Watiggi's Raze City Mod.

I have allways felt that there was something missing when you razed a double shrined holy city with 5 wonders and heaps of culture and a) you get nothing and b) it happens too quickly and easily. In reality, allthough the city gets razed, select people who are valuable to the conquerors are kept and relocated back to their own cities (Genghis Khan style). In this mod, valuable cities are harder to raze and the conqueror can receive relocated specialists when the city gets razed.

=====================

The process:

-capturing cities is no different except you don't get the "install governor or raze city" popup option.

-after capture and during the revolt period, you can if you wish pillage the city tile. Pillaging may reduce the cities population.

-pillaging the population to the ground will destroy the city like a normal raze.

-you can stop pillaging at any time and then let the revolt timer count down, giving you control of the city.

-when the city is razed, you might get a specialist relocated to one of your other cities. This specialist is much like the Statue of Liberty type of 'free specialist' in that you both need to have the free slots from buildings or civics in order to make it useful. Otherwise it will be a citizen until a better choice becomes available.

Gameplay notes:

-the bigger and more valuable the city (with wonders and holy cities), the harder it is to raze.

-the bigger the city, the more chance you have of getting a specialist relocated. Holy cities and cities with world wonders will give a relocated specialist regardless of size.

-you cannot pillage the city tile unless it's in the revolt period which originated from a conquest. This is to prevent human players from exploiting it.

-you cannot get specialists from barbarian cities.

-AI knows how to raze a city in this manner.

=====================

updates:

v1.0.02 changes:

-includes source code.

v1.0.01 changes:

-the "A specialist has relocated to xxxx" message has been changed to "You have relocated a specialist to xxxx". This makes it more consistant with the pillaging messages ("You have plundered x gold from xxxx").

-holy cities will now allways give a relocated specialist, even with no shrine (religious wonder). A design goal was for a reliability in knowing that a preceived valuable city would give a relocated specialist. Previously, a holy city may or may not give one, which contradicted this design goal. Now it feels more consistant.

=====================

Watiggi's Raze City Mod Download page (http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=4818)

I have tried to exploit the representation/specialist strategy of the game, but found out I am not that good with the strategy. So, if some people could try to exploit this strategy with this mod and see if it becomes game breaking, that'll be cool.

The mechanics:

When you capture a city and the city is in revolt, you can pillage the city tile (and this is the only time!). Pillaging will suspend the revolt period and may actually increase it with enough pillaging. When you have razed the city, you may get a relocated specialist. The higher the population, the more chance you have of getting one, but they are reasonably likely. A city with world wonders (including shrines) will allways give a relocated specialist when razed (even size 1). Barbarian cities never give relocated specialists.

I also think that if destroy a town requires 4 turn, raze a captured city can't be done by a single unit (probably damaged) in just one! :crazyeye:
But I don't really understand what actually your mod does... after the revolt period, what happend to the city? it can be either razed and taken? it is like posticipating the decision to after the revolt? :confused:
I like the concept, that's why I ask about. :)

Too easy golden ages ?

I also think that if destroy a town requires 4 turn, raze a captured city can't be done by a single unit (probably damaged) in just one! :crazyeye: You'll like this then :) It gets interesting when you juusstt scrape through with a unit half damaged and capture the city, but you can't raze the darn thing before the enemies 'cavalry' arrives.

But I don't really understand what actually your mod does... after the revolt period, what happend to the city? it can be either razed and taken? it is like posticipating the decision to after the revolt? :confused:
I like the concept, that's why I ask about. :)When the revolt period ends, you are able to use the city like normal. The pillaging only allowed during the revolt period idea prevents the human player from just razing any of their cities when it suits them - it can only be done after conquest.

Here's another way of looking the whole process: When you capture a city, it's yours, end of story. Whilest the city is still in the revolt period, the game lets you raze that city by pillaging the tile. After the revolt period, it no longer lets you raze it. This is to prevent the human player from just razing any and all cities.

