I would like to see cities burn for at least 2 turns, when the decision is made to raze them. for them to instantly turn to rubble is blande and it dosent have a devestating impact nor an everlasting impression.

http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/greatfire.jpg

Awesome idea! I'd love it if they added this!

Maybe if the razed city burned for 3-5 turns, and all imediate tiles in the radius. While burning, you could not settle or use any of these tiles. Units should still be able the move through the burning tiles however.

Or maybe in stead of so many turns, the city would burn down 1-3 citizens until it reaches zero, then the ruble would appear. Therefor a large city would take longer to burn down.

what??? 3-5 turns??? you mean a city that's burning to 3-5 years.....?

One citizen drop per military unit(hehehehe) per turn along with burning graphics, including inside the 'city view'. Finally a city view I would enjoy. :satan:

I'd like to see some motivations not to burn cities but not to have them go on for several turns.

Maybe have the razing take 2 turns, and you need to keep at least one military unit there to 'keep the fires going.'

Considering the timescales taken to burn a city, this idea makes no sense at all.

what??? 3-5 turns??? you mean a city that's burning to 3-5 years.....?
Considering the timescales taken to burn a city, this idea makes no sense at all.
That's not a very good argument... :rolleyes:

It makes no sense that to move the same unit 5 tiles over period of 5-500 years (depending on the year) for a distance that in reality would take several months. This is just a fact of the game that makes it playable.


I'd like to see some motivations not to burn cities but not to have them go on for several turns.
The fact that you can't "instantly get rid of cites by razing then would be good motivation to reconsider this, don't you think? ;)
Maybe have the razing take 2 turns, and you need to keep at least one military unit there to 'keep the fires going.'
Good idea that you'd have to keep at least one unit there to complete the razing, but I think the larger the city, the longer it would take to finish it off. :thumbsup:

@Admiral8Q:

Maybe the razing could work like this...

Level 1-3 = 1 turn
Level 4-6 = 2 turns
Level 7-12 = 3 turns
Level 12+ = 4 turns

Plus you have to keep units there to continue the burning. Maybe number of units equal to how many turns needed to burn (4 turns = 4 units). Or 1 unit for up to size 6 city razing, 2 units for cities larger than that.

The only problem I can foresee with having raze times in excess of 2 turns, is it would get really annoying, and destroy some of the fun factor. It's also close to just occupying the city (since you need units there anyway) and starving the population to 1 point...

Ah, well. Just my two cents.

actually if u think about it 2-3 years or turns would be suffiecent for the city square, sure troops can still occupy it while its burning, but the fires would signify nothing could be built on that square. the extensive clean up of the rubble and destruction after realsiticly would take 1-2 years.

imagine this, you capture 1/2 of the country of your greatest enemy in 3 turns, as u make way to his capital, u leave a path of engulfed cities burning. The whole country side is red...by the time ur at his doorstep, the country side is beggining to look like a 20year olds birthday cake. (candles)

is that not sweet or what, who cares if a city squares on fire for 3 turns, imagine the satisfaction!

actually if u think about it 2-3 years or turns would be suffiecent for the city square, sure troops can still occupy it while its burning, but the fires would signify nothing could be built on that square. the extensive clean up of the rubble and destruction after realsiticly would take 1-2 years.

imagine this, you capture 1/2 of the country of your greatest enemy in 3 turns, as u make way to his capital, u leave a path of engulfed cities burning. The whole country side is red...by the time ur at his doorstep, the country side is beggining to look like a 20year olds birthday cake. (candles)


I think this should cause pollution, as the smoke and ash and burned corpses pile up. Maybe for each turn the city burns, it generates one tile of pollution around it.

Depending how they use rivers in cIV, maybe the pollution can travel downstream (maybe carrying disease)?

i like your city size-burning ratio. thats excellent, yeah a little polution, but once the cities are cleared from rubble, think of the excellent farm land that the carbon ash would provide. we do it all the time up here in canada. we burn the stubble, that provides ash for the soil. the ash is rich in nutrients that make way for an excellent crop.

i like your city size-burning ratio. thats excellent, yeah a little polution, but once the cities are cleared from rubble, think of the excellent farm land that the carbon ash would provide.

