|
Kryten
|
|
Nottingham, central England
Dec 2001
time: 05:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Coracle
The proximity of a huge army ready to raze (another dumb idea) the town if it flips is not considered by Firaxis. |
....er....the nearby presence of the mighty Roman legions was not enough to stop the jews of Jerusalem from rebelling, even though their cause was hopeless, and have their city severely sacked by emperor Vespasian's son Titus in 70 AD. Nor was it enough to stop them from rebelling AGAIN in 132 AD, and this time have the city razed by the emperor Hadrian, who had it rebuilt as a pagan city in which no jews were allowed to enter by law.
The nearby presence of a mighty army may sound impressive to 21st century armchair theoreticians, but in reality some 'cultural-identities' run very, very deep!
(Mind you, I DO agree that vanishing garrisons and other things about 'culture-flipping' need to be IMPROVED but not REMOVED from the game. That's why I'd like to see eliminated civilizations rebelling back into existance and empires decline and fall....but that's a subject for another thread  )
Getting back to the original purpose of THIS thread....if people like and accept the idea that the number of civilians lost when a city is first captured should depend apon the number of units of the conquering army that enters the city, then I have a question;
should the sacking of a city be compulsory due to the traditional licentiousness of victorious troops, OR, should the player have the right to say to their ravenous Roman legionaries and Mongol horse archers "Now then chaps, I don't want anybody to molest the nice people of this fair city"?
Any thoughts?
Last edited by Kryten on 21-06-2002 at 18:56
|
21-06-2002 18:45
|
|