Too easy golden ages ?I haven't found that it does (allthough I haven't exploited the Rep/specialist strategy properly). The specialists require the buildings or civics in order to be useful as a GP producer so it isn't an automatic guarentee of GP points. In the begining, they become citizens producing no GP points.

I've updated the OP. Hopefully it's more understandable. Let me know if it's still confusing.

I've updated the OP. Hopefully it's more understandable. Let me know if it's still confusing.
Thanks! Few more question (if/when you get time to answer, of course :D ):
- If I have 2 or more units in the city can I pillage it several times? (to get more chanches to decrease the population?)
- Pillaging a city makes money? Free Workers (slaves)?
- How probable is to get a Free Citizen/Specialst? (general rule)
- How probable it is to reduce the population? (general rule)
- % of reducing population also depends on city value/culture?
- How long the revolt last if I don't stop pillaging?

My opinion: _that's a great idea_!!! I wonder why Firaxis couldn't think of something like that. If it is balanced (probably it needs sone testng?) it is surely a nice way to let player able to raze a city (I don't like the "no city razing" option), but also make it something more "realistic" and allow who lose a huge city by the last enemy unit to retake the city back in the next turns. I like also the free specialist/citizen idea. I'll try it in the next month, and let you know again my opinion then.

Btw: your first post changed twice. I started reading it after you edited it, than I reloaded the page and it changed again. Just asking because the first edit seemed more complete (I didn't read it all, but it looked longer and more specific), this one seems more synthetic and the post looks more like it was before editing :confused: . Just wondering if this was supposed to happen...

...don't even know if what I wrote makes any sense in english, lol :lol: :lol:

Anyway, good job! :goodjob:

EDIT:
-you cannot pillage the city tile unless it's in the revolt period which originated from a conquest.
uhm... this means that if another civ city on my cultural border flips I have to always take it? also if I don't like it? :confused: (it sounds not so fair: it might be a not useful city which I don't want to include in my empire... not my fault if another civ placed it there while I builted lots of culture...)
Or it is just about when cities I built are in revolt for other civ cultural expansion? (in this case, of course, it is fair to put that limitation).
I mean: if a city flips there's no revolt and I can choose between take or raze the city (in not modded game). In the modded game, in this case what happens? Am I allowed to raze the city? A revolt happens? I have to always take the city?
Sorry for all the questions, hope I'm not bothering. :rolleyes:

It is much clearer now. What happen if a city re-revolt ? Does it allow to pillage again ?

It is much clearer now. What happen if a city re-revolt ? Does it allow to pillage again ?No. If the city recovers and then goes into revolt again due to say cultural pressure, it wont allow you to pillage it again. In this context, it plays out the same way as a normal game.

- If I have 2 or more units in the city can I pillage it several times? (to get more chanches to decrease the population?)Yep. That's the idea :) A bigger military presense in the city will give you the potential to raze the city faster. On top of that, mounted units can pillage twice as fast because they have two movement points per turn. The more valueable the city though, the harder it will be to raze.

- Pillaging a city makes money? Free Workers (slaves)?No, but this answer is a little complicated. Basically I've tried many different ideas and finally settled on the specialist relocation.

When looking at the normal game, giving gold with each pillage would be a consistant strategy, but it was too strange giving little amounts of gold and too over the top giving a more appropriate amount of gold (consistant with pillaging a town). My original idea was to also give research and specialists aswell, but giving gold, research and possible specialists during the pillaging stage was just too much. I eventually abandoned the whole idea when I realised that a human player could just capture a city and then pillage it almost to the ground - getting the goodies in the process - and then keep the city afterwards.

In the end I settled with the idea of relocating specialists who, based on your empires infrastructure, can give gold, research, hammers, etc in more steady, proportional amounts and whom can only be given once the city is razed. And in the end, it became more realistic, balanced and simple in my opinion.

