This is an incredible idea I think, every city you capture you take parts of their treasury. Maybe you could make a script where all players get a fixed amount of gold in the beginning like 500 or something. Anyone get my drift?

How about ENSLAVE option (if you are running slavery civic) that reduces the city size to half and then distributes these people to other cities as slave citizens?

Wouldn't it be very difficult to get rid of the slaves after you're no longer in Slavery?

This is an incredible idea I think, every city you capture you take parts of their treasury. Maybe you could make a script where all players get a fixed amount of gold in the beginning like 500 or something. Anyone get my drift?

How about ENSLAVE option (if you are running slavery civic) that reduces the city size to half and then distributes these people to other cities as slave citizens?

Wouldn't it be very difficult to get rid of the slaves after you're no longer in Slavery?

I've been meaning to change the conquered city options for some time. I always felt razing a city should give a lot more gold (100 gold for razing a size ten city, WTF!?).

Here's the plan:


Raze City (Recieve Gold porportional to # of buildings, wonders and population)
Capture City (same)
Enslave Population (only with Slavery Civic, distributes 1 slave specialist to each of your cities, until half the city has been enslaved)
Sack City (Kills random population [between 1/4-3/4], destroys random buildings (not wonders) and receive 1/2 the gold you would have you Razed the city. Also, ticks off the original owner)
Examine City (same)


Sound okay?

Also, I plan on limit slave specialists to the slavery civic only, you will lose them if you leave slavery.

sounds like great ideas to implement, maybe in the next release :D

Sounds good to me.:goodjob:

Sounds good, yes, but I'm wondering why you would sack a city, rather than seizing or razing it.

Sounds good, yes, but I'm wondering why you would sack a city, rather than seizing or razing it.

Financial trouble, but want a new city for the future. At least, that's what I'll program for the AI.

This will be a major boost to preindustrial warmongering. I love the idea of rampaging hordes sacking rival cities with no worries about revolutions or financial trouble. The tradeoff would be the diplo penalties, of course. But not having to raze cities you don't want to keep adds the ability to cripple a Civ without creating a vacuum where a future rival can drop cities. I love this idea bunches.

This will be a major boost to preindustrial warmongering. I love the idea of rampaging hordes sacking rival cities with no worries about revolutions or financial trouble. The tradeoff would be the diplo penalties, of course. But not having to raze cities you don't want to keep adds the ability to cripple a Civ without creating a vacuum where a future rival can drop cities. I love this idea bunches.

I'll need to set a timer so players can't repeatedly sack cities over and over, 5 turns (scaled for gamespeed) seem fine?

5 turns seems fine to me. I think you should also consider setting a minimum size for sacking cities. Logically, only cities with a pretty strong population and economy would have survived a sacking. Maybe size 3? It would probably require some testing to get the balance right.

Is there already an option to liberate a city from an enemy empire to return back to an ally empire when capturing a city?

Is there already an option to liberate a city from an enemy empire to return back to an ally empire when capturing a city?

I think so, but I'm not sure it works properly with Influence Driven War or fixed borders, since those throw city culture out of whack. If I recall, getting cities liberated when they're supposed to be has been a big challenge for both vanilla BtS and RoM/RevDCM for ages. I can never remember if you can actually give cities to vassals or not...

I've been meaning to change the conquered city options for some time. I always felt razing a city should give a lot more gold (100 gold for razing a size ten city, WTF!?).

Here's the plan:


Raze City (Recieve Gold porportional to # of buildings, wonders and population)
Capture City (same)
Enslave Population (only with Slavery Civic, distributes 1 slave specialist to each of your cities, until half the city has been enslaved)
Sack City (Kills random population [between 1/4-3/4], destroys random buildings (not wonders) and receive 1/2 the gold you would have you Razed the city. Also, ticks off the original owner)
Examine City (same)


Sound okay?

Also, I plan on limit slave specialists to the slavery civic only, you will lose them if you leave slavery.

When abolishing slavery, some of the slaves should become citizens, I think, while most of them either fade away or are too marginalized to be counted as full citizens. Certainly they are there. Maybe they can even create social discontent many years later as they attempt to attain full civil rights.