Firstly, Thanks!!

Maybe cIV will implement the ability to have terrain change over time. Then the land around it would get some sort of different coloration, or maybe a symbol on it, that would denote it as ash-rich farmland... perhaps the bonus will only last for, say, 10 turns of irrigation?

Also, on the note of terrain changing, imagine a desert that is expanding over thousands of years... can anyone say Sahara? I hope they take environment more into account in cIV, a la SMAC.

i like your city size-burning ratio. thats excellent, yeah a little polution, but once the cities are cleared from rubble, think of the excellent farm land that the carbon ash would provide. we do it all the time up here in canada. we burn the stubble, that provides ash for the soil. the ash is rich in nutrients that make way for an excellent crop.

Oh. Of course. All that lovely, clean, CITY ash. Anybody want to take a guess at how many tens of thousands of tons of poisonous gas and ash you'd get from burning down Chicago or NYC? How many square miles of land that would be unusable for years to come because of all the toxins in the soil from a nice city burning? These places would become dead zones.

I do like the idea of better city burning/razing, as it is, the city just quietly disappears. Maybe if it's a multiturn event, some of the population could attempt to escape as refugees, and you could chase them down for slaves.

Also, maybe you could deliberately order your military to slaughter the populace, that way, you would hear screaming and wailing from the city while it was being destroyed. This would be an act of brutality, and other nations could ask you to halt the civilian slaughter during diplo negotiations.

I do like the idea of better city burning/razing, as it is, the city just quietly disappears. Maybe if it's a multiturn event, some of the population could attempt to escape as refugees, and you could chase them down for slaves.

Also, maybe you could deliberately order your military to slaughter the populace, that way, you would hear screaming and wailing from the city while it was being destroyed. This would be an act of brutality, and other nations could ask you to halt the civilian slaughter during diplo negotiations.

It has been brought up in other threads to implement the ability to make "Camps" (death, internment, refugee). The idea of refugees is a good one, I think. A separate unit for refugees, and if captured become slave workers (unless you don't allow slavery, in which case they can be added to the population of a city).

I'm not sure how much it would add to gameplay to be able to order your military to "slaughter innocents." Granted, it would realistically portray the awful crises and genocides that have occured through history, and would create fun new diplomatic options, but not sure if it should be done for cIV.

I have to agree with Ivan, the nutrient bonus doesn't make sense. I mean if you burn a grassland, yes it gets nutrients, but burning a city is a completely different story. I think the city's rubble should be the same as if that square was pollution and would need to be cleaned up by workers, kind of the same scenario as when you nuke a city.

@Darwin420, excelent ratio! :thumbsup:
I've thought about it and you're right, leaving a unit in a burning city would take away from the gameplay. Also, if you leave the burning city and it it stops burning, what happens to it then? Perhaps the burning city would continue to burn on it's own until it's finally destroyed. This would be the "benfit" of razing vs. occupying and starving. I think this would make more sence. :)

The objective is to turn the game into a more realistic way of playing, i think....so adding elements that isn't irrelevant and either doesn't contribute to the reality of the game is a bad idea...

Well, I think that if you are going to make city razing a deliberate, multiturn event, then you should have to stand guard and make sure everything is destroyed; if you left, the enemy could come back and rescue the remaining populace (getting free pop points for nearby cities), and getting some gold through emergency salvage of remaining infrastructure.

i hope it is... if i woke up one day i felt like liquidating the french, i should be able to do so in the vacinity of my own home. it would be cool if the iroquois were gassing the innocent germans, i could play captain america and save them, and then confine the iroquois in a camp, far off in the middle of the ocean
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/WORLD/europe/05/29/amnesty.report/story.guantanamo.jpg

you could be able to rebuild razed cities by plancing, for example, a settler and seize the remnants of the buildings that were destroyed.

