If we see in Civ : CTP, (and in Civ III too i think) the buildings of capturated cities, aren't destroyed, so you can use all the power of the cities.

But now, buildings are automatically destroyed when the cities are capturated, and you earn some money, which is very low for the power of buildings, so you can't use them, and the capturated cities need to be rebuilt, and they lose a part of their power.

And if you lose a city due to a lack of attention or defense, and if you take it again in the next turn, this tiny error makes you remake all the lost buildings.

The best would be (i've read the other post about this) that when you capture a city, you get the choice of which buildings you want to destroy (with a gold gain announced for each building), and which one you want to keep.

Combat in urban areas does alot of damage. In ancient times keeping the soldiers and mercenaries from looting, raping, pillaging and destroying when cities were captured was impossible.

Part of the reason alot of buildings are destroyed is to reduce the culture production back to base. Say you're Greek, and you take a Roman city. You don't assume the power of Roman culture, you have to build your Greek culture in the city.

I do think that as the ages progress their should be less damage in cities, because modern military units are trained to avoid most collateral damage.

It would create a bit of a problem if you retained the cultural buildings on capturing a city, and those make up most of the destruction. It doesn't make sense for you to get culture from them, and if they continue to exist, but don't give culture it could make it very difficult to ever get culture up and running. Destruction of non cultural buildings should probably be toned down in the later eras though. Maybe they should bring back the Civ 3 approach, where artillery bombarding the city would have a chance of destroying a building rather than damaging the defences during bombardment.

Bullhonkery. You absolutely should get culture from captured buildings, but the cities total culture should be reset to 0.

Certainly it takes time for existing cultural institutions to be assimilated into the new empire -- that's what resistance is all about. Once the priests have been indoctrinated and the universities hire new professors with the proper political beliefs, those buildings should go right on producing culture.

It would create a bit of a problem if you retained the cultural buildings on capturing a city, and those make up most of the destruction. It doesn't make sense for you to get culture from them, and if they continue to exist, but don't give culture it could make it very difficult to ever get culture up and running.

That's true.
So what about destroying culture buildings ? (but you still lose other bonuses, like science for the library, if you destroy the building)

Bullhonkery. You absolutely should get culture from captured buildings, but the cities total culture should be reset to 0.

This is maybe a better solution.

Certainly it takes time for existing cultural institutions to be assimilated into the new empire -- that's what resistance is all about. Once the priests have been indoctrinated and the universities hire new professors with the proper political beliefs, those buildings should go right on producing culture.

We take an exemple, with a building which make 3 culture normally.
So we can make that, just after capturing, it does 0 culture.
X turns after, it does 1.
X turns after this, it does 2.
X turns after this one, it does 3.
So we can take a ratio like 1/3 each time (but only integer numbers)

What about this idea?

Certain bulidings should be kept others always destroyed, and some should have a chance of survival
Kept: buildings of attackers state religion, harbors, walls, castles
Chance: Libraries, barracks, religious buildings when attacker has no state religion anything else that could reasonably fall to collateral damage
Always destroyed: buildings of opposing religions

this should also be affected by civics somehow but I don't have time right now to go into details

Certain bulidings should be kept others always destroyed, and some should have a chance of survival
Kept: buildings of attackers state religion, harbors, walls, castles
Chance: Libraries, barracks, religious buildings when attacker has no state religion anything else that could reasonably fall to collateral damage
Always destroyed: buildings of opposing religions

Plus granaries for 'kept'.

That's a good idea, but I prefer the idea of choosing what you keep, and what you destroy, because as an Invader, you can choose what you do in the capturated city, no ?

Or maybe, to prevent players from keeping all buildings, you can set a kind of cost for each building kept. (and to give interest in destroying buildings, give a better gold level for each buildings destroyed)
But, when you capture a city that you know you'll lose, it can be abused because you can choose to destroy ALL the buildings...
We have to choose a medium status between the 2 ideas. (between the idea : you choose what you destroy, and the idea, chance of destroying of each building when capturing)

Actually Castles+ Walls should be at risk for being destroyed... after all that is part of taking the city, breaking those defenses.

