Thanks for the well-reasoned response. You're free to disagree with whatever you want. A little civility is always nice, however.
Please just let us raze city states and capitals......
- Thread starter hardcore_gamer
- Start date
Thanks for the well-reasoned response. You're free to disagree with whatever you want. A little civility is always nice, however.
jjkrause84
King
If the only way the game can operate is giving the player contradictory and arbitrary limitations (you can raze any city you want....except that one. That one's special), then the game is poorly designed.
It isn't a shortcoming. BUT...
This seems to me opinions are only worthwhile if they are yours. Talk about a double standard.
This is a shortcoming, and a very big one. I want to be able to play the game as I see fit, not how you would have me play. At least the option for razing capitals and CSs should be there. All the devs would have to do is add a conquest victory condition. I would be ok if this was the only condition available for that type of game. Thinking on it, that should be the case. The idea being to conquer a certain percentage of the map. If you play a conquest game, then the way to win is to conquer and destroy your enemies. Raze cities or keep them as you see fit. A conquest victory was present in CiIV, not sure about III. It has been so long since I have played the game. Put a conquest victory in CiV. To me, it would be a lot of fun.
When you want to play the game with the other VCs you do that. You would have standard games rules, and a seperate conquest game and rules. Click what type of game you want to play. Problem solved.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
Conquest in CivIII involved capturing every single city on the map held by every player that is not you. While doing this the world
CivIII was all about the extremes.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,926
K.
This seems to me opinions are only worthwhile if they are yours. Talk about a double standard.
That is how these things tend to work.
I want to be able to launch nuclear weapons in 4000 AD. I see that as "fit" because Ancient Aliens told me it was "fit". Therefore, the arbitrary limitation on my ability to construct nuclear weapons is annoying. Furthermore, I shouldn't be punished for not using workers, because I don't see them "fit" in my vision of how I want to play this game.
They should call it "Ignore half the game" option in the Custom Game start-up.
"Ignore Half the Game Victory!"
There should be options to disable happiness, maintenance, religion, espionage, war, social policies, and a plethora of other options as well. That way I have the option to ignore the entire game and not just half of it.
It seems that the solution for part of the "problem" would be to disable city-states in game start-up. The other solution being to play OCC.
Pls. nobody is taking away your favorite toy and the developers arent your mummy...
TommyVern
Chieftain
I think you should be able to raze capitals and city states BUT, when you do, 1 unit, of the most advanced unit researched by the civ/CS who's city/capital is being razed, should spawn for every 1 citizen.
Bibor
Doomsday Machine
The idea in civ 5 is that capturing the capital is basically forcing an AI to capitulate. Which is basically historically correct. The liberating part is also historically correct. One could argue that razing a capital should be an option, but in the grand scehme of things (and not having civ4 domination style VC in Civ5) it makes perfect sense. Besides, razing and rebuilding is overrated. Almost always the capital is in a very decent spot.
That seem mostly correct. But take e.g. Romans vs. Carthage when Romans took the trouble after 3rd Punic war to totally destroy Carthago.
Jabberwockxeno
Prince
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2012
- Messages
- 487
I don't see what the big deal, can't it just be modded?
dont be silly that would be much worse than cheating. you have to play it the way it was designed for you... (just kidding)
fdelbene
CivFanatic
IMHO, capitals and city states should be destroyable as all the other cities.
This should be always the case: conquest and razing should produce a quantity of partisans around the city, depending on religion, culture, etc.
This should be always the case: conquest and razing should produce a quantity of partisans around the city, depending on religion, culture, etc.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,926
Yes. You do have to play the game the way it was designed to be played when you're talking about very central mechanics of the game. I don't play Assassin's Creed and about the fact I can't open up a store. I don't play Team Fortress 2 and complain about the lack of assault rifles either. Again, if you want to mod it, mod it. Just call it the "Ignore Half the Game" option.
That's all.
That's ridiculous, partisans never had any advanced weaponry or good training. And what about the amount of space available around the settlement? Large cities being razed (such as Samarqand and Baghdad IRL) would just clog up the area.
Peng Qi
Emperor
It's perfectly fine as-is. Only people who are being needlessly obsessive-compulsive about city state placement are effected. Trust me, I used to be the same way until I improved my game and realized that cities overlapping massively has little downside as long as both cities still serve a purpose the other can't fill.
Bandobras Took
Emperor
I have to agree with the naysayers. If you object to city-state placement, reduce the number of CSs when you generate the map.
Capital cities should be unrazeable.
Capital cities should be unrazeable.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
Man, someone forgot to tell that to the mujahadeen when they were downing all those soviet helis with stinger missiles in the 80's.
And let's not forget about the IED's of Iraq/Afghanistan nowadays. While they may not meet your criteria of 'advanced', anything that can flip an abrahams tank or destroy APC's is pretty advanced in my book, even if it's made of a cell phone, duct tape and an old artillery shell.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,926
Man, someone forgot to tell that to the mujahadeen when they were downing all those soviet helis with stinger missiles in the 80's.
I would post another picture of an aneurysm, but the memory from the last one is too fresh and on the same page.
One APC. One tank. Out of how many a unit represents? Since the game doesn't represent things like political will at home, I fail to see how these represent a threat on the CivV scale.
The Soviet helicopter fiasco was, whoops, caused by weapons given to the Mujahadeen by the United States. It isn't like a bunch of guys got pissed off at the Soviets and said collectively "I'm going to conjure a Stinger missile out my ass and shoot down helicopters". So, the idea is still very wrong.