But i think no army had interest in guarding a burning city 2 ou 3 turns.....

RE: Pollution from Burning:

I've been thinking about it, and yeah, the nutrient idea doesn't make sense. I still think it should cause pollution in adjacent squares, per the same ratio in one of my previous posts. And I like the traveling downstream idea!

RE: Razing vs. Occupying @Admiral8Q

I'd like to modify my initial proposal. Under my aforementioned city-raze turn timetable, I think you should have an equivalent amount of troops enter the city on that turn (i.e., 4 units to raze a level 12 city), but those troops can leave the next turn and the city will completely burn in 4 turns (without continued military presence).

I think this would be an awesome idea. Here are my two bits. I think the size of the city should determine the number of turns needed to raze a city, like a size 7 city should take 2 or 3 turns, also I think that there should be refugees fleeing the city (they could be workers or something) also depending on the size of the city. Like before it could be a size 7 city could have 2 or 3 refugees fleeing. Anyone else like this ideology?

@TankGuy:

This is the ratio I proposed:

Maybe the razing could work like this...

Level 1-3 = 1 turn
Level 4-6 = 2 turns
Level 7-12 = 3 turns
Level 12+ = 4 turns

What are your thoughts for this ratio?

EDIT: spelling. Man, I'm on a roll today. :crazyeye:

the fleein refugies are a good ideia, but not soo much refugies, i think...Only in big cities the armies wouldn't have the complete control over it and therebefore, there'll be refugies.

The pollution thing is a good idea, but it shouldn't be the kind of pollution you get during the industrial age, it should be a more cumulative kind of pollution, such as thermal pollution or global warming and depending on the number of cities you burn, the time it takes for global warming should be shortened.

@TankGuy:

If they implement that idea, then Global Warming better actually mean something in cIV!!!

pollution by burning building? why?

Like having the polar ice caps melt like they did in civ 2 (when you nuked a lot of cities and didn't clean up the pollution), it changes some of the terrain around coastal areas to swamps or something. Also, you would need to burn almost every city you capture to shorten the time until this happens if they were to implement it.

@Comrade_Pedro:

Smoke, ash, dead people. That does create pollution. Especially in the later ages, when more chemicals are used. That can make land completely toxic to all but the most extreme life.

Also, if you have troops passing through the area they could either be weakened or die when going near the bured city, like when you station troops too close to or in jungles for too long or have something similar to the dieing of citizens in cities built on flood plains.

Another note about the global warming thing, it should become more prevalent in the later ages, while the disease thing more prevalent in the earlier ages. It was harder to fight disease back then, Black Plague and such.

Not sure I like the idea of troops weakening or dying when going near a burning city.

I do think that plagues and disease should be, as you say, more prevalent before the discovery of sanitation; and global warming more prevalent as society becomes more industrialized.

In ancient era armies often took weeks or months to completely raze cities so no one could rebuilt over the old foundations. Having to keep troops would also make 'one turn conquests' a lot harder.

On refugees, once your troops starting knocking at the gates of the city, lots of refugees would appear if roads were secure out of the city. A few would escape afterward, but most during or before the fighting.

We all know that when refugees flee a city, they take camp up somewhere. these camps should be specifically cited near rivers and food resources. This should also be a nusiance, so depending on the goverment that is empowered specific measures must be taken...for example
democratic - must leave camps alone, even if they invade on precious city food squares. workers can pre designate camp sites by building them outside cities on food squares or if this dosent happen refugees build them any where themselves. unlike a city they can only hold so many refugees until another camp is created. plus refugees from other countries having wars can join these camps. a possible maintenance penalty for camp cost.
communism - refugee camps, can be converted to slaves, or partisans but only a military unit can do this, sometimes the refugees revolt killing the military unit, or if for example a tank...they could capture it and turn it into a rebel unit.
facism - camps are easily converted to slaves or liquidated into shields for neighbouring cities by military units.
monarchy- camps usually are migritory (nomads) and if infringed on camps or nomads can turn into slaves or partisans

partisans as being rebel warriors, almost like internal barbarians.