The fact is that building destruction is in there specifically to offset conquest as an easy way of growth.

Perhaps, you can choose when taking a city, preserve/sack,
sack is the current default
preserve gives an 10-20% increase in the chance of non-cultural buildings surviving but gives no gold at all

Perhaps, you can choose when taking a city, preserve/sack,
sack is the current default
preserve gives an 10-20% increase in the chance of non-cultural buildings surviving but gives no gold at all

I don't know what about you are talking.
When you capture a city, you can destroy the city entirely, or capture it. (with a gold gain but a total destroying of buildings), you haven't other choices.

Edit : Oh ...
I've bad understood.
That was a suggestion.
Your 'preserve' is underpowered, 10-20% chance of only some buildings is too low, the gold is linked to the buildings destroyed.
Your solution isn't good, because the gold gained should be considered about the buildings destroyed, and other arf

Actually the gold gained is NOT linked to the buildings destroyed currently, Both are random amounts.

The fact is a battle in a city will destroy infrastructure no matter how hard you try to stop it (unless you just don't battle at all)

It has been a long tradition of both Civ and CTP that when you take a city, the first thing you gotta do is rebuild the primary culture building. Prior to Civ Iv, that was always the temple. Now it's either the library or the theatre.

The thing that annoys me most is when you bombard a city to zero defense, you take it, then manage to lose it back a turn or two later, and low and behold, the defense is back to maximum!

- Sligo

And if you lose a city due to a lack of attention or defense, and if you take it again in the next turn, this tiny error makes you remake all the lost buildings.

Sorry, but I doubt the developers will be changing core game mechanics to accomodate your bad playing.

Besides, destruction of infrastructure is not limited to ancient warfare. Modern weaponry is much more destructive than its predecessors.

For structures such as libraries, universities, museaums, etc, burning the books/paintings and looting the various artifacts is as good as sacking the building and its contents. Theatres and other living cultural institutions can be destroyed by killing the talent that make them run. You can find plenty of examples of such destruction in modern warfare. Some of it is even going on today.

Actually the gold gained is NOT linked to the buildings destroyed currently, Both are random amounts.

What?
No!
If you capture a baby city, you'll gain 3 gold.
If you capture a capital, you'll gain 200+
Gold gaining IS linked to the buildings destroyed, this is absurd to be the contrary, this is logic to be as it is.

Both? You mean buildings destroyed is random? NO. There are some buildings which are always destroyed, and others that are never destroyed, there is no random here.

The fact is a battle in a city will destroy infrastructure no matter how hard you try to stop it (unless you just don't battle at all)

Maybe when you attack with tanks...
But when you attack with warriors who have clubs?
It will destroy some things, ok, but it won't destroy ALL !

The thing that annoys me most is when you bombard a city to zero defense, you take it, then manage to lose it back a turn or two later, and low and behold, the defense is back to maximum!

???!!

your bad playing

~~
I haven't any "bad playing", this was only an example, i hadn't this problem, it was only the strongest way to show how the current rules are bad, and even if I have this problem, this isn't a "bad playing", it can be a strategic plan of an clever ennemy, and this can happen even if you haven't any "bad playing" and that you are strong.

The developers won't change it for the experience of the player, but they'll change it because it is more realistic, and also better for the game.

Besides, destruction of infrastructure is not limited to ancient warfare. Modern weaponry is much more destructive than its predecessors.

That's why this is absurd to make all buildings destroyed under capture.

the books/paintings and looting the various artifacts is as good as sacking the building and its contents

Even if the buildings become empty, they are still standing :crazyeye:
They aren't destroyed, and this is a good idea, because the culture produced will be 0 because 0 books. But years and years after, new books of the capturer's city will replace the lost ones, and the library will be flooded up in some years again, and the culture produced will grow a little each period until to reach the same level of culture production as it was previously, but the culture won't be the first's one, but the capturer's one, like in reality.

(I take my previous idea :
Under capturing : 0 culture.
X turns after : + 1/3 (of original building's culture production) culture.
Y turns after : + 1/3
Z turns after : +1/3 = full culture production.)

