and purposes. However, I would agree that the nuked cities are different. Rome was certainly a republic at the time of the Punic Wars, though non-Romans had no say in the government, of course. America was certainly a democracy when they destroyed villages in Vietnam, though the Vietnamese had no say in the U.S. government. Rome was a monarchy when they razed Jerusalem. And tribal politics, not despotism, were in vogue when the barbarians destroyed Rome.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
YuMMz
|
|
I think razing a city with a population higher than 6 is too harsh altogether. I takes more than one tank assaulting a city to totally raze it. I also definitely am all for a middle of the line option like plundering. Instead I am forced to sit their and starve the city every turn until the population is at a little more reasonable level, and starving them just makes it a better chance that it will flip.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
frostycreep
|
|
Devon, England
May 2002
time: 05:20
|
|
I agree. We do need another option. Currently I raze every city i capture and replace it with one of my own. I do this because culture flipping really annoys me, so this is my only option. But im starting to feel kinda guilty when razing size 15 cities, so I for one would certainly welcome a third option.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kryten
|
|
Nottingham, central England
Dec 2001
time: 05:20
|
|
To Zachriel: it's unusual for you and I to be on opposite sides in an historical debate!  (ah, but I've now joined "the dark side" an am begining to question some Civ3 features  ):-
Vietnam: small villages razed = many, civilians killed by artillery/bombing = lots, major CITIES with 10,000 or more population massacred and razed to the ground so that they don't appear on modern maps = none.
Romans: as you know, unlike medieval monarchies, the Romans had no hereditary right of succession. ANYONE could be emperor, even the son of an emperor, but only if they had the army backing them up. Nowadays we call anyone who needs an army to stay in power a dictator or despot, not a king.
Barbarians: tribal leaders, who ruled for as long as they could hold power. Later this evolved into a hereditary monarchy. And in Civ3 the most primitive form of government is Despotism (Anarchy of course is the lack of a central government).
(....no further questions. Your witness. )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Myrddin, YuMMz, Ogie Oglethorpe:-
Here's an idea....why not have each individual unit perform it's own sacking & pillaging.
So when you first capture an enemy city, each unit that enters that city gains a handful of gold, destroys one building, and kills one population. Moving say 6 units into the city would gain 6 times the gold, destroy 6 buildings and kill 6 population. If the city had a population of 7 or more, then it would be severely sacked, but survive. If it had less than 7, then the troops have gone too far and the city would be destroyed. Really large cities would need a large army to raze them, but would still be sacked & pillaged.
(And I'll ignor for the moment the question of how long a democratic government would remain in power once public & world opinion discovers that they sanctioned the murder of hundred's of thousands of unarmed civilians....  )
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ShredZ
|
|
"The right cure is to really allow a large enough garrison to completely eliminate flipping. "
That sounds good, like: 15 units = no flip ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kryten
|
|
Nottingham, central England
Dec 2001
time: 05:20
|
|
Round 2:-
quote:
Originally posted by Zachriel
The U.S. depopulated entire regions of Vietnam and declared them free-fire zones. |
In Civ3 terms, small villages around cities are represented by irrigation/roads/mines, so pillaging these would represent 'depopulating the region'.
Nonetheless, "major CITIES with 10,000 or more population massacred and razed to the ground so that they don't appear on modern maps = none".
quote:
The Punic Wars predate the first Roman Emperor. |
Hmmm....ok, you've got me there. It WAS the Roman Republic that razed Carthage & Corinth  .
But they were a Republic, not a modern Democracy.
(I just think it's wrong that in Civ3 as a Democracy I can raze cities, massacre entire populations, starve my citizens, and do things that Hitler would have been proud of, all without worrying about the press/public opinion/opposition parties/the next election. Real life Presidents & Prime Ministers just don't have that freedom. Moral responsability and public image are as important as a strong economy in a Democracy, but that is not reflected in Civ3  )
ANYWAY.....what do you think of the idea that the number of civilians lost when a city is taken should depend apon the size of the conquering army .
Last edited by Kryten on 20-06-2002 at 04:32
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zachriel
|
|
U.S.A.
Dec 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kryten
In Civ3 terms, small villages around cities are represented by irrigation/roads/mines, so pillaging these would represent 'depopulating the region'. |
That seems like a reasonable interpretation.
quote:
(I just think it's wrong that in Civ3 as a Democracy I can raze cities, massacre entire populations, starve my citizens, and do things that Hitler would have been proud of, all without worrying about the press/public opinion/opposition parties/the next election. Real life Presidents & Prime Ministers just don't have that freedom. Moral responsability and public image are as important as a strong economy in a Democracy, but that is not reflected in Civ3 )
|
I agree that you should not be able to raze while in Democracy. And in Republic it should carry a large penalty, unless the victim had broken a treaty before it had expired.
quote:
ANYWAY.....what do you think of the idea that the number of civilians lost when a city is taken should depend apon the size of
the conquering army . |
Each military unit could get a pillage order. The more units, the more pillaging. Each civilian would get a potentially lethal counterattack, as well. Pillaging could kill the pop, destroy a building, create a worker which flees, a slave, or create a partisan. Enough partisans and enough damage to your units, and the city could flip.
Last edited by Zachriel on 20-06-2002 at 06:32
|
|
| |
|
|
|
YuMMz
|
|
Well I think razing in general is just too harsh for a major city (6+). It takes alot of effort and a hellavu alot of firepower to level a metropolis (pre-nuke). Not to mention even after massive attacks and bombing the city will usually still be there in some form and will grow again after a couple years of recovery. I think that once a city reaches 6 pop it should take multiple turns to raze it. For example a 9 pop city would take 10 turns to raze with one military unit, 5 turns with two and so on. This would require you to use more units to raze the city and would give the enemy empire a chance to save thier city. If razing stays the way it is, it will be extremely harsh in Multiplayer. Personally I really would like the chance to stop a player from razing my city if they take it. I mean a sneak attack could potential destroy your empire before you even get a turn!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jshelr
|
 |
pittsburgh
Apr 2002
time: 00:20
|
|
It would be news to General Sherman that no one has ever razed a major city. However, if he had stayed in Atlanta with his entire army, I can assure you that the local citizens wouldn't have killed all of them even if they did revolt. Maybe Scarlett could have lured a few of them to bed and Rhett could have done them in, but not the whole army. Garrisons reasonably large should safely hold cities until opposing armed forces throw them out. (BTW, there is a good movie on Hitler trying to raze Paris but being blocked by the incompetence / humanity of his garrison staff there. It's in black and white, however.)
Last edited by jshelr on 21-06-2002 at 16:12
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Coracle
|
|
"Poor planning"?? Like the Civ 3 program, no doubt.
Eight full strength veteran and elite samurai in a town of '5' should cower the civilians into subservience if not worship. But that town still flipped on me and the samurai vanished into thin air. The town did not even lose a population point or get put into disorder. That was with 1.21.
The reality is proximity to the phony "capital" is all too important. Enemy capitals jump from town to town when captured meaning there is little point in attacking a capital per se. The proximity of a huge army ready to raze (another dumb idea) the town if it flips is not considered by Firaxis.
Culture Flipping is non-historical, and absurd even in game terms.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-06-2002 02:24
|