War!!

Daoloth · Sep 21, 2001, 03:52 PM

The militaristic aspect of Civilization 3 has now jumped. Check this stuff out:

There are POW's, for you can capture enemy units!

http://www.civ3.com/previewwin.cfm?m...800&height=600

And not only that, but cities can be destroyed!

http://www.civ3.com/previewwin.cfm?m...800&height=600

And not only that, but there is definitely some sort of replay option! :crazyeyes

Sparrowhawk · Sep 21, 2001, 03:55 PM

We've known for a while that there is a slave/POW element to the game. I guess this helps clear up how they will be identified.

LKendter · Sep 21, 2001, 03:57 PM

Cities could ALWAYS be destroyed. If you destroyed a unit in a city of size one, the city went away. Nothing new there.

Now, "units the Germans have captured" does make me wonder. I am not sure what that is about.

Daoloth · Sep 21, 2001, 03:59 PM

Yes, small cities could always be destroyed, but by looking at the city name and date of destruction, Berlin, 1200's AD, it was probably a fairly large city at that time. The military advisor also tells you how many units they have lost, which is cool.

Sparrowhawk · Sep 21, 2001, 04:03 PM

The fact that it was berlin in the 1200's AD is really irrelevant. If it was caught in a war zone, it could easily have been reduced to a size 1 city.

Additionally, the Defense Minister doesn't say anything new. You always could see how many units the enemy had lost.

Dan Magaha FIRAXIS · Sep 21, 2001, 04:32 PM

No, those were large cities that were destroyed. In Civ III, when you capture a city, you are given the choice to either occupy that city, or raze it if you don't want it -- no matter what size the city is.

Dan
Firaxis Games, Inc.

LKendter · Sep 21, 2001, 04:42 PM

Talk about a scorched earth policy!

That is one way to solve a problem of a dumb placement of a city by the computer.

Of course, if you get a chance to take a city behind the computers lines, not much use with Culture is it?

BlueMonday · Sep 21, 2001, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS
No, those were large cities that were destroyed. In Civ III, when you capture a city, you are given the choice to either occupy that city, or raze it if you don't want it -- no matter what size the city is.

OH! OHHHH! OH HELL YEAH!!!!!!!!!

You just made up for all all of Firaxis's f-ups with that one statement. Raze city...sweet. I'm so happy I'm almost ready to forgive you guys for the MP debacle -NOT!

Sukenis · Sep 21, 2001, 04:50 PM

You could destroy a city in SMAC also, but it caused various types of political basklash. If you do this in Civ 3 does a similar backlash happen. While annoying I liked it that when you murdered the poeple of a civ, they would never back down from you and would then fight to the death.

Graeme the mad · Sep 21, 2001, 05:14 PM

Fantastic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!

go you brilliant firaxis people

Wahoo

I can see it now, my english hordes will smash through into washington: a message pops up:
do u want to take this city or raze it?
I click raze and, bye bye, oh yes, revenge for 1812, oh yes.

Robespierre · Sep 21, 2001, 06:41 PM

Wonderful!

Razing cities and slaughtering the inhabitants, thereby triggering a resistance so determined that it led to the turning point of the war (and the century) is exactly what happened when the Germans invaded Russia in 1940.

Also, I wonder whether there really are POW units since all the "captured" units visible were workers, I think. Can you only capture workers to make them slaves, or can you also capture enemy soldiers fleeing in disorganized panic?

Vrylakas · Sep 21, 2001, 07:50 PM

I wonder if there are any advantages to destroying a city, aside from the obvious military advantages? Any $$$ from pillaging? Do the citizens become slaves? What about any resources in the city's area?

Hmmmm...

Thunderfall · Sep 21, 2001, 09:27 PM

This is great! Now we'll be able to destroy captured cities to prevent enemies from retaking the city! :rocket3:

Smash · Sep 22, 2001, 12:26 AM

Razing cities?..oh I like this very much.Probably counter productive but I will wear this one out.

SunZi36 · Sep 22, 2001, 12:48 AM

Cool. Talk about ethnic cleansing.

I always hate how the computer builds cities in stupid locations and/or too close to my border. Now there's a quick way out.

BTW, is there a difference between citizens of different nationalities except that those that are not yours will tend to rebel against you? I mean like if your civ is not scientific but you have citizens of a scientific nationality in a city will that city build scientific improvements with less cost? If not, your cities will very likely get razed if you are playing a civ with very high culture cos your enemy won't want rebelling citizens. That'd be an ugly effect cos realistically it should be those cities with LOW culture citizens that get razed.

Hammanu · Sep 22, 2001, 05:30 AM

What about Carthage? They had plenty of culture, and they got plowed with salt!