Theatres and other living cultural institutions can be destroyed by killing the talent that make them run

The theatres won't be destroyed even if the artists are !
And the new society will produce other artists that will replace the lost ones !
And the culture produced will be the capturer's one.

The idea is on the good way !

You can find plenty of examples of such destruction in modern warfare. Some of it is even going on today.

There is maybe a destruction of culture, but because there is another culture that replace it, but the buildings aren't automatically destroyed, the buildings, or several of them, must be keeped, and the culture, must be "regrown".

Bad playing.. lol. I can't stand the fact that defenses go back up to previous percentage after a city is retaken by the defender. That's terrible game mechanics and doesn't make any sense at all.

The bombardment's effect (reduction of defense) is indeed very strange.

But often, most of the defense points is given by culture.

So when the defense is given by culture, that's normal that the defense goes back up after capturing, but that's not normal that catapults' rocks attack cultural defense !

Defense generated by culture is also very strange.

How do you defend your city with culture ? lol !

This is very easy to change and mod. In the XML file each building has a chance to survive a city take over. It ranges from 66% for courthouses I think to 0% for libraries. If you feel this needs balancing out its extremely easy to modify.

You missed my point, Danicela.

What makes a Library a Library? The books. What good is the intact structure without the content that goves the structure meaning?

If I were to capture a city, and fill up the courthouse with my harem, hot-springs, and banquet halls, would it be a courthouse, or a palace? Not that it matters, since this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.


I haven't any "bad playing", this was only an example, i hadn't this problem, it was only the strongest way to show how the current rules are bad, and even if I have this problem, this isn't a "bad playing", it can be a strategic plan of an clever ennemy, and this can happen even if you haven't any "bad playing" and that you are strong.


This is a bad way to argue for your change. The other points made for your suggestion are all better than this one, which is rather counter-productive. If one is inattentive/careless/sloppy and allows his city to be captured, then that is indeed bad playing, and game mechanics should not be changed around such instances. I don't say this harshly, since this happened to me yesterday: The Mongolians had one city left, and instead of leaving their troops there to defend as I expected, they hopped on a galley and hopped over to my nearest city. My reinforcements were one turn too late to reach the city and I lost the Library I had chopped the only trees for. :(

If you want to make a strong case, ignore this consideration.

It's not bad playing; it's taking a chance which doesn't pay off. I know that leaving a warrior in my capital makes it easy to take, but I take the chance because I don't expect any AI units to get that far. They haven't yet, so the decision has paid off.

I think that all buildings should have a chance to be destroyed; say 20%, varying with civics. Those that are not destroyed continue producing culture for the old civ until the new one 'rebuilds' them by using production (perhaps not full price for the building, since it's already in place), at which point they are reset to be culture buildings for the new civ.

This is very easy to change and mod. In the XML file each building has a chance to survive a city take over. It ranges from 66% for courthouses I think to 0% for libraries. If you feel this needs balancing out its extremely easy to modify.

Yes but the best thing is that this is the creator who has to make this change, to be official, if i change only myself, it won't be very interesting.
Anyway, Which file to modify ?

What makes a Library a Library? The books. What good is the intact structure without the content that goves the structure meaning?


Yes but that's why my idea is good :

The library is empty = Culture income = 0.
The library is full = Culture income = max.
Turn after turn, the culture income grows back to the max number.

The building is important, you have the BUILDING in your city, the books are symbolized by the culture income.

If I were to capture a city, and fill up the courthouse with my harem, hot-springs, and banquet halls, would it be a courthouse, or a palace? Not that it matters, since this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

We imagine you don't do it.
You'll fill up the courthouse with the right things.
Law men ..

This is a bad way to argue for your change.

I was only defending against this "insult".

The other points made for your suggestion are all better than this one, which is rather counter-productive.

That's normal, this point was an answer to an insult, the rest is an answer to the topic.

If one is inattentive/careless/sloppy and allows his city to be captured

And what if he saw the invasion, but he can't do anything to prevent his ennemy from capturing his city ?

that is indeed bad playing

Not necessary, if there is a time limit game, the game can be too fast for the human. (he didn't have the time to see his city)

and game mechanics should not be changed around such instances.