Think of the specialist relocation as slaves that can be forced to produce gold, research, production, culture, etc in your own cities. That's the idea :)

- How probable is to get a Free Citizen/Specialst? (general rule)The probability is based primarily on city size. Currently, a size 11 city will give a 100% chance of getting a specialist. A size 2 city will give 10% chance. This is calculated only once and is done when the city is captured. My aim was to have the relocated specialist as a bonus for razing a city, but it became apparent that one could just raze small, new cities in order to get them, so I gave this probability in order to balance it out. This should stop any "wait for AI to plant city so I can raze it and get specialists" type of exploit.

Also, if the city has a shrine or world wonder - regardless of size - it will give a specialist guarenteed. Even a city of size 1.

- % of reducing population also depends on city value/culture?
- How probable it is to reduce the population? (general rule)Depends on:
-cultural level
-the number of national wonders in the city
-the number of world wonders in the city
-whether it's a holy city - taking into account whether it's a holy city to multiple religions.
-population (which is recalculated as the city is reduced).

Normal cities without the above will have limited resistance (the only resistance will be from the culture - if any - and population size). After that, wonders, national wonders and holy cities increase the resistance - especially if they are all in the same city.

- How long the revolt last if I don't stop pillaging?Until the city is razed. By not stopping pillaging (in other words, by continuing to pillage), the city will ultimately be razed.

It stops the revolt timer provided you pillage the city tile each turn. When you skip a turn, the revolt timer will count down as normal. There is a small chance that it might increase, but it's there for flavour and to remove a potential issue with the revolt period count down getting 'in the way' of razing a city properly. The chance of it increasing is per pillage too, so the more pillages per turn, the more chance you have of increasing the revolt timer. This also gives the flavour effect of having to wait longer for the revolt to finish if you decide to stop pillaging a city midway during the raze.

My opinion: _that's a great idea_!!! I wonder why Firaxis couldn't think of something like that. If it is balanced (probably it needs sone testng?) it is surely a nice way to let player able to raze a city (I don't like the "no city razing" option), but also make it something more "realistic" and allow who lose a huge city by the last enemy unit to retake the city back in the next turns. I like also the free specialist/citizen idea. I'll try it in the next month, and let you know again my opinion then.Cool :)

Btw: your first post changed twice. I started reading it after you edited it, than I reloaded the page and it changed again. Just asking because the first edit seemed more complete (I didn't read it all, but it looked longer and more specific), this one seems more synthetic and the post looks more like it was before editing :confused: . Just wondering if this was supposed to happen...Yeah. The first one was a little confusing. The second I just copied and pasted from the readme file in order to explain it in more detail. Eventually though, I figured people would just want it in simple point form, so I changed it to what it is now. I changed the readme to be this simple format too. It's more straight forward.

...don't even know if what I wrote makes any sense in english, lol :lol: :lol:

Anyway, good job! :goodjob:It makes sense and thanks :)

uhm... this means that if another civ city on my cultural border flips I have to always take it? also if I don't like it? :confused: (it sounds not so fair: it might be a not useful city which I don't want to include in my empire... not my fault if another civ placed it there while I builted lots of culture...)
Or it is just about when cities I built are in revolt for other civ cultural expansion? (in this case, of course, it is fair to put that limitation).
I mean: if a city flips there's no revolt and I can choose between take or raze the city (in not modded game). In the modded game, in this case what happens? Am I allowed to raze the city? A revolt happens? I have to always take the city?Thanks for pointing this out, I hadn't tested it. It works though (just tested it): A menu pops up asking you whether you want to keep the city that wants to join or you can disband the city, so there is no change there.

Do I still have to pay the city's maintenance while I'm razing it to the ground over the course of several turns??

Do I still have to pay the city's maintenance while I'm razing it to the ground over the course of several turns??No. You don't pay maintenance when a city is in revolt anyway.

No. You don't pay maintenance when a city is in revolt anyway.

