Please just let us raze city states and capitals......

I think genocide should be considered a basic right in Civ (now that is sig material ). Mechanics and reason be damned - if I *want* to burn down every last tulip shop in 'Dam after slogging through the polders for 200 years then who is Sid Meier to deny that right to my blood-hungry Caroleans? If the mechanics-schmechanics prevent this, then we should change the mechanics, not start denying people their basic city-burning rights. It is discrimination towards other cities if capitals and CSs get special rights. I say: 'no' to affirmative action, 'yes' to looting & pillaging!

Greizer85 said:

I think genocide should be considered a basic right in Civ (now that is sig material ).

Click to expand...

Prepare to be misquoted.

I agree with razing every city - i don't feel the need to debate my reasons, it is just what i want to be able to do. And i shouldn't have to play OCC to do this.

Sonereal said:

I don't know what I'm supposed to be understanding of. The complaints boil down to him wanting to burn down things that are connected to half a zillion important mechanics and concepts of the game because "they're in the way".

Click to expand...

Razing them works just fine in OCC games, I doubt very much that it would significantly impact any victory conditions.

But despite the merits or lack thereof of allowing to raze capitals and city-states, my point was simply that there's no reason to be so intolerant of his opinion, and to be impolite to him.

thadian said:

I agree with razing every city - i don't feel the need to debate my reasons, it is just what i want to be able to do. And i shouldn't have to play OCC to do this.

Click to expand...

I've never seen people debate Monopoly or Risk, or whatever to the degree everyone is crying on the forum over this or that part.

Isn't the game about learning how it works and then playing the best you can within those rules.

Most of the whine threads about changing the game boils down to people not understanding some basic rule of the game, making it even more problematic having to use time on that person arrogance. If they instead present something as a challenge and ask how to overcome it, it would make much more sense instead of constantly having to shoot down yet another guy that don't know how to play.

Androrc the Orc said:

Razing them works just fine in OCC games, I doubt very much that it would significantly impact any victory conditions.

Click to expand...

OCC games aren't actual civilization games. They're OCC games.

But despite the merits or lack thereof of allowing to raze capitals and city-states, my point was simply that there's no reason to be so intolerant of his opinion, and to be impolite to him.

Click to expand...

I'm intolerant of his reasoning. Do I need to explain how the Domination Victory works again? Should I explain how city-states factor into the game? There are several reasons why a "raze all" option negates half the game.

Starting to sound like me.

This irrationality against a perfect valid suggestion has taken me by surprise. I think we can do better than this as a community, so can we remain respectful about this?

Sonereal said:

Do I need to explain how the Domination Victory works again?

Click to expand...

If you think about it, the no capital razing rule isn't because the conditions for domination victory. The conditions for domination victory are because of the no razing captial rule. So if the rule is thrown out, wouldn't the victory conditions be adjusted to accommodate this change in gameplay?

Should I explain how city-states factor into the game? There are several reasons why a "raze all" option negates half the game.

Click to expand...

If the player wants to raze city-states he doesn't want to befriend or own regardless of the bonuses, I see no reason not to let him. Thinking it would be a better decision doesn't make it a reason not to allow an alternative.

Honestly, I'm somewhat on the fence about the decision. I don't quite enjoy the idea of a player being permanently removed from the game through a razed capital, but on the other hand I don't think I've ever seen a civilization make a comeback after spending around a hundred turns, if not far more, under occupation. Also, it would be nice to get rid of a neighboring civilization constantly saber-rattling, and I don't want to have to occupy his city for X reason. There's also the issue of "eliminating competition" of city-states, allowing a ludicrously aggressive empire to wrest diplomatic victory from other players.

I suppose all in all, lifting the rule would be more difficult than necessary, and it's likely the devs won't change it.

If I didn't have to anticipate happiness hits and chaos-duration currency hits I think the game would be ridiculously easy. It's already "not that hard". So they want an already "non-difficult" victory condition to be chimp-reasoning-level. Let's make a toggle option wherein when the game starts you win by founding a city. Why beat around the bush. Instead of civilization 5 we can call this game, "I win".

It's part of the game for integral reasons for victory conditions. What value would be winning the game if you change the game to make the game win meaningless?

Adjuvant said:

If I didn't have to anticipate happiness hits and chaos-duration currency hits I think the game would be ridiculously easy. It's already "not that hard". So they want an already "non-difficult" victory condition to be chimp-reasoning-level. Let's make a toggle option wherein when the game starts you win by founding a city. Why beat around the bush. Instead of civilization 5 we can call this game, "I win".

It's part of the game for integral reasons for victory conditions. What value would be winning the game if you change the game to make the game win meaningless?

Click to expand...

There should be in-game options that allow me to ignore mechanics I don't like.

There should be an in-game mechanic to let me switch civs in 1750 if I'm tired of my immortal game. I'm being inconvenienced forced to try to struggle under these circumstances. Help. I'm being oppressed.

There should be an in-game mechanic to let me cast the Stasis on all civilization that disables their production and research for 60 turns.

What, why go that far? Just bring back cheat mode so we can all gift Barbarians nuclear missiles in the 4000 BCE!