I do like the idea of massive displacement. Now wars in your neighbors land could spill over refugees into your land. This could also be a function of the UN and its dues, refugee aid.

How many turns did it take to raze Dresden or Hiroshima in ww2? Granted, they weren't entirely destroyed, but in both cases the city that was rebuilt had little to do with what came before beyond geograhical location.

Let's ignore the 'years' label, and instead look at relative movement. On a large world map, a tank could get halfway across Arabia in one turn. If a hypothetical tank had started its engine at the same time as the Enola Gay, it might have travelled about 600 km by the time Hiroshima was razed.

http://www.theenolagay.com/images/hero2.gif

Perhaps multiturn razing makes sense in early warfare, but you guys are really underestimating man's inhumanity to man when seeking this feature in modern times. And given the much smaller city sizes in pre-industrial times, I suspect it wouldn't have taken particularly long to raze a city in ancient times either (Carthago delenda est).

I don't see how multi-turn burning to keep your military occupied would make the game any more fun. :(

What WOULD be cool is if the ruins of certain buildings remained, and if you settled the land, it would create a "ruins" building in your city. It would be like a building with no upkeep. After, say, 1000 turns, it would turn into "Ancient Ruins" and start generating small amounts of culture. The culture would increase more and more as time went on. In the Industrial Age, the ruined site could even become a tourist attriction! It would represent something like Stonehenge (although Stonehenge wasn't burned to the ground - but you get the point), and would be like a mini-wonder.

I also think the idea of clearing up rubble would be good, although I think that over time it would probably be swallowed by the terrain and clear itself up.

Here's another idea: could add an Archaeologist's Lab during the Industrial or Modern Ages, but only if there have been some sort of Ancient Ruins within the city radius for 1000 years. The building could randomly unearth artifacts, giving you sporadic culture or gold boosts. It would be fun :)

I certainly think that they should, at the very least, add a burning graphic when you raze a city.

Depending on how 'thuroughly' the city was razed, you could also rebuild portions of it for less shields than normal. This would only apply to the original builder or a descendant of the original builder.

The pollution thing is a good idea, but it shouldn't be the kind of pollution you get during the industrial age, it should be a more cumulative kind of pollution, such as thermal pollution or global warming and depending on the number of cities you burn, the time it takes for global warming should be shortened.
Three problems:
1. Global warming is a naturally occuring event.
2. Without global warming, we'd still be in an ice age.
3. The global tempurature was MUCH higher when dinosaurs roamed the earth than it is now.

So, our pollution has very little effect on global warming.

How many turns did it take to raze Dresden or Hiroshima in ww2?


Well, that's why in the ancient ages it takes hundreds of years to accomplish a simple task, and in modern times it only taks a couple of years. :rolleyes:

So, our pollution has very little effect on global warming.

volcanoes had assisted the dinosaurs climate warming, but now since we have very few active volcanoes, our factories and suvs contribute quite a bit of polution significantly contributing to global warming. its like the movie envy...where does the Sh** go? it has to go somewhere...

i dont really like the idea that soldiers have to monitor a burning city, I think onces the fire the begins, it can monitor themselves.

i like the fact that in the picture of hiroshima, some buildings remained, but they would be demolished anyways unless a historical shrine was established.

plus they didnt nesessarily raze hiroshirma or negasaki, they bombed it. for dresden they bombed it so many times that before the bombs hit the ground the heat from the fires detonated them(fire bombing). i guess it should be emphasized that not only should "raze city" be a command, but maybe it should also be accomplished by fire bombing cities. It dosent make sence that when i level a city with 50 bombing units and destroy all the citie improvements and kill all there civilians except for one, that it should still stand. There should be nothing but rubble in the end after sending 100 bombers over 3 turns, making the city inhabitable. when the germans were advancing on the eastern front, they intentionally wiped cities off the map, by burning them to the ground...thats good ol fashion razing.
dresden
http://ring.mithec.com/images2/40-49%20dresden%20destroyed.jpg

I think if this concept is put in civ4, in modern times, razing a city will get every civs to be "angry" with you.