Are you sure?? Because in the regular game, when I take a city, my maintenance costs go up, and if I then immediately raze it, they go back down again.

Thanks for the answers! :) Once again, Good Job! :goodjob:
It seems very well planned, and seemes to be easely played and fairly balanced, at least on paper. I'll defenitively try it in my next games, expecially since you say the Ai knows how to use it and take benefits of it (my bigger issue when I mod, since I'm only able to modify .xml files, so I can't change things AI won't take benefits from).
Something like this should be included in BtS expansion, at least as an option, in my opinion.

There's another question, I hope I'm not getting boring. In the edited .xml file there's the lines:
TXT_KEY_MISC_PLUNDERED_GOLD_FROM_CITY
and
TXT_KEY_MISC_FOUND_RESEARCH_IN_CITY
Since you said that you don't get money (and you never said you get technologies) pillaging a city, I guess they're something left there from a previous test version. Is that correct? Just wondering about the use of them. I ask since after testing it in SP, I'd like to add this mod changes also to my next MP games (shold be working fine also in MP, right?), so before proposing it to the people I play with, I have to make sure I understood everything well. Of course I'll give you credit for it. Thanks again.

Are you sure?? Because in the regular game, when I take a city, my maintenance costs go up, and if I then immediately raze it, they go back down again.Hmmm. I might have to look more throughoughly into that then. I am (was?) pretty sure that cities in revolt don't produce any commerce, gold and research, but also don't cost any gold aswell. I'll look into it to confirm it.

It seems very well planned, and seemes to be easely played and fairly balanced, at least on paper. I'll defenitively try it in my next games, expecially since you say the Ai knows how to use it and take benefits of it (my bigger issue when I mod, since I'm only able to modify .xml files, so I can't change things AI won't take benefits from).
Something like this should be included in BtS expansion, at least as an option, in my opinion.It is easy to play and I think gells into the game without being dominant in any way. Heh, it's harder to take cities though!

As for the AI, the AI only knows how to raze, it doesn't alter its strategy in any way, so the check the AI does in order to decide whether to raze a city or not is still the same, except now, it will move into a raze-city-by-pillaging mode until the city is destroyed.

Yeah, it looks balanced on paper. I am playing a game now (Monty), I have just got Representation and I'm now in a full swing specialist strategy. I have been razing left right and center in order to exploit it as much as possible and it seems ok. I'm still behind in tech as usual ^.^ so it doesn't at this point feel game breaking. I have received 8 specialists (in Caste System) and have razed 22 cities. I have 12 cities and the Great Library aswell.

The 'interesting' thing with this bonus is that you loose the city, so allthough you get a bonus, it pails in comparison to keeping the city itself. It takes time and effort to replace the city, so a straight "I'm going to raze so I can exploit the bonus and then replace the city" (which is largely what I am trying to do, all be it not so well) is a lot of effort which doesn't nessecerily allow you to come out on top. I might try it next with an Imperialisitic trait. The settler bonus would help with city expansion while razing, so it might push this mod to breaking point: Rep/Caste/Mercantilism, Genghis(Agg/Imp) with a strong razing and replacing strategy. That would be a good test.

I do need some good representation/specialist experts and/or heavy razers to play the game and exploit the crap out of it to see if it's imbalanced. If it passes that, then its cool. If it doesn't, I have a few strategies that can balance out the relocated specialist bonus without having to scrap the idea completely. But I want to see it exploited first.

There's another question, I hope I'm not getting boring. In the edited .xml file there's the lines:It's cool, ask away :)

Since you said that you don't get money (and you never said you get technologies) pillaging a city, I guess they're something left there from a previous test version. Is that correct? Just wondering about the use of them. I ask since after testing it in SP, I'd like to add this mod changes also to my next MP games (shold be working fine also in MP, right?), so before proposing it to the people I play with, I have to make sure I understood everything well. Of course I'll give you credit for it. Thanks again.Yep. They're remenants from previous models I experimented with. I decided to keep them in as I have pretty much also left 95% of the code still in aswell (commented out though, off course) so that I could re-explore them if need be. Those TXT_KEYs that you described aren't currently implemented in the game though.