And then if you so much as blink at that local runaway, blam, he is now diamonds.

I miss FFH2. Someone make me a civ5 FFH.

Kellorkleft said:

This irrationality against a perfect valid suggestion has taken me by surprise. I think we can do better than this as a community, so can we remain respectful about this?


If you think about it, the no capital razing rule isn't because the conditions for domination victory. The conditions for domination victory are because of the no razing captial rule. So if the rule is thrown out, wouldn't the victory conditions be adjusted to accommodate this change in gameplay?


If the player wants to raze city-states he doesn't want to befriend or own regardless of the bonuses, I see no reason not to let him. Thinking it would be a better decision doesn't make it a reason not to allow an alternative.

Honestly, I'm somewhat on the fence about the decision. I don't quite enjoy the idea of a player being permanently removed from the game through a razed capital, but on the other hand I don't think I've ever seen a civilization make a comeback after spending around a hundred turns, if not far more, under occupation. Also, it would be nice to get rid of a neighboring civilization constantly saber-rattling, and I don't want to have to occupy his city for X reason. There's also the issue of "eliminating competition" of city-states, allowing a ludicrously aggressive empire to wrest diplomatic victory from other players.

I suppose all in all, lifting the rule would be more difficult than necessary, and it's likely the devs won't change it.

Click to expand...

Amen to that!

I do not get you people, what is the problem with adding the option to allow this? Personally I hate not being able to and actively use the In-game Editor to fix it.

Bakspatel said:

1 - The AI does burn down cities, and not just Attila.
2 - The capital is the most important city in a civilization; its only fair to give the player or the AI the opportunity to capture it back. If you hate it so much then rename it or let the population die out until its population is back at 1.
3 - Allowing CS to be burned down can be severely abused, if you tend to lose them then you can raze them to prevent others of liberating that civ.

Click to expand...

The thing is your the player, there should still be the option to play the way you want. Give us the ability to raze capitals and CSs. CiV should allow you to do this, just like in any other civ game. The basics of civilization should never leave the game. Destroying cities, and civs on the map, is to me a traditional principle of the game. It has always been there and should be agin. Also, for God's sakes add a conquest victory condition. This domination crap is getting old. It doe not work well with the current happiness system, especially on large maps. You have to sell captured cities to more enemies, it is crazy. Many of us thought these shortcomings would be taken care of. And for the billionth time, please fix the AI.

PhilBowles said:

....I think that there should be a general option, when you take a settler to a ruin in the landscape (which already defaults to restoring the existing city name), to rebuild the old city, which will restore some of its buildings. That way you can restore a capital or CS "to life", and it will go back to counting as a civ's original capital. There will then be no need to prevent them being razed....

Click to expand...

If you rebuild a city that had wonders, then there should be 'wonder ruins' buildings still in the city. You don't get the wonder bonus, but a nice and boost from archaelogy and tourism. Think of all the ruins of ancient egypt, greece, rome etc.

I don't understand all of the hostility regarding this suggestion. Much of what people do here is make suggestions that would change existing rules to make gameplay more enjoyable, so the incessant refrains of "you must play the game with the existing rules, period!" seem misplaced.

On topic, you can salvage domination while permitting razing if you make a player's starting tile (the tile on which they place their capital) the key to domination. If the player can retake that tile, then domination is thwarted. If a third party can take that tile, then they can resurrect a dead player/CS.

Sotof said:

I do not get you people, what is the problem with adding the option to allow this? Personally I hate not being able to and actively use the In-game Editor to fix it.

Click to expand...

You can't fix what isn't broken.

Why would developers allow an option that negates half the game?

It basically comes down to "I want the ability to ignore half the game".

nokmirt said:

The thing is your the player, there should still be the option to play the way you want. Give us the ability to raze capitals and CSs. CiV should allow you to do this, just like in any other civ game. The basics of civilization should never leave the game. Destroying cities, and civs on the map, is to me a traditional principle of the game. It has always been there and should be agin. Also, for God's sakes add a conquest victory condition. This domination crap is getting old. It doe not work well with the current happiness system, especially on large maps. You have to sell captured cities to more enemies, it is crazy. Many of us thought these shortcomings would be taken care of. And for the billionth time, please fix the AI.

Click to expand...

It isn't a shortcoming. It's a central part of the game.

But I did find a version of Civilization that allows this.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=144

Dogmouth said:

I don't understand all of the hostility regarding this suggestion. Much of what people do here is make suggestions that would change existing rules to make gameplay more enjoyable, so the incessant refrains of "you must play the game with the existing rules, period!" seem misplaced.

Click to expand...

More enjoyable for who? You don't speak for me. You don't speak for the other people who disagree with this idea. So, who is it more enjoyable for?

Adding zombies would make the game more enjoyable. To who? Does it matter? It would make it more enjoyable for someone.

I highly suggest checking out this game.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=144

On topic, you can salvage domination while permitting razing if you make a player's starting tile (the tile on which they place their capital) the key to domination. If the player can retake that tile, then domination is thwarted. If a third party can take that tile, then they can resurrect a dead player/CS.

Click to expand...

That's a silly idea.