Great idea indeed.

I would like to present some ideas (around this topic) for consideration:

1. Razing a city should be possible only for cities up to certain size (6, 8, 10?).

2. I'd consider the idea of refugees. Once you capture a city, its size would be cut by 50% (this figure can be discussed), and nearby AI cities would gain +1 size each.

3. Razing a city with a World Wonder inside should cost you solid diplo penalty. Let say -3 in relations towards all other AI Civs. I would remind in this regard the World's reaction towards Taliban who intentionally destroyed Buddhas of Bamyan, unique sculptures from 6th century:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamyan

I know of course that the attitude towards Taliban is caused by many other reasons, but my point is: destroying World's heritage should be punished!

4. Similarly, razing a city with a National Wonder should cause extra diplo penalty from this particular CIV.

Remark: both 3 and 4 penalties should last for a long, long time. I would even consider a lifelong penalty for destroying National Wonder....

1. Why's that? Maybe have larger cities require multiple units to be in the city for the sacking to be enabled then?

3. Good idea essentially, but -3 might be too harsh? -1 for all civs and -2 for the civ who owned it perhaps?

1. Why's that? Maybe have larger cities require multiple units to be in the city for the sacking to be enabled then?

Because it is completely unrealistic to raze a city of i.e. Berlin size. While I can imagine small city being burned to the ground, I can't imagine razing New York. And actually it should cost you a lot of money, instead of gaining it ;)

Warsaw can be a good example. After Warsaw Uprising 1944 Hitler got very angry and ordered his troops to raze Polish capital. They managed to destroy large part of the city (by planting explosives house by house) but Warsaw survived anyway.

3. Good idea essentially, but -3 might be too harsh? -1 for all civs and -2 for the civ who owned it perhaps?

That is my suggestion, I can take others as well.

I like the sacking idea with size limits as well.

I have sacking cities 100% working; I just need to update the AI code so they will use it too. I'm going to work on the enslavement next.

I have sacking cities 100% working; I just need to update the AI code so they will use it too. I'm going to work on the enslavement next.

Nice. I look forward to actually having options when capturing cities, rather than totally destroy or completely occupy. :)

Nice. I look forward to actually having options when capturing cities, rather than totally destroy or completely occupy. :)Same here, more interesting choices are almost always good.:goodjob:

I have sacking cities 100% working; I just need to update the AI code so they will use it too. I'm going to work on the enslavement next.Are you adding new xml tag to civics like. <bCanEnslaveCity>? That way the feature isn't just limited to slavery civic... in case modmodders want to use it in some other civics as well. ;)

How about a UN resolution (world heritage sites) that either prevents razing of or causes diplomacy penalties/unhappiness when razing cities with great wonders/legendary culture?

Are you adding new xml tag to civics like. <bCanEnslaveCity>? That way the feature isn't just limited to slavery civic... in case modmodders want to use it in some other civics as well. ;)

Yeah, I added bAllowSlaves. Also added bSlave to Specialist Slave too.

How about a UN resolution (world heritage sites) that either prevents razing of or causes diplomacy penalties/unhappiness when razing cities with great wonders/legendary culture?

Mm, by the time the UN is built, no one uses slavery anymore. Anyway, sacking and enslaving cities all have new diplomatic effects, so it will tick off the other civilizations.

And as for repeated sackings, how about a decreasing gold count to help represent the damage done to city infrastructure, populace morale, etc. by the repeated sackings? Another thing, how about only allowing mercs to sack a city, as that was a historical way to reward troops and/or keep them loyal to you?

I figured you guys would appreciate a detailed breakdown of how these two new options work.