I was going to make shrines give gold and the Great Library give research, but again, the idea of being able to pillage a city almost to the ground and then keep the city and get the best of both worlds was a little exploitive, which crushed that idea.

As for MP, it hasn't been tested on MP. I have no idea if it works. The code I have changed/added shouldn't really affect MP though. You might want to try a few experiemental games in MP to see if it works first. If you do, let me know how it goes so I can know too :)

Ok, a new (minor) version has been put up. It just rewords the "A specialist has been..." to "You have relocated a specialist....". It sounds better and more consistant.

Also, holy cities will now allways give a relocated specialist. Previously, it depended on whether there was a shrine present or not. Now it's not required. It was strange razing a holy city and sometimes getting nothing from it because there was no shrine there. A holy city is naturally perceived as being more valuable, and as such, should allways give a relocated specialist.

Are you sure?? Because in the regular game, when I take a city, my maintenance costs go up, and if I then immediately raze it, they go back down again.No, when you capture a city, the city's maintenance costs are 0.0. So I don't know what you refering to exactly. In a couple of tests I did, my expenses didn't increase at all when I captured it. When you refer to maintenance costs, where are you seeing this?

No, when you capture a city, the city's maintenance costs are 0.0. So I don't know what you refering to exactly. In a couple of tests I did, my expenses didn't increase at all when I captured it. When you refer to maintenance costs, where are you seeing this?

My gold per turn drops... I always assumed this was from the additional maintenance. Hm... must be from the number of cities...

Hmmm. Moving units that were in enemy territory into a captured city may also increase your gold per turn, depending on how many units you have and how their respective supply costs impact your economy. So the fact that you're getting a net drop is interesting.

Maybe it does have something to do with hitting a number of cities city maintanence threshold or something, which might increase it from 4 gold per turn per city to 5 gold per turn per city. The tests I did wouldn't have shown that so it's still very plausable.

I'm quite sure (in unmodded game):
1. Cities in revolt costs 0.0 maintenence. They produce nothing.
2. If you don't raze a city, then your "number of cities" maintenence cost in _the other cities_ will be calculated adding the new one (and it's population/buildings) to the calculation. In the same way I'm quite sure also governement costs may vary in + or - (growing the population with the new city the cost may be increased, but maybe you could get more units "without mainetence cost" or "pacifism maintenece costs"... don't know if I could explain myself... I mean getting more unit with "free mainetence").
3. When a city flips from culture its the same, except that you may see your maintenence cost grow also for (whatever you raze the city or not) the free units you get inside the city.
Not completly sure, let's say 92.76% chance to win :lol: :lol: lol
@Watiggi: thanks for the answers, I'm playing the mod (HuaynaCapec/Marathon), but I just started, didn't had a chance yet to let my Quechua pillage some cities...

@Watiggi: thanks for the answers, I'm playing the mod (HuaynaCapec/Marathon), but I just started, didn't had a chance yet to let my Quechua pillage some cities...Make sure you get the latest update (v1.0.01). It has a small change to holy cities that I found needed to be adjusted. Old v1.0 savegames will work with v1.0.01.

Make sure you get the latest update (v1.0.01). It has a small change to holy cities that I found needed to be adjusted. Old v1.0 savegames will work with v1.0.01.
Done. Thanks :)