Three problems:
1. Global warming is a naturally occuring event.
2. Without global warming, we'd still be in an ice age.
3. The global tempurature was MUCH higher when dinosaurs roamed the earth than it is now.

So, our pollution has very little effect on global warming.
You should visit the off-topic forum :) .

What WOULD be cool is if the ruins of certain buildings remained, and if you settled the land, it would create a "ruins" building in your city. It would be like a building with no upkeep. After, say, 1000 turns, it would turn into "Ancient Ruins" and start generating small amounts of culture. The culture would increase more and more as time went on. In the Industrial Age, the ruined site could even become a tourist attriction! It would represent something like Stonehenge (although Stonehenge wasn't burned to the ground - but you get the point), and would be like a mini-wonder.

I also think the idea of clearing up rubble would be good, although I think that over time it would probably be swallowed by the terrain and clear itself up.

If forests/terrain/marshes/jungles are able to 'grow' in cIV (like things did in SMAC) then this would be really awesome. A city burned to the ground would have jungle or forest consume it (say after a 500-1000 years) if no one claimed the land - reminiscent of so many ancient site. These could then become tourist attractions if they are within your city radius (maybe assign citizen and it produce a buttload of commerce)

Here's another idea: could add an Archaeologist's Lab during the Industrial or Modern Ages, but only if there have been some sort of Ancient Ruins within the city radius for 1000 years. The building could randomly unearth artifacts, giving you sporadic culture or gold boosts. It would be fun :)

I certainly think that they should, at the very least, add a burning graphic when you raze a city.

Lab idea is a good one. I also agree that there should be a burning graphic. Even if the time to raze isn't increased, the city should at least burn through the turn, and THEN turn to rubble on the next turn.

That would give me some wicked satisfaction to actually see my enemies' cities burn to the ground. :mad:

I also think the idea of clearing up rubble would be good, although I think that over time it would probably be swallowed by the terrain and clear itself up.

As I said above, growing terrain is an awesome idea. It would be slow and random, but maybe it could also depend on how you modify the terrain. Take the SMAC idea and push it one step further, and I think you would have a realistic event, and it could potential create new/alter old strategies.

Thanks Darwin :)

I like the commerce-tile enhancement idea. I think that has helped me refine the "ruins" idea a little further. Settling a city on top of the Ruins would get rid of them, but if the are within the city radius, then they would generate more commerce after they turn into Ancient Ruins. After that point, you could build an Archaeologist's Lab small wonder, which would generate culture and/or gold each turn, in addition to increasing teh commerce boost of the ruins :) They could name the small wonder after a famous archaeologist, and have multiple names (so that 4 Civs don't have the lab of the same archaeologist at once every game.)

all i want to see is that when i intend to destroy an entire country within 5 turns, true power of my great armies excercised through the art of smoke and fire. why cant the cities i raze, burn in awesome splender for 3 turns straight testifying my greatness as i make my way to the captial for one last roasting. when i raze a city i dont intend to build on it right away, and if i do, the fires should be exhausted immediatly. i dont want to pretend anymore, i want to see the effects of my armies in outstanding detail!

I think they should take a lesson from Rome: Total War. RTW was a completely restructured version of Medieval: Total War in the sense that they created settlements within provinces that you needed to seige and occupy, not just put your army into the province to do that. When you capture a settlement, you get three options.