DaEezT · Sep 22, 2001, 07:03 AM

I think razing citys will be a big part of the game since u don't get culture points from buildings which where already biult when u took over the city. By Razing the city and rebuilding it u can aquire more culture than by keeping it. And since city growth is fixed at 40 food per citizen it's not that hard to biuld a new city. Razing a city also removes the threat of the ppl already living in it. They keep their nationality and might even start a revolt. Razing conquered citys and rebuilding them eliminates this thread. And after all: the improvements around the city stay. so the new built city will grow quite fast.

hmm...
Seems like things are gonna get messy in Civ3

Serg · Sep 22, 2001, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DaEezT
...Razing a city also removes the threat of the ppl already living in it. They keep their nationality and might even start a revolt. Razing conquered citys and rebuilding them eliminates this thread. And after all: the improvements around the city stay. so the new built city will grow quite fast...

I agree with you. Of course, in Civ2 the idea to raze enemy city wasn't allowed to me. Each city was invaluable, especially at the beginning of game. But with a new rules are concerning to the cities...

Parthicus · Sep 22, 2001, 07:19 AM

Uhm....

Razing cities is nice, however I am wondering about the penalty you get for that. There *has* to be some disadvantage. In a democracy, it might mean that your government collapses ( which is awful, you have to admit ). Is there any info on that?

Parthicus

History_Buff · Sep 22, 2001, 11:17 AM

This is a great idea. I will finally be able to make historical maps by burning mis-placed cities. Plus, if the computer tries it, it's an excuse to declare war for the rest of the game. I just hope the computer doesn;t start destroying its own cities for no reason at all. . .

Sep 21, 2001, 03:52 PM	#1
Daoloth Chieftain Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Houston, TX, US Posts: 28	War!! The militaristic aspect of Civilization 3 has now jumped. Check this stuff out: There are POW's, for you can capture enemy units! http://www.civ3.com/previewwin.cfm?m...800&height=600 And not only that, but cities can be destroyed! http://www.civ3.com/previewwin.cfm?m...800&height=600 And not only that, but there is definitely some sort of replay option! :crazyeyes Last edited by Daoloth; Sep 21, 2001 at 03:54 PM.

Sep 21, 2001, 03:55 PM	#2
Sparrowhawk The Builder Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Posts: 1,687	We've known for a while that there is a slave/POW element to the game. I guess this helps clear up how they will be identified. __________________ The most perfect grace consists not in external ornamentation, but in allowing the original material to stand forth, beautified by being given form. - I Ching

Sep 21, 2001, 04:03 PM	#5
Sparrowhawk The Builder Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Posts: 1,687	The fact that it was berlin in the 1200's AD is really irrelevant. If it was caught in a war zone, it could easily have been reduced to a size 1 city. Additionally, the Defense Minister doesn't say anything new. You always could see how many units the enemy had lost. __________________ The most perfect grace consists not in external ornamentation, but in allowing the original material to stand forth, beautified by being given form. - I Ching

Sep 21, 2001, 04:50 PM	#9
Sukenis the J'BOOtian Warlord Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Southeast Missouri Posts: 460	You could destroy a city in SMAC also, but it caused various types of political basklash. If you do this in Civ 3 does a similar backlash happen. While annoying I liked it that when you murdered the poeple of a civ, they would never back down from you and would then fight to the death. __________________ Vizzini: You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is: "Never get involved in a land war in Asia." But, only slightly less well known is this: "Never go in against a Sicilian, when death is on the line!"

Sep 21, 2001, 05:14 PM	#10
Graeme the mad Certified Maniac Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Liverpool Posts: 1,013	Fantastic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! go you brilliant firaxis people Wahoo I can see it now, my english hordes will smash through into washington: a message pops up: do u want to take this city or raze it? I click raze and, bye bye, oh yes, revenge for 1812, oh yes. __________________ Dont take anything I say seriously: except the serious stuff Im not mad im cognitavely challenged 'The green dude with some serious attitude!' Insanity is fun if thats the way its done - whiskey man's friend

Sep 21, 2001, 03:57 PM	#3
LKendter Deity Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Quakertown, PA Posts: 14,773	Cities could ALWAYS be destroyed. If you destroyed a unit in a city of size one, the city went away. Nothing new there. Now, "units the Germans have captured" does make me wonder. I am not sure what that is about.

Sep 21, 2001, 03:59 PM	#4
Daoloth Chieftain Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Houston, TX, US Posts: 28	Yes, small cities could always be destroyed, but by looking at the city name and date of destruction, Berlin, 1200's AD, it was probably a fairly large city at that time. The military advisor also tells you how many units they have lost, which is cool.

Sep 21, 2001, 04:32 PM	#6
Dan Magaha FIRAXIS Firaxian Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Hunt Valley MD Posts: 310	No, those were large cities that were destroyed. In Civ III, when you capture a city, you are given the choice to either occupy that city, or raze it if you don't want it -- no matter what size the city is. Dan Firaxis Games, Inc.