Sacking a City:
If the cities population is larger than 4 (adjustable in the GlobalAltDefines), and has less than 50% of your culture, you can sack the city. Sacking the city ticks off the original owner, and if it is a holy city, it angers everyone with that religion. Sacking a city yield 1/2 the gold you would have received from razing it, and kills between 1/4 and 3/4 of the cities population. Sacking a city still makes you the owner, you keep it afterwards.*

Enslaving a City:
If a cities population is larger than 5 (adjustable), and you using the slavery civic, you can enslave the city. Enslaving the cities removes all of the foreign culture from the city, and removes the foreign population. (So if you had 20% culture, 20% of the population would survive. A minimum of 1 population will always survive). For each time you enslave a city, all of your cities receive a free slave specialist. Any nation who had culture in that city will be angry at your for enslaving their citizens, proportional to the amount of citizens enslaved. Enslaving cities is very useful, very powerful; but pretty much destroys the city and ticks off everyone. Oh, and the city will become rebellious, proportional to the enslaved population. Switching out of slavery will lose you your free slaves, switching back, you will regain them. You can only have slaves in the slavery civic now.



*Okay, I know this is going to be controversial, but giving it back to the previous owner is simply too exploitable. If I give them the city back, it's just a loophole to be exploited, no matter how many free defenders I give. I also expect I could never get the AI to handle Sacking this way either.


One last thing; does anyone have a good name for the buttons? Currently, they just read "Enslave the City" and "Sack the City", but they look boring compared to "Burn Baby Burn!!!". :p

One last thing; does anyone have a good name for the buttons? Currently, they just read "Enslave the City" and "Sack the City", but they look boring compared to "Burn Baby Burn!!!". :p

Well, "Enslave the city's denizens!" and "Let your soldiers plunder the city!" sound good to me. But those are just my suggestions. ;)

"Bring out the whips!" for enslave, and maybe "Their riches be mine!!" for sacking? :D

So why would you sack the city now? You get less gold than razing and you lose some of the population.

So why would you sack the city now? You get less gold than razing and you lose some of the population.

If you need fast money, or have rebellion issues. Small cities are easier to hold against rebels, and capturing a large city may take 8-10 turns before they begin working again. Better than Razing it, especially if its on a strategic site.

I should also mention, I scaled both Razing and Sacking gold to inflation; which means late game plunder should be in realistic amounts.

Enslaving a City:
If a cities population is larger than 5 (adjustable), and you using the slavery civic, you can enslave the city. Enslaving the cities removes all of the foreign culture from the city, and removes the foreign population. (So if you had 20% culture, 20% of the population would survive. A minimum of 1 population will always survive). For each time you enslave a city, all of your cities receive a free slave specialist. Any nation who had culture in that city will be angry at your for enslaving their citizens, proportional to the amount of citizens enslaved. Enslaving cities is very useful, very powerful; but pretty much destroys the city and ticks off everyone. Oh, and the city will become rebellious, proportional to the enslaved population. Switching out of slavery will lose you your free slaves, switching back, you will regain them. You can only have slaves in the slavery civic now.This sounds really cool system. One minor suggestion for the cities that gain slaves: shouldn't these cities' culture amounts also change accordingly - the slaves bring their own culture to this city so if you enslave cities from many different nations, your cities culture should show this because your citizens are now living in very mixed culture.

This sounds really cool system. One minor suggestion for the cities that gain slaves: shouldn't these cities' culture amounts also change accordingly - the slaves bring their own culture to this city so if you enslave cities from many different nations, your cities culture should show this because your citizens are now living in very mixed culture.

Good point. How about the culture is made up of the cultures removed from the old city, and it is proportional to the population; so the slave specialist in a small city will change the culture considerable, but make barely a dent in larger ones. Great thinking!

@Afforess

Just what I was thinking too. ;)

If you need fast money, or have rebellion issues. Small cities are easier to hold against rebels, and capturing a large city may take 8-10 turns before they begin working again. Better than Razing it, especially if its on a strategic site.

I should also mention, I scaled both Razing and Sacking gold to inflation; which means late game plunder should be in realistic amounts.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding... If I need the money or have rebellion issues, why would I want another city, and therefore another drain on my economy/stability? Why wouldn't I just raze it and get the full gold amount, and not have to worry about garrisoning/maintaining the new city? Also, if I did want another city, why would I sack it and reduce pop/buildings instead of capturing it hopefully relatively intact?