Occupy the Settlement (All the people come into your empire and you get a small amount of looted gold)

Enslave the Populace (The people are enslaved and most are dispersed around the rest of your settlements, you get a larger looting bonus)

Exterminate the Populace (You exterminate everyone in the city, occupy it and get a very large looting bonus)

I think Civ should use this model in Civ 4 when you occupy a city and add two more options

1. Occupy City - You get all the unhappy people of another culture plus the typical gold bonus

2. Enslave the Citizens - The citizens are turned into slave units which can be moved around and used to join a city. They would still maintain the culture or nationality of the country they used to be part of just as they do when you occupy and would most likely be unhappy until converted. The only abilities slaves should have is move and join city. You would also get a larger gold bonus that is created from that city (maybe the commerce production of that city multiplied by 5 instead of from the enemy nation's treasury. This would simulate valuables, jewellery, art work, etc. that a city's residents would have owned before being enslaved)

3. Exterminate the Populace - The city is reduced to 1 citizen of your nationality and you get a larger gold bonus (city commerce production multiplied by 10 maybe). In order to balance though, no production should occur in that city for several turns (10-20?)

4. Exterminate the Populace and Raze the City - The city is razed over a period of 2-3 turns and the people are exterminated, you receive the same bonus as option 3.

5. Raze the City and Enslave the Populace - Same as option 2 except the city is completely destroyed over a period of 2-3 turns and half the number of people in the city are created as slave units (If city had 6 you get 3 slave units). You would also get the same gold bonus as option 3.

Balancing issues:

-Extermination should take a period of 2-3 turns and military units must be present in the city. If units leave the city then those citizens who remain will rebel and declare themselves part of their former nation.

-Razing the city should take 2-3 turns and military units must be present in the city. If you select raze and exterminate, it would take 5 turns to complete the entire process and military units must be present.

-The number of military units needed in an occupied city to raze it or exterminate the population should be based on a ratio. A city of 25 should require a larger contingent in order to be razed and the population exterminated than a city of 3. Also, if you select exterminate and raze, more units would be required

-Slave units would automatically be unhappy in any city they join until they convert nationalities over a period of several turns

-Cities where the population has been exterminated won't be able to produce for 10-20 turns. This would simulate the necessary time it would take for the city to be resettled and production to begin again

-All options would take the same amount of gold from the enemy's treasury. The gold bonuses for the other options would be calculated based on a multiple of the city's average potential commerce production per turn (to prevent people from changing commerce production to minimal in a city just before an enemy occupies it)

-Option only available after researching a certain tech?

-Option only available to despot, fascist, and communist governments (assuming similar government system in Civ 4)

Other ideas:

When abandonning a city, create refugee units equivalent to 1 refugee unit for every 4 citizens in the city. Refugee units should have a movement of 1, regardless of terrain and improvements, and can join any city you own but will be unhappy for a series of turns (5-10 maybe?). If you know you are going to lose a city, this would be a cool option to have I think and would add another element of the reality of warfare.

Just a few ideas to through out there

I really like those ideas, Arturus.

Occupy City - You get all the unhappy people of another culture plus the typical gold bonus

I think that if you kept the citizens, but looted any gold, they would really dislike you.
I think that this should be split into two options:

A) Occupy, Don't loot. The citizens would likely be unhappy, but may not, depending on their sentiment towards your civ.
B) Occupy, loot. The citizens would despise you no matter what. There would be a strong resistance movement. Any previous propaganda/sentiment would have no positive effect.

Option A would be better if you don't have an extremely large military, or simply don't want to slow yourself down dealing with resistance. Also, this method would be alot more practical if the citizens already like you somewhat.

Option B would be better if you had a huge military. Looted gold would help support it. If you are willing to garrison alot of miltary police there, it would work. Also, if the citizens hate you anyway, and yet you want to keep the city, then you may as well loot. However, if they feel decently towards your Civ, then this would not be the best option. Note that looting would not put any stain on your reputation with other Civs, but would make citizens of the same nationality hate you, or at best not trust you. Democracies can loot.

