 |
|
brianshapiro
|
|
Berkeley
Nov 2001 time: 21:22
|
|
The second screenshot on the civ3.com page shows ruins of destroyed cities
|
|
|  |
 |
|
whosurdaddy
|
|
New York
Jun 2001 time: 00:22
|
|
maybe they should provide a chance for the previous owner to repopulate the city or somethin???
After all, the ability for an invader to erase a huge city that had existed for millenia in a single turn is a bit harsh, isnt it?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
hr_oskar
|
|
Those ruins are interesting, and quite cool... I suppose the tiles can't be used until the workers clear them up (???)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lord_Davinator
|
|
Kathmandu
Nov 2000 time: 10:52
|
|
interesting... should let the original owner... or the one with higher culture to esb. a city with much more ease
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Darkworld Ark
|
|
of the Capitalists
May 2002 time: 05:22
|
|
I think it'd be cool if by repopulating a ruin, you could get a wonder that was built in the city before it was destroyed.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
JtheJackal
|
|
The ruins should give you gold. They are ruins and what better way to use them but for tourists?
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Adagio

|
|
quote: Originally posted by JtheJackal
The ruins should give you gold. They are ruins and what better way to use them but for tourists? |
I agree, though the tourism shouldn't work before late industrial, early modern, but should give lots of money...and maybe also some culture...This gives a nice thing to think about...should you let the ruins stay (Without getting anything from them), or should you just raze the ruins, to get some mines or irrigation...
The older the ruins is (And the bigger the city was), the more gold per turn you'll get...
Trying to make a nice formula: (For a size 12 city)
Less than 500 years since destruction
+2 gpt + 2 cpt
If it is more than 500 years since destruction:
5 gpt + 5 cpt
If more than 2000 years since destruction:
20 gpt + 20 cpt
For each more/less population point, just add/reduce 8% (Size 6 only gives 50%, while a size 24 gives 200%)
Last edited by Adagio on 02-09-2002 at 17:33
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
brianshapiro
|
|
Berkeley
Nov 2001 time: 21:22
|
|
XOR: Its not unrealistic, in the middle ages peope tore apart roman cities and statues to use the stone for castles this is why much of the ruins in rome are so damaged and the original sculptural works are missing
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Andrew_Jay
|
 |
St. John's, NF
Aug 2001 time: 01:52
|
|
That's true Shapiro, it wasn't until the mid 1800's or so I think before people stopped chopping up old ruins. Stonehenge was mostly carted away to build bridges.
Last edited by Andrew_Jay on 03-09-2002 at 18:24
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jethro83
|
|
Newcastle, Australia
Mar 2002 time: 15:22
|
|
I definitely like the idea of rebuilding ruined cities. It happened many times throughout history (one example being that the Romans razed Carthage and later rebuilt near the ruins there)
If you were to rebuild a ruined city, you couldn't have all the improvements that the city had. I think that there should be some of the original improvements, and the chance of them surviving could depend on the type. Cultural buildings (temples, libraries, etc.) could have no chance of surviving. Aqueducts, walls, and Coastal Forts should have very little chance of still standing when the ruins are repopulated. Commercial buildings (markets, banks, harbours, etc. and courthouses could have a greater chance of surviving.
Also, wonders should be returned to existance, not with their original effect, but to increase commerce in the city (through tourism). For example, say the French build the Oracle in Orleans, and the Chinese raze the city. The Chinese should them be able to rebuild the ruins, and instead of the doubled effect of temples (assuming that this is at a pre-theology time), it should increase commerce output in the city instead, and not be able to generate any culture, or contribute to a culture flip of the city back to the French.
Its not like the Pyramids are actually doing anything for the modern Egyptian state except for drawing in extra tourist cash.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Firebird
|
|
In the real world only one of the ancient wonders are still standing (the Pyramids) and I think it is fair that a wonder in a city being razed will be destroyed too. But it would perhaps be ok for some wonders (f.ex. the UN or the Internet) to be rebuilt.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Traelin
|
|
Miami, FL, US
Nov 2001 time: 00:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Caliban
I'd say you can just send a worker into the ruins to repopulate them. So you save the construction costs for a settler... |
That's a cool idea, and makes sense too. I mean it's not like they're breaking completely new ground.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Traelin
|
|
Miami, FL, US
Nov 2001 time: 00:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by XOR
Taking building materials from destroyed town is unrealistic and a bad idea. Repopulating and having the same city back again is much more realistic and has historicly happenned many many many times. So much that some cities have been build on top of their previous ruins and now there remain like, sometimes up to 7 layers of different eras of the city buried under some old cities. A defensive bonus similar to forts/fortresses would be good. |
I complete agree. The whole tourism idea is stretching it a bit IMHO.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22. Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|