Ok, it was maybe a bad exemple, but indepently the case, automatically building destroying is an abuse, and i think that my exemple was, finally, good, because it best illustrate how it can be crappy that you lose all your buildings even for a simple capture.

The Mongolians had one city left, and instead of leaving their troops there to defend as I expected, they hopped on a galley and hopped over to my nearest city. My reinforcements were one turn too late to reach the city and I lost the Library I had chopped the only trees for.

Normally, AI don't leave their last city to defend it ...
How do you defend a city outside of it ?
lol you should be IN the city to best defend it.

You chopped the only trees ...
Bad.
You chopped trees, the last ones, for a Library ?!!!!!
VERY BAD !
Library is not so useful ! You don't need to sacrifice worthwile rare last forests to make a shitty Library !
That only for culture? .... This is "bad playing". :lol:
Never do it again.

If you want to make a strong case, ignore this consideration.

This can be a good exemple for this topic.

It's not bad playing; it's taking a chance which doesn't pay off.

I was talking about a general case, not to chance, but more to inattention.

I think that all buildings should have a chance to be destroyed; say 20%, varying with civics.

I think it will be imbalanced.
I think choosing the buildings destroyed is better.
You can keep 60% of all buildings for exemple.

Those that are not destroyed continue producing culture for the old civ until the new one 'rebuilds' them by using production (perhaps not full price for the building, since it's already in place)

The culture would be produced for the old civ ?
NO !
When you take the city, the previous controller's culture mustn't grow anymore !

The solution I've given is better :
The culture production is reset to 0.
After X turns, it gives 1/3 culture.
After Y turns, it gives 2/3 culture.
After Z turns, it gives max culture for the building.

at which point they are reset to be culture buildings for the new civ.

The reset is too strange in your idea ...

Normally, AI don't leave their last city to defend it ...
How do you defend a city outside of it ?
lol you should be IN the city to best defend it.

You chopped the only trees ...
Bad.
You chopped trees, the last ones, for a Library ?!!!!!
VERY BAD !
Library is not so useful ! You don't need to sacrifice worthwile rare last forests to make a shitty Library !
That only for culture? .... This is "bad playing".
Never do it again.

Oho, fighting fire with fire, eh?

To be honest though, I see few other options to building a library for culture early game:

1) I need the fat-cross
2) Library is more useful than Obelisks, which I very rarely use. Obelisks become obselete too quickly with my tech choices, and Libraries will always pay for themselves in coastal cities. ;)
3) I had no state religion, and had yet to adopt the Mongolian religion

Regardless, if trees are going to be chopped, what makes a Library a bad choice for a city of middling size that has no hope of ever going for a Wonder?


As for BrightEye:

It's not bad playing; it's taking a chance which doesn't pay off.

A risk that pays off is good playing.
A risk that ends in disaster is bad playing.

Just kidding. ;)

But I do find it hard to justify leaving a weak defender in an important city. If one is forced to resort to such drastic measures, then that person has failed to properly plan military needs. Granted, it would be less offensive to say 'mistake' rather than 'bad playing'. You all have my sincerest apologies for my lack of tact. :)

Oho, fighting fire with fire, eh?

You mean i defend from your 'bad playing' in sayin' that you have "bad playing" ? :p

I see few other options to building a library for culture early game:

Ok, build a library ... But to chop the only trees for that ?
=> Is that a good building to make in the early game?
There are much more interesting buildings to make firstly ...

1) I need the fat-cross


What is it ?

2) Library is more useful than Obelisks, which I very rarely use. Obelisks become obselete too quickly with my tech choices, and Libraries will always pay for themselves in coastal cities.

Library gives 2 culture whereas obelisks gives 1.
The interest of these buildings is to reach 10 culture enough fastly (to expand), the rest isn't important, so having obelisks is quite enough, library will be useful for science after.
Obsolete is a problem, but you won't need more culture, often.
(If the obelisk is obsolete, do you lose his +1 culture income ? or you keep it but only loosing the ability to build others ?)