Enslave the Citizens - The citizens are turned into slave units which can be moved around and used to join a city. They would still maintain the culture or nationality of the country they used to be part of just as they do when you occupy and would most likely be unhappy until converted. The only abilities slaves should have is move and join city. You would also get a larger gold bonus that is created from that city (maybe the commerce production of that city multiplied by 5 instead of from the enemy nation's treasury. This would simulate valuables, jewellery, art work, etc. that a city's residents would have owned before being enslaved)

Perhaps you should get 1 slave worker for every three four population points or instead(this seems two powerful otherwise), and the city would be size 0. Your people would then migrate from nearby cities to the this one (I'll explain this below, under extermination). You wouldn't have to worry about unhappiness in the current city(duh), but it would lower your sentiment in other cities of your enemy.

You would get full looting from doing this. The concept of "larger" and "smaller" looting makes no sense to me. It would be all or nothing, I should think. As far as your reputation with other Civs, each time you enslaved a city, it would hurt your reputation towards other Democracies. During the Indutrial Age, enslavement would hurt your reputation with all civs sightly, and with Demos significantly. Enslavement should be unavailable after you reach the Modern Age, and should always be unavailable for Demos. (Yes, I know the US had slavery, but Demo governments got rid of it pretty quickly, and representative monarchies in Europe got rid of it even more quickly).

Exterminate the Populace - The city is reduced to 1 citizen of your nationality and you get a larger gold bonus (city commerce production multiplied by 10 maybe). In order to balance though, no production should occur in that city for several turns (10-20?)

Here's my take on this: the city would be size 0, unable to grow or produce. Citizens from your nearby cities would migrate there and populate it. People who are saying "It's too crowded" would migrate quickly. Of course, doing this would destroy sentiment amongst the populace of the civ you are at war with.

As far as reputation goes, I think this should vary by what age the civilizations are in. An A.I. civ in the ancient age would not care if you exterminated a city (as far as I know, this wasn't exactly acceptable in those times, but many civilizations did it, and expected it.). If an A.I. civ were in the middle ages, you would take a slight reputation hit, more so if the civ was closely related to your enemy. You would take gigantic reputation hits if you did it during the industrial or modern ages. In any age, you would take additional reputation hits from A.I. democracies. This option would not be available while under a Democracy.

4. Exterminate the Populace and Raze the City - The city is razed over a period of 2-3 turns and the people are exterminated, you receive the same bonus as option 3[extermination].

I don't really like the razing over 2-3 turns idea. I think that would just slow things down and be a chore. I thought up an idea for plundering a city before you raise it, using military. (see below) As far as reputation hits, it would be the same as exterminating the populace (see above). Not available to Democracies.

5. Raze the City and Enslave the Populace - Same as option 2 except the city is completely destroyed over a period of 2-3 turns and half the number of people in the city are created as slave units (If city had 6 you get 3 slave units). You would also get the same gold bonus as option 3.

Same as above, except you would get slaves. This wouldn't be available to Democracies, nor would it be available once your Civ has reached the Modern Age. As far as rep hits, take the negative reputation you would gain from both enslaving, and from exterminating. Meaning, slight rep hit from all Civs during Middle Ages(raze), large rep hit for Middle Age Democracies, maximum reputation hit for any civ in the industrial ages or above.

New Idea: Plundering a City
This is an enhancement of the "multi-turn raze" idea. Plundering would be an order that you give Military Units, not an order that you give when you capture a city. Plundering would spend the unit's turn (this means it wouldn't be fortified) And will get gold. Military units can do this over and over, getting less and less gold each time you plunder. Plundering would also randomly destroy city improvements and kill population. Also, the cities wouldn't culture flip. Instead, the populace would evacuate, over time, to nearby cities of their Government.

While you are plundering a city, it would be in flames. Also, citizens would be evacuating, or being killed by your military units as they plunder. Once you aren't getting much gold each time you plunder, or you simply need to move on, you raze the city (which would happen in one turn). So basically, you get to choose how long the city burns, you get gold bonuses for doing so, and most importantly, YOU get to decide when to move on. Plundering cities would have the same reputation hits as enslavement. Democracies would not be able to plunder cities.

