View Full Version : Idea: Abandoning cities

Aug 18, 2006, 12:46 PM
One thing that has always bothered me about Civ 4 (although it only bothers me when I'm playing Rhye's and Fall, which is always;)) is that (to the best of my knowledge) there's no way to raze a city unless it belongs to the enemy. It existed in Civ 3, as abandoning the city. Although the only use I ever found for it was if I KNEW the enemy was going to take it and I had no use for it, then it was a better alternative than letting them get it. Anyways, as I was saying. I started a new Rome game and I was doing pretty good. I had yet to lose a single praetorian, so I sent in my 4 experienced Pratoriens to take Egypt. It went over without a hitch. Didn't lose a single one in the attack on Niwt-Rst, and I took all 5 of their cities. The only thing is that 2 of them have no Roman name (Per-Atum and Selima). The Historical City name thing has always been one of my favourite parts of this mod. Unfortunately, there's no way for me to get rid of these 2 cities that I don't want, since I have little use for them and they're just dragging down my economy. Also, I don't think I would be able to raze 2 cities and then take Niwt-Rst with just 4 praetorians, and I'm an impatient person, so waiting is kind of out of the question. Alternately, instead of this idea, I would like the option to raze cities that flip from capturing the capital. I'm sure that some cities have been abandoned in the past (although they were no doubt resettled later on). I just wish there was some way to get rid of these cities that are unproductive, and dragging down my economy, not to mention that I don't want them because they didn't undergo a name change. I know it's kind of weird, but it really bothers me.

Aug 18, 2006, 12:54 PM
I agree. And to ellaborate - I think abandoning a city should be allowed only if more than 80 % of the population is foreign. That would be more realistic and restrictive. It is necessary due to the situation created by capital conquering or the persian UP.

Aug 18, 2006, 01:08 PM
Capital conquering works for anyone, the persian UP is that ANY city conquered by them has the same effect, except within an area of 2 squares as opposed to 3. But yeah, I think that would work except that when you conquer a city/capital as Persia/anyone else and the nearby cities flip, I'm pretty sure their population becomes 100% your nationality.

Aug 18, 2006, 01:48 PM
i have the same problem on egypt...

why be worried about foreign/not foreign population??

i think (i don't know if could be historically correct but it is reasonable) that if you have an army in a city you can FORCE the population to leave the city in few turns( maybe that 80% of population must be unhappy). Where those people goes? In near cities, of course. maybe a 20-30% of population will die (disorders, kills, ironfist)..

Then your nearer cities will grew while the city you want to abandon will slowly go to 0 population (7-8 turns maybe). if the garrison leaves the city in those turns or it has been conquered then the city stops the emigration.

PS: the people that join other cities are very angry with you!!!!
i think this could be a good and correct solution (i'm thinking of recent israel facts (the israeli settlements forced to be abandoned))

Aug 18, 2006, 02:17 PM
Hmm. That seems reasonable.

Aug 18, 2006, 05:05 PM
If I were a programmer, I would add a button to the interface to abandon a city (but not to raze it, just to leave it to barbarians).
But I'm not.

Aug 18, 2006, 05:11 PM
I think abandoning a city is pretty unrealistic. It's almost always impossible to do.

Not to mention that it would have disasterous effects on gameplay. Razing a city before you lose it becomes the always-best-choice (unless you can get it back). I doubt the AI would ever be able to master this, but the player will.

Not to mention other exploits the AI will never master -- like settling temporary cities to secure key resources, until you can found a better city later.

Aug 18, 2006, 06:34 PM
with abandoning i didn't mean razing, but just "retiring" from it, which can be realistic.

Aug 19, 2006, 05:38 AM
Well... The other idea I was proposing, as I didn't think the abandoning would be possible, was that when you conquer cities through the capital or with the Persian UP, you get the option to raze them so that you don't wind up with a bunch of bad cities you don't want that are dragging down your economy and you have no way to get rid of.

Aug 19, 2006, 07:31 AM
The only thing that bothers me is not beign to be able to raze cities when a resource appears under them... :(

Aug 19, 2006, 07:59 AM
The only thing is that 2 of them have no Roman name (Per-Atum and Selima).

Per-Atum is Heliopolis, you can rename it manually! I just added it to the list.

Aug 19, 2006, 09:48 AM
Heh. It just feels wrong doing that way.;)

Aug 19, 2006, 08:34 PM
Instead of Abandoning a city being destroying it, and perhaps even the normal 'burn it to the ground' option you get when you conquer a city, maybe we could have it that you conquer the city for a few turns, maybe pop/3. During those turns 3 pop are removed from the city and a similar fraction of the buildings are removed, at the last turn you can be asked whether or not you want to destroy any wonders. Then once the population reaches 1 the city is returned to whoever you took it from, or made Barbarian if they no longer exist, given a small garison to prevent simply reconquering it, and your units are transported to your nearest city (presumably with lots of loot and plunder and stuff.) That way cities would never truly be destroyed, but you could wage a 'war of attrition' where you just tried to take an opponent's cities to devestate your opponent, and then left, content that you made them weaker. This would be like the war described in Bismarcks civopedia entry where he wanted purely to weaken France, or Rome destroying Carthage.

Its similar to the temporary occupation option that was described only not as nice and far mroe destructive.

Aug 20, 2006, 07:08 AM
That's a good idea, but I mainly use razing to destroy cities in places that are historically innaccurate (and are usually in places where I would build cities). For example, Greece buils Mycanae where Cape Town would be. I raze it so I can build Cape Town.

Aug 20, 2006, 01:28 PM
McA, you do realize that cities may be renamed, right?

Aug 20, 2006, 04:28 PM
Heh. Of course I do. In a case like that, i might just capture it and rename it. But, maybe my economy can't support one more city at the moment, so I raze it since I'm already at war with Greece and build Cape Town later, when my economy is more stable. I'm not saying I always would. This whole idea was more so that you could get rid of cities you don't want that you get through the capital flip/Persian UP.

King Coltrane
Aug 22, 2006, 09:27 AM
well one solution i have found is to just let the barbs take the city you want razed and then reconquer it and raze it... nice and easy to do. on a similar note, has anyone noticed that a lot more cities are given away in this mod? egypt offered me both Jerulasem and Susa (as greece) and the first time i said no because i didnt want the maintenance, but i eventually said yes to Jeru and yes to Susa but then let the barb horse archers burn that city for me.

Aug 22, 2006, 11:16 AM
well one solution i have found is to just let the barbs take the city you want razed and then reconquer it and raze it... nice and easy to do.

But that won´t work if the city has lots of your citizens. I tried that in a game and didn´t work :(

Aug 22, 2006, 12:30 PM
That's what I try to do with cities I don't want, too but eventually there are no barbs to take them for you. It works well if you're playins as one of the BC civs though.

Aug 22, 2006, 09:19 PM
Forced Relocations of a city's entire population to other parts of the Empire/Kingdom would certainly be both usefull and realistic.

It probably wouldn't be that hard to code a feature like this. Of course, 'teaching' the AI to have a clue about using this feature properly - or even at all - is another matter entirely.