Finished my first game with this mod, updated version. Here's few lines about the game. Conquest Victory in year 620AD. I played a easy level (noble) standard game with Huyana Capac/pangea/small/5 civilization, playing aggressively to raze many cities and check out the new raze system. I built many Quechua (some upgraded to Axeman), then with costruction many catapults and few war elefants. I didn't discover any relgion, I razed 2 Holy Cities and got 2 specialists (1 for each city). I kept the other ancient religion Holy city to have at least 2 cities (I didn't built settlers). Not my favourite playing style (I like best cultural and space race victories), but was a fun game. I like the new city-raze system.
Everything seems work well. :) Here some screen shots:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/87693/Civ4ScreenShot0116.JPG
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/87693/Civ4ScreenShot0131.JPG
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/87693/Civ4ScreenShot0139.JPG
the final save (I guess those saves need this mod to work):
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/87693/Huayna_Capac_AD-0620.CivWarlordsSave
the 1st autosave:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/87693/AutoSave_Initial_BC-4000.CivWarlordsSave
autosave the turn I conquest the last city:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/87693/AutoSave_AD-0600.CivWarlordsSave
So far, Graet Job on this Mod! :goodjob:

Hehe, wow! You ripped through 'em ;)

I found the game gets really interesting when you are tackling developed empires and you find yourself consistantly capturing large cities. The decision to keep and control it or raze it for the benefit of the specialist and also not having to bother with cultural pressure, etc becomes a lot more interesting.

Thanks for the feedback Yatta :)

This sounds like a great addition! I really want to give it a try, but I seem to have hit a snag. How can I use this change/addition in conjunction with Sevomod since they both have their own core.dll file?

This mod (v1.0.02) comes with the source code, but you'll need Sevomod's source code in order to integrate it. Otherwise it can't be done.

when studying your code i found small logical issue in CvPlayer.cpp

when you are looking for some wonders, you are using some constant values:
example from your Cvplayer.cpp:

for (iI = 0; iI < GC.getNumBuildingInfos(); iI++)
{
if (pOldCity->isHasRealBuilding((BuildingTypes)iI))
{
iNumBuildings += 1;

// see if its a wonder worth noting (including a shrine)
switch (iI)
{
// national wonders
case 93:
// Oxford University
// this is caught by the if statement below
bOxfordUniversity = true;
break;

case 94:
// Wall Street
// this is caught by the if statement below
bWallStreet = true;
break;


problem is, that if there is some new buildings added, this code can be different, so this pillage values/switches is not set correctly
better way is use GC.getInfoTypeForString("BUILDING_OXFORD_UNIVERSITY") etc...

but there is also other problem: if you have some UB, you must compare not building ID but class ID


switch (GC.getBuildingInfo(iI).getBuildingClassType())
{
case GC.getInfoTypeForString("BUILDINGCLASS_OXFORD_UNIVERSITY"):
bOxfordUniversity = true;
break;
...



this is more flexible way (still needed to recompile when added new buildingclass which is valuable to test)

mexico

In the standard game, you get no benefit from razing the city -- why should we encourage city razing with specialists?

Idea: Each "raze" reduces the city size by 1, and has a chance to destroy a random building in the city equal to (# of buildings left)/(size of city).

Then take [(10% of building cost you razed) + (2 per city size before razing)], divide by the cost of a randomly chosen AI_WORKER or AI_SETTLER unit you could build at that city location, and that is the chance you spawn that worker/settler unit.

Humans could exploit this to produce extra workers -- but it really isn't that efficient. It is almost certainly better to use the city to produce workers.

My biggest concern would be that the AI wouldn't disband the excess units produced. :)

@Mexico, awesome! I hated using the constant values, but I couldn't figure out how to do it properly. Thanks for that :)

Is the source easy to read? I wondered whether leaving in so much commented code was a good thing or not.

@Yakk, the problem I found with giving some sort of reward during the razing process (ie, while reducing the population) was that a human player could then reduce the city, get all the rewards and then keep the city afterwards. I initially had it give gold per turn, but yeah, it could be exploited by a human a bit too easily. A bonus at the end requires that the city be destroyed in order to get anything out of it... at the expense of loosing the city itself, which (imo), gave it better balance.