Note that obelisks cost 30 and library 90 ...
Knowing that obelisks are better to make a faster culture expand by his little cost, they are the best choice, for early culture expand.

Library in the early game is useless, it costs too much for its culture, and the science bonus isn't worthwile when you don't produce enough science in the cities, you don't need the library.

Why the library are a good choice for coastal cities ?
The libraries make culture and science ...
You talk about ocean's gold? The libraries will give a very bad income for the 2 gold you gain, in the early game.

3) I had no state religion, and had yet to adopt the Mongolian religion

For culture, obelisks are good if you haven't any state religion :)
You don't need more 1 culture expand...
Obelisks are quite enough :)

Regardless, if trees are going to be chopped, what makes a Library a bad choice for a city of middling size that has no hope of ever going for a Wonder

You must not chop trees, they are good unchopped, +1 prod and more with high technologies is better than having 50 hammers for only 1 thing.
Particularly when you have only 1 tree, you won't chop it, if you are smart :)

But if you have to chop these trees, that's to make a high cost military unit, or something that has a REAL use, instead of an useless library.

A risk that pays off is good playing.
A risk that ends in disaster is bad playing.

I think that in your case, you had a disaster, so that's bad playing :)

Just kidding

??

Granted, it would be less offensive to say 'mistake' rather than 'bad playing'. You all have my sincerest apologies for my lack of tact.

Yes, and even if this is a mistake, this mistake is a really good exemple, to make creators & developpers change this part of the game.

a weak defender in an important city

If the city isn't important, that's normal that you can abandon it for some turns waiting for reinforcements that will defend the city in their place, but if the city is important, you shouldn't give it up no matter/whatever the reasons, or only you are SURE that you won't lose it.

But that's strange that the AI sent units from his last city, to capture your city, whereas he should defend his city ...

If one is forced to resort to such drastic measures, then that person has failed to properly plan military needs.

You mean that someone who send defenders and who abandon cities to put these soldiers on the frond has failed?
I don't think so.
If you want to make a big assault, with the maximum troops, using your defenders can be a good help for your attackers.
This isn't bad.
But you must pay a big attention to your cities, replacing the lost defenses fastly, and you can't afford this "defenders => attackers" if your cities are in danger.

Personally I think it would be nice add some gradation to razing a city, a thing that IMHO would work could be like this, when you enter a unguarded city you are presented with 3 (4?) options
1 pillage, then burn): The standard "burn baby, burn" option. the city is totally destroyed.
2 raze) the standard Civ 4 option, all the buildings (except wonders and shrines) are destroyed, but you keep the city.
3) just pillage (optional) like 2 but any building (except military have a random chance to be kept intact and operative.

4) conquest, you keep the city more or less intact, buildings military in function "walls, barracks, etc) are destroyed but all the others are intact and functional.

The difference between the options would be
a) gold, with 1) you get more, with 4) you get less or nothing
b) revolution: with 1) you don't get Resistance (well, you don't have city, but you know what I mean) with 2,3 and 4 you get increasingly longer periods of it.
This way you have to choose if to conquest a city without buildings that can start producing in 3-4 turns or a city more or less intact but that would be useless for a dozen turns or so.

This is an interesting suggestion/idea, like in Warlords III, we would have several choices concerning what you want to do with the captured city.

Put warning in the vocabulary : razing means a total destroy of the city, and pillage, means only keeping city but destroying some buildings.

In Warlords III, you had the choices :
Occupy : Take the city without any modification.
Pillage : You destroy ways of production of units that you can't make and you get some gold.
Saccage : You destroy all the ways of production of units whatever you can make or not, and you get more gold. (the gold depends on the ways of production destroyed)
Raze : Destroy the city.

This concept can be interesting to search and to try to use it in Civ4.

The differences would be the same like for Warlords III : Occupy = keep the city, razing = destroy the city, pillage = destroy some buildings (= + Gold), and saccaging = destroy all buildings. (= +++ Gold)
But I prefer my starting idea : You can choose the buildings you want to destroy, or the ones you want to keep, and you know the gold you'll get for each building destroyed.