The enslave options looks great tho. I personally haven't found a use for that civic yet, but with all these options that excuse is rapidly fading ;)

Overall, I think the idea is very interesting, but I think myself and others were lookng more along the lines of raiding, wherein you destroy defenders, take some treasure, and destroy some buildings (and maybe gain more treasure)

Overall, I think the idea is very interesting, but I think myself and others were lookng more along the lines of raiding, wherein you destroy defenders, take some treasure, and destroy some buildings (and maybe gain more treasure)

I know, I know. Initially, that is what I was going to do. The problem is this:

By the time you see the popup, you have already captured the city. The options either let you look at the city, keep it (do nothing) or raze it (Surprisingly, razing is coded so you can only raze cities you already own; counter-intuitive, but the way Firaxis designed it). So I can only make post-capture decisions.

If you have any ideas on how to improve sacking; let me know.

I know, I know. Initially, that is what I was going to do. The problem is this:

By the time you see the popup, you have already captured the city. The options either let you look at the city, keep it (do nothing) or raze it (Surprisingly, razing is coded so you can only raze cities you already own; counter-intuitive, but the way Firaxis designed it). So I can only make post-capture decisions.

If you have any ideas on how to improve sacking; let me know.

Hmmm.. Well thats a bit of a pickle, isn't it? I know in the past I've liberated cities back to their initial owners after hostilities have ceased. Can it be programmed to "liberate" cities back to a native civ while hostilities are still ongoing?

My thinking being, would it be possible to program a Raid option, where in you've technically speaking captured the city, but immediately 1) reduce the population a certain amount 2) plunder gold 3)sell a certain percentage of buildings present [thereby generating more gold] & 3)liberating the city back to its original owners.

Hmmm.. Well thats a bit of a pickle, isn't it? I know in the past I've liberated cities back to their initial owners after hostilities have ceased. Can it be programmed to "liberate" cities back to a native civ while hostilities are still ongoing?

My thinking being, would it be possible to program a Raid option, where in you've technically speaking captured the city, but immediately 1) reduce the population a certain amount 2) plunder gold 3)sell a certain percentage of buildings present [thereby generating more gold] & 3)liberating the city back to its original owners.

Yes it is. But liberation, IIRC, requires two things:

Peacetime
The other player to have the highest amount of culture in that city


Both clash with the concept of raiding...

Yes it is. But liberation, IIRC, requires two things:

Peacetime
The other player to have the highest amount of culture in that city


Both clash with the concept of raiding...

Thats what I thought.. Never hurt to ask tho ;) Back to the proverbial drawing board then :(

I know, I know. Initially, that is what I was going to do. The problem is this:

By the time you see the popup, you have already captured the city. The options either let you look at the city, keep it (do nothing) or raze it (Surprisingly, razing is coded so you can only raze cities you already own; counter-intuitive, but the way Firaxis designed it). So I can only make post-capture decisions.

If you have any ideas on how to improve sacking; let me know.

I believe there is one more option (sometimes): return back to original owner.

Anyway, this obstacle spoil the whole idea of sacking a city. Why would you sack your own city then? At this moment, either you keep it (means you need it, so why make it weaker), or you raze it (bad placement, high distance to you empire, or any other reason).

Is it possible to make the city, you choose to sack, barbarian? I mean, you destroy the defenders, plunder the city, then your troops leave and it will wallow in chaos. The original owner would need to send troops to restore order. Would it make any sense, BTW?

Is it possible to make the city, you choose to sack, barbarian? I mean, you destroy the defenders, plunder the city, then your troops leave and it will wallow in chaos. The original owner would need to send troops to restore order. Would it make any sense, BTW?Or turn it to autonomic city state (ie. form new colony)? Though that's already possible if the city is on another continent...

Yes it is. But liberation, IIRC, requires two things:

Peacetime
The other player to have the highest amount of culture in that city


Both clash with the concept of raiding...

You could adopt the python code I used for the YAM in ANM to convert a city back to it's original owner all in that single event. Yes it may have a half second delay doing so, but at least it gets the job done and the option is available. All you'd need to do is change what triggers the event and get the city to give instead of take. It transfers all culture, buildings, etc.