As to destroying buildings during the razing process: I explored that, but found that there are two groups of people who want a slow raze city mod: a) the ones attacking the city (for improved look and feel and what not) and b) the peaceful players who loose a city and the AI just recklessly razes it for silly reasons. This way, the peaceful players have a chance of getting their valuable city back largely in tact.

Hmmm, thinking about it, the buildings still do go through the normal 'destroy building' check upon capture though. Maybe it might be better if it were to not destroy any buildings upon capture and then instead, destroy a building with each pillage using the building's chance of being destroyed value (forgot what it's called exactly). That way, buildings like wonders and what not will remain intact while other - less valuable - buildings might get destroyed.

As to your suggestion though, I've been following a 'keep it simple' approach with regards to rewards. It's consistant with Civ4's existing philosophy and reduces the chance for human exploits (which is why I guess Firaxis went with that philosophy).

The idea I have now would be to:

1) don't do the destroy building check upon capture (so, all buildings will be intact).
2) with each pillage, grab a random building and do a destroy building check on it (some buildings like wonders cannot be destroyed, while others might have a 33% chance of being destroyed, others 50%, etc).
3) if successful, destroy it.

Would need to deal with the attacker getting the defenders UB and what not though... but overall it would be simple and would probably add to the razing atmosphere while also giving the defender the chance of getting back their city intact if they hurry.

@Mexico, awesome! I hated using the constant values, but I couldn't figure out how to do it properly. Thanks for that :)

Is the source easy to read? I wondered whether leaving in so much commented code was a good thing or not.

@Yakk, the problem I found with giving some sort of reward during the razing process (ie, while reducing the population) was that a human player could then reduce the city, get all the rewards and then keep the city afterwards. I initially had it give gold per turn, but yeah, it could be exploited by a human a bit too easily. A bonus at the end requires that the city be destroyed in order to get anything out of it... at the expense of loosing the city itself, which (imo), gave it better balance.

As to destroying buildings during the razing process: I explored that, but found that there are two groups of people who want a slow raze city mod: a) the ones attacking the city (for improved look and feel and what not) and b) the peaceful players who loose a city and the AI just recklessly razes it for silly reasons. This way, the peaceful players have a chance of getting their valuable city back largely in tact.

Hmmm, thinking about it, the buildings still do go through the normal 'destroy building' check upon capture though. Maybe it might be better if it were to not destroy any buildings upon capture and then instead, destroy a building with each pillage using the building's chance of being destroyed value (forgot what it's called exactly). That way, buildings like wonders and what not will remain intact while other - less valuable - buildings might get destroyed.

As to your suggestion though, I've been following a 'keep it simple' approach with regards to rewards. It's consistant with Civ4's existing philosophy and reduces the chance for human exploits (which is why I guess Firaxis went with that philosophy).

The idea I have now would be to:

1) don't do the destroy building check upon capture (so, all buildings will be intact).

That makes conquest too good.

2) with each pillage, grab a random building and do a destroy building check on it (some buildings like wonders cannot be destroyed, while others might have a 33% chance of being destroyed, others 50%, etc).

Good idea.

Would need to deal with the attacker getting the defenders UB and what not though... but overall it would be simple and would probably add to the razing atmosphere while also giving the defender the chance of getting back their city intact if they hurry.

Losing most of the city seems fair: you did let the city be conquored.

My complaint is that you give a greater bonus for razing the city than in standard Civ4: a free specialist is good.

On the other hand, a bunch of workers is a pretty mediocre reward.

That makes conquest too good.Good point. I forgot about that.

My complaint is that you give a greater bonus for razing the city than in standard Civ4: a free specialist is good.Standard Civ4 doesn't give any bonuses for razing a city. I felt that razing a city and getting nothing from it was rather strange - especially considering many razed cities are looted by the conqueror and the loot is then taken back to their empire. One such thing that is 'looted' is the 'specialists', which are relocated back to their empire. Although there's a bonus of getting gold when you capture/raze a city, I personally wanted something with more of an ongoing reward - something that could be built upon.