Sep 21, 2001, 04:42 PM	#7
LKendter Deity Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Quakertown, PA Posts: 14,773	Talk about a scorched earth policy! That is one way to solve a problem of a dumb placement of a city by the computer. Of course, if you get a chance to take a city behind the computers lines, not much use with Culture is it?

Sep 21, 2001, 06:41 PM	#11
Robespierre Committee Chairman Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dallas, Texas Posts: 218	Wonderful! Razing cities and slaughtering the inhabitants, thereby triggering a resistance so determined that it led to the turning point of the war (and the century) is exactly what happened when the Germans invaded Russia in 1940. Also, I wonder whether there really are POW units since all the "captured" units visible were workers, I think. Can you only capture workers to make them slaves, or can you also capture enemy soldiers fleeing in disorganized panic?

Sep 21, 2001, 07:50 PM	#12
Vrylakas The Verbose Lord Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Bostonia Posts: 1,947	I wonder if there are any advantages to destroying a city, aside from the obvious military advantages? Any $$$ from pillaging? Do the citizens become slaves? What about any resources in the city's area? Hmmmm... __________________ ************************* "We seek a past from which we may spring, rather than that past from which we appear to have derived." - F. Nietzsche, The Use and Abuse of History

Sep 21, 2001, 09:27 PM	#13
Thunderfall Administrator Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: NY, USA Posts: 12,564 Images: 1349	This is great! Now we'll be able to destroy captured cities to prevent enemies from retaking the city! :rocket3: __________________ Thunderfall Weight: 1.0 Value: 161 Cast When used Shock Damage 1 to 25 points on Touch

Sep 22, 2001, 12:26 AM	#14
Smash Super Lurker Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 3,676	Razing cities?..oh I like this very much.Probably counter productive but I will wear this one out.

Sep 22, 2001, 12:48 AM	#15
SunZi36 Chieftain Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2	Cool. Talk about ethnic cleansing. I always hate how the computer builds cities in stupid locations and/or too close to my border. Now there's a quick way out. BTW, is there a difference between citizens of different nationalities except that those that are not yours will tend to rebel against you? I mean like if your civ is not scientific but you have citizens of a scientific nationality in a city will that city build scientific improvements with less cost? If not, your cities will very likely get razed if you are playing a civ with very high culture cos your enemy won't want rebelling citizens. That'd be an ugly effect cos realistically it should be those cities with LOW culture citizens that get razed.

Sep 22, 2001, 05:30 AM	#16
Hammanu Chieftain Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 86	What about Carthage? They had plenty of culture, and they got plowed with salt!

Sep 22, 2001, 07:03 AM	#17
DaEezT Civ, Pizza, Spam, Repeat Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Munich, Germany Posts: 1,189	I think razing citys will be a big part of the game since u don't get culture points from buildings which where already biult when u took over the city. By Razing the city and rebuilding it u can aquire more culture than by keeping it. And since city growth is fixed at 40 food per citizen it's not that hard to biuld a new city. Razing a city also removes the threat of the ppl already living in it. They keep their nationality and might even start a revolt. Razing conquered citys and rebuilding them eliminates this thread. And after all: the improvements around the city stay. so the new built city will grow quite fast. hmm... Seems like things are gonna get messy in Civ3 __________________ "Morality is merely a convention with which men mutually agree to delude themselves. There are no moral facts, just preferences, and one is no better than any other."

Sep 22, 2001, 07:19 AM	#19
Parthicus Chieftain Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Heidelberg,Germany Posts: 12	Uhm.... Razing cities is nice, however I am wondering about the penalty you get for that. There has to be some disadvantage. In a democracy, it might mean that your government collapses ( which is awful, you have to admit ). Is there any info on that? Parthicus

Sep 22, 2001, 11:17 AM	#20
History_Buff Knight of Cydonia Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Calgary, Alberta Posts: 3,195	This is a great idea. I will finally be able to make historical maps by burning mis-placed cities. Plus, if the computer tries it, it's an excuse to declare war for the rest of the game. I just hope the computer doesn;t start destroying its own cities for no reason at all. . .

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Ork War Trukk & War Trak (Oct 28, 2007)	aaglo	Unit Graphics	19	Feb 19, 2008 04:59 PM
External Consulate T4 D1- War...War...and more War	greekguy	Civ3 - Demo Game VI: Citizens	7	Jun 04, 2005 11:05 AM
Persian War, Egyptian War, then The World War	compuXP	Civ3 - Stories & Tales	3	Mar 28, 2005 01:33 AM
Do we need to fight the War on Free Speech at home to win the War on Terror abroad?	Sims2789	Off-Topic	41	Sep 01, 2004 02:35 PM
how many turns in your longest war??? do you like a long war? and other war like ?'s	ThePrankMonkey	Civ3 - General Discussions	27	Oct 10, 2002 05:58 PM

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. This site is copyright © 2000 - 2009, Civilization Fanatics' Center.
Support CFC: Amazon.com \| EB Games \| Amazon UK \| Amazon DE \| Amazon CA \| Amazon FR