Think of how much money you could make off of this, especially during the Ancient / early Middle Ages. Capture city, loot, plunder with your military for however many turns you want, raze the city, then move on to the next. During this time period there would be no reputation hit either. It may seem over powered, but it's supposed to be, since it gets weaker and weaker as Democracies and the Industrial Ages start to appear.

So now, what WOULD Democracies do if they captured a city, but didn't want to keep the population? They would have the option to force evacuate the enemy populace(which would send their citizens away instantly), and then either keep it (at size 0 - you would have to use your citizens to repopulate it) or raze it. Any civ would have this option, although the only advantage would be that you wouldn't take a rep hit. Also, it wouldn't hurt the sentiment of the civ you are at war with. So, if you wanted to keep a city, but not deal with happiness issues yet, and not get a reputation / sentiment hit, then this would be the way to go.

Forced Evac could only occur right when you capture an enemy city. Also, if the citizens liked your civ, some of them might populate your cities instead. Regular evacuation is discussed below.

When abandoning a city, create refugee units equivalent to 1 refugee unit for every 4 citizens in the city. Refugee units should have a movement of 1, regardless of terrain and improvements, and can join any city you own but will be unhappy for a series of turns (5-10 maybe?). If you know you are going to lose a city, this would be a cool option to have I think and would add another element of the reality of warfare.

Evacuation
I think I have a better idea. You know the "migration" idea I was talking about under the "exterminate but keep the city" option? Well, perhaps you could give an evacuation order, making your citizens migrate. One citizen would leave the city and join one nearby, every turn(until an enemy captured the city or you cancelled the evacuation order). Also, they would never join another city that is under evacuation(so you can evacuate an entire war front right when they declare war, if you want).

Wakiki - eliminate the Age concept and you've got yourself a deal! I think the biggest limitation imposed on Civ3 was the introduction of Ages. I'd like to research what I want, and be able to skip things if I don't need them, instead of being constrained by an artificial determination of "Age"

Well, then you could easily base this on certain technologies being researched :) In general I would change a "middle age" rep hit to Feudalism and/or Monothiesm, and an Industrial rep hit to Nationalism, and modern to Fission.

Should I put my paragraphs about reputation in italics? Perhaps I should. That's pretty boring and people could skip over it and still get the point. I was just being overly thorough...

@wakiki - that's definitely a better way to look at things. Once you research, say, Industrialization, not only will your cities get smokestacks, but you get the equivalent of industrial-era rep hits, or something similar.

how about razing cities in relation to possible supply routes?
if they do implement some kind of supply routes system which should involve replenishment in cities or fertile terrain squares then the defender should be allowed to implement a scorched earth policy. obviously you wouldnt be doing it in a small border skirmish but if you ruled some large empire and were taking a bit of a whipping you could withdraw from cities that you were going to lose anyway and torch them and the surrounding tiles. this would leave the city intact, with a reduction of population and destruction of city improvements. the attacker would advance but his supply routes would lengthen and unable to replenish units health and supplies the attack would gradually lose momentum. this would effect would be increased if the terrain was particually hostile (jungle, tundra, mountains etc) and any possible partisan/guerrila acitivity (which also should be implemented).
obvious historic references being russia vs. france (napoleon) and germany (hitler).

It would be nice if you could render terrain unusuable for a time, in addition to razing the city. For instance, salting the land, like Rome did when they destroyed Carthage. :)

Also, while I think Industrialization does represent the Industrial Age, I don't think that it would be what makes people care more about the lives of other nationalities. I'm not sure where you could put it though...

I really like the idea of salting the earth. Would make an area un-irrigatable for a long time. :goodjob:

I agree that Industrialization isn't the best tech to represent... maybe Nationalism, instead?

i agree on the agreed, we have brainstormed well over this issue, i just hope that one of the developers can implement these ideas.

The thread's topic has diverged a little. I'd like to know what the people posting at the start of the thread think of the plundering idea. (I am quite pround of it :lol: )