Maybe making it have an option to have no bonuses might be of value?

On the other hand, a bunch of workers is a pretty mediocre reward.I actually question whether a bunch of workers is pretty mediocre. I mean, it can get you cottage spamming pretty quickly, help to build roads and forts to extend your war efforts more easily (forts in BtS being beefed up), etc. It would be bad if you could raze the city down a bit, collect a few workers and then keep the city and then cottage spam it with the newly acquired workers. The human could make much more use of that than the computer.

Do you find the free specialist too much of a bonus or just a good bonus? The games I generally play are in the early period, so they rarely go past the Knight era. I personally haven't found that I can really exploit it though. The bonus is dependant on actually building up the cities or being stuck with Caste System, which becomes difficult after Emancipation. Are you finding that it becomes way too much in the late game?

...

Something I'd like to explore (but it's currently beyond me) is to make a slave unit which has abilities on its own, like (as an example):

-sacrifice in city for small production.
-can join a seige unit (just like a Warlord), which then gives that siege unit some sort of resilience bonus (to simulate the attacker putting slaves into the firing line rather than their own men). Maybe a 1 First Strike per slave for that battle only or something. Then the slaves die after the combat, leaving the seige unit.
-a slow ability to build roads.
-etc.

...Whatever works. Something that bypasses all these potential balance issues with getting free specialists, free gold, free research, free workers, etc. Just have a slave unit and then define a balanced set of bonuses for that slave. I think that'll be the best solution longterm.

One city challenge, caste system, and insane results. (Or a few high-quality cities, which increases the density of your free specialists)

A free specialist is almost as good as 2 food, 1 health and 1 happiness per turn, forever, in that city. And you could just whip the population into workers if you wanted to. So long as whipping is more effective than razing, the burning of a city for workers won't be that big of an exploit.

Ok. Well, I wont be doing anything with it till way after BtS's release anyway. The source code is there for anyone who wants to play around with in the meantime. I am not however convinced that pillaging to get workers isn't exploitable though. The other reason I had for the free specialist is that it puts both human and AI on equal footing, which limits the human from making a too bigger advantage of the bonus. Bonus workers could easily be leveraged more than what the AI could. I don't think that would be for the better.

As you reduce the old population, does that also reduce the level of cultural influence of the previous owner (reducing the chance to culture-flip back, or reducing the cultural borders if re-captured)?

With the ability to add temporary effects that BtS offers, what about adding a penalty of 1 unhappy/1 unhealthy to that city for a few turns per population killed during pillaging (as the bodies pile up...and rot). If you choose to keep the city after all, you have to deal w/ the consequenses of your wholesale "ethnic cleansing".

Along that line...what about a UN resolution against pillaging cities? Now that UN resolutions can be defied (w/ political consequences) this can give another balance--let my enemy keep residual cultural influence or remove his population and face the world's outrage?

@hun+celt: Nice ideas :) I especially like the temporary unhappy/unheathiness bonus. That would open a door for bonuses given during the pillaging process while minimising human exploitation.

As for the culture issue. I don't think it affects the cultural level. At least, I didn't intentionally make it like that. If there is some obscure mechanic that calculates culture using the cities current size each turn, then it would have an effect on culture. But I didn't specifically make it affect the cultural level.

As to the UN about pillaging cities: It has always annoyed me as to how razing a city is just considered a economic decision where in reality, such a decision would have far reaching consequences.

Maybe have a simple disband city ability, which prehaps does something that ultimately removes the city (even conquered ones), at a cost or something (ie, gold, time, etc). Then have the pillaging/razing ability to be something with far reaching consequences, like increasing anger in other non military supporting leaders, inducing fear in the enemy (increased chance of capitulation), etc.

Hey, I don't suppose anyone has updated this to BtS compatible, have they? Especially since they moved some of the code in CvPlayer.cpp to python, so I don't know where to put Watiggi's code anymore.