You could adopt the python code I used for the YAM in ANM to convert a city back to it's original owner all in that single event. Yes it may have a half second delay doing so, but at least it gets the job done and the option is available. All you'd need to do is change what triggers the event and get the city to give instead of take. It transfers all culture, buildings, etc.

IIRC, it doesn't convert it to it's original owner, it converts it to the civ with the most culture in the city (excluding the current owner). There is no variable stored in the city information to indicate the previous owner. Once the city has been acquired, the old city is deleted, all the information lost that wasn't transferred explicitly.

Anyway, even if I did give the city back to the original owner, then what? It seems strange to restrict units from entering it again, or giving free defenders....

I'm not happy with the current implementation or any currently proposed ones... I'm trying to think of a better solution.

wow I started a hell of a thread no? lol I'm glad everyone agrees that its a great idea, thanks to everyone who works hard on this mod its great!

I'm going to take a break from this; Perhaps I can come up with a better solution will I advance other projects. The main problem is that when a unit moves into a city owned by someone they are a war with; the game forces you to take over the city; before the popup appears....

Idea not forgotten, just postponed.

I'm going to take a break from this; Perhaps I can come up with a better solution will I advance other projects. The main problem is that when a unit moves into a city owned by someone they are a war with; the game forces you to take over the city; before the popup appears....

Idea not forgotten, just postponed.Does this mean you can release the patch now?:mischief::D

Does this mean you can release the patch now?:mischief::D

I think two more bugs left ot fix: the negative hits of canceled OB/EE and one other thing mentioned in the todo list.

Does the sack city feature work? I notice it is in the sdk, but because of a runtime error I cannot play the game.

In one of the ancient Med Mods, slavery gives you a chance to enslave a unit during every battle. This slave could be a worker, join a city as a slave specialist, or become a Gladiator for increased culture or other benefits. Slave have the chance to earn their freedom to become freed slaves, citizens, and Gladiators can also win their freedom to become a Gladiator combat unit. Or they can die, too, whipped to death, killed in the arena, etc. Have a tech of the Emacipation Proclimation to free all slaves, Christianity religion begins to condemn the Gladiator games, causing unhappiness.
What do you think? It would bring even more depth to the Classical and Rennisance eras. So sacking a city and enslaving the population has a big payoff, not just in money.

I read up on the sacks of Rome and although some were about the invaders going into the city and then leaving, and others were about the invaders starving off the city and being paid to leave, perhaps the sacking of a city in civ could be similar to the blockades that boats do at sea, you block off all tiles in the cities radius and get gold per turn depending on the size of the city (which decreases over time) and your units don't receive a defensive bonus. ( or maybe a decrease to defense since they are "hunting for loot"). This would give you gold, make the city weaker, and you wouldn't have to worry about a city to control. "But the defenders in the city will attack your units if you sack the city" if there were strong enough defenders in the city you wouldn't really be able sack it.

Or it could be like the archer bombard and once the city has no more defensive units you could "sack" without actually entering with units but "bombard" from the outside with a unit revive gold and maybe destroy some buildings, which could be a choice. and same with the old rules, you cannot do this again for a couple of turns.

This would be more along the lines of raiding for a quick buck if you dont want a city to control or deal with the diplomatic issues/vacuum of razing

Or we could go a different direction and after you capture the city the AI would offer you a amount of gold or other item in return for you to leave the city and return to their control, which i dunno if that works during wartime because Ive noticed only one side can trade something for peace or ceasefire.

I've been trying to adapt the barbarian ransom mod in conquerer's delight. Maybe that mod could be adapted to a sack city feature somehow.

Edit: The Ransom code for the Vikings Mod of Warlords seems to be purely python. If you click install a new governor when conquering a city, you immediately get the option to ransom the city. If you pick this option you receive money and the culture, etc. goes back to what it was and the previous owner immediately gets the city back.

If one could just add a random amount of buildings destroyed and pop reduced based on amount of each, you would have a viable solution.

Isn't sacking the city is already what happens automatically when you conquer a city ? (some buildings get converted to gold for you)

I didn't realize that. Do you have a link to find more information about that?

I think a sack is a little more severe version of that then. More of a population decrease and more looting/destruction of buildings. Maybe one could just add another option and increase the severity of the install new governor function.

I found this in the sdk, which seems to change the population upon conquest/capture:

pNewCity->setPopulation((bConquest && !bRecapture) ? std::max(1, (iPopulation - 1)) : iPopulation);

I figure if you change iPopulation - 1 to say iPopulation - X. I could change the population decrease.

Python seems to control icapturegold amount.

Not sure how to change the the number of buildings destroyed on conquest though.

searching some other threads I found this code for changing pillage amount

<DefineName>BASE_CAPTURE_GOLD</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>20</iDefineIntVal>
<DefineName>CAPTURE_GOLD_PER_POPULATION</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>10</iDefineIntVal>
<DefineName>CAPTURE_GOLD_RAND1</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>50</iDefineIntVal>
<DefineName>CAPTURE_GOLD_RAND2</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>50</iDefineIntVal>
<DefineName>CAPTURE_GOLD_MAX_TURNS</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>50</iDefineIntVal>

This seems to control if buildings are destroyed on capture:

<iConquestProb>100</iConquestProb>

It might take some work, but I think it is doable. In addition, another feature would be to add the ransom ability from the Vikins mod so that when you click to sack, the city would offer you a ransom. I've read this actually happened at times in history, but I don't want things to get complicated.


It is defined in the sdk code as well.

I think you could just make a new tag such as <iSurviveSackProb>100</iSurviveSackProb>. and similar GLobalDefines tags as above to modify the gold amount per pop, etc.

Maybe I should make a development thread in the Civ4 SDK forum? :band: That way many people could help to create a mod that everyone seems to want. I know there are some people in the C2C people who are interested in this idea as well. Then I could just link to the thread in the other similar threads.

Hm... what if, when you select sack, it moves your units off of the plot and then spawns a single militia unit of some kind (perhaps what is draftable) on the city? This would accomplish two things, one it would make a mimum of two pop loss from sacking, and it would also well leaving the city in the old controllers command it will be protected (kind of)
Is that a possible work around?

Sacking a city is interesting. The feature I wish was implemented is liberating a city (capturing a city with discouraging looting, a show of support to the indigenous population, avoiding civilian causalities, etc.). Such a feature would cause all buildings with survival odds 25% and more to survive automatically (buildings with less than that are treated normally), no gold is looted, the city's population is reduced by one and it is transferred to the nearest city (if tie determine randomly) of its former own if possible (representing loyalists leaving rather than population slaughtered), and there would still be a period of anarchy (representing problems caused by loyalists, installing new leadership, issues caused by military occupation, etc.).

So you don't gain as much gold but more buildings survive, an interesting trade off mechanic wise, but, there should be something related to happiness in the calculation, as you can't really logically liberate people that are happier with their current leader.

So you don't gain as much gold but more buildings survive, an interesting trade off mechanic wise, but, there should be something related to happiness in the calculation, as you can't really logically liberate people that are happier with their current leader.

I get what you mean. The only cities with that option should be ones with a non-state religion (only if the defending city has the same religion as your state religion or if the aggressor does not have a state religion and the defending city has a non-state religion present), a certain percentage of foreign culture (that you are not at war with), or city is unhappy. Besides liberating unhappy cities, the possibility of liberating cities for what would be minority populations (i.e. non-state religions, foreign cultures) should also be factor.

Well, I'm working on the mod, but I probabaly need help with the Python and maybe SDK.

I created a new Sack button option w/sdk after you conquer a city. I also added the Vikining Ransom python portions to the mod so only when you click on the sack button does the Ransom popup come up.

The Ransom python is from warlords so it will need some converting to BTS 3.19 to match the sdk. Basically what I'd like to do is have the Ransom popup have two options as is, but just change one option.

The Yes, Ransom option would stay the same.
The no to Ransom option be named perhaps Sack them and would function as the Ransom option, provide more gold, reduce the population a bit, and maybe destroy some buildings. However, there would be no Ransom city memory. Partisans then could be spawned with this option.

I tried messing with the sdk more extensively, but could not get it to work. The hard part with this python version will be getting rid of buildings.