[DLL] (6-88) Allow Bombing of Cities with 0 HP Left to Destroy Buildings and Population

[Xaviarlol]

Problem
There are limited ways in harming an enemies economy when at war that doesn't involve directly invading their cities.

Proposal
Allow all ranged units (including aircraft and ships) to have a chance of randomly destroying a building, or reducing 1 population of a city when performing a ranged attack against a city with 0 HP left, depending on how much damage they inflict to the city after it hits 0 HP. Eg. If the unit would have done -20 dmg to a city, but the city has 0 HP left, it will have a 20% chance to destroy a building or reduce the population of a city by 1.

Rationale
This seems obvious and should have been in the base-game as a way to pummel your enemy in to submission without actually taking their cities and land. This is especially useful for punitive wars against enemy civs as punishment for something (like attacking a city state).

 

[XSamatan]

How will the AI use this tactic?

 

[Xaviarlol]

How will the AI use this tactic?

Might be more a Q for @Recursive but if the AI has some existing logic about not being interested in new land/cities, perhaps it will avoid sending units inside the city when a city is within conquering HP range, but instead use the usual "bomb the city infinitely" when it is in range of taking a city with ranged units.

 

[usadefcon1]

I feel that doing this should add to warmongering as the real world equivalent would be killing non-combatants.

 

[Anarcomu]

I feel that doing this should add to warmongering as the real world equivalent would be killing non-combatants.

For now, razing cities also increase war score for each citizen killed, and then the city in destroyed. I think, in addition to warmongering, it should also increase war-score.
Do you also plan on making it possible to destroy cities that way ?

 

[KlHannibal2]

I'm always interested in new options. So why would you not want to take and raze a city and instead bombard it? Maybe not to allow another AI to settle the spot. Or, you can also take the city and let the owner take it back. A lot of pop and buildings will be lost.
Will the AI buy back a city you took? You could sell all sellable buildings before.

 

[ma_kuh]

This seems more brutal to me than capturing and razing the city, yet it would incur less of a diplomatic penalty? That doesn't seem right to me.

 

[CppMaster]

This seems more brutal to me than capturing and razing the city, yet it would incur less of a diplomatic penalty? That doesn't seem right to me.

How is it more brutal than razing the city?

 

[ma_kuh]

Because you're firing ranged weaponry into a city with literally no defenses remaining.

Compared to sending in a ground force, capturing the city (at least nominally), and then choosing to dismantle the city. There's at least a mask of letting people leave while you raze the city, versus artillery fire that is destroying people and buildings.

I will readily admit this is an matter of opinion, but to me it is the difference between demolishing a city and turning its residents into refugees (who also become partisans, mind you); and bombarding civilians with indiscriminant fire. They may both be bad, but the latter is a warcrime.

At the very least it shouldn't incur fewer diplomatic penalties.


From a pure mechanics point of view, it also seems undesirable to be able to bypass partisans and happiness concerns by shooting down a city before razing it.

 

[Recursive]

Might be more a Q for @Recursive but if the AI has some existing logic about not being interested in new land/cities, perhaps it will avoid sending units inside the city when a city is within conquering HP range, but instead use the usual "bomb the city infinitely" when it is in range of taking a city with ranged units.

Could use the AI_conquerCity() logic, and if the city would be razed, do this instead. That being said, without tactical AI changes this proposal is a non-starter.

If the unit would have done -20 dmg to a city, but the city has 0 HP left, it will have a 20% chance to destroy a building or reduce the population of a city by 1.

Destroy a building or reduce the population? Which is it? Is it a 50/50 chance?

From a pure mechanics point of view, it also seems undesirable to be able to bypass partisans and happiness concerns by shooting down a city before razing it.

At the very least it shouldn't incur fewer diplomatic penalties.

Agreed.

 

[KlHannibal2]

Because you're firing ranged weaponry into a city with literally no defenses remaining.

Compared to sending in a ground force, capturing the city (at least nominally), and then choosing to dismantle the city. There's at least a mask of letting people leave while you raze the city, versus artillery fire that is destroying people and buildings.

I will readily admit this is an matter of opinion, but to me it is the difference between demolishing a city and turning its residents into refugees (who also become partisans, mind you); and bombarding civilians with indiscriminant fire. They may both be bad, but the latter is a warcrime.

At the very least it shouldn't incur fewer diplomatic penalties.


From a pure mechanics point of view, it also seems undesirable to be able to bypass partisans and happiness concerns by shooting down a city before razing it.

I thought city razing includes killing the pop by hand or firearms (in contrast to artillery). There are no refugees that go anywhere to other cities. Historically, if a city was taken, there was often a bloodbath associated with it.

 

[Legen]

This looks like a way to get more benefits than you would from razing (notably, experience) without any of the penalties, like unhappiness and the temporary increase in culture and science costs. Having a city razed is already a major economic blow, I don't see why this new method is needed.

 

[Rekk]

How does it decide whether to destroy a population or destroy a building? How does it decide which building to destroy? What happens when damage dealt is over 100?

This looks like a way to get more benefits than you would from razing (notably, experience) without any of the penalties, like unhappiness and the temporary increase in culture and science costs. Having a city razed is already a major economic blow, I don't see why this new method is needed.

Also, as proposed, the attacker gets to avoid taking any opinion / warmonger penalties that they would from conquering the city.

 

[KlHannibal2]

This looks like a way to get more benefits than you would from razing (notably, experience) without any of the penalties, like unhappiness and the temporary increase in culture and science costs. Having a city razed is already a major economic blow, I don't see why this new method is needed.

The drawback is that units have to stay there while they could move on to another traget if you take the city.

 

[Rekk]

The drawback is that units have to stay there while they could move on to another traget if you take the city.

This isn't a drawback. The entire reason why the attacker is bombarding this city instead of taking it is because they don't want to move onto another target.

 

[CppMaster]

Compared to sending in a ground force, capturing the city (at least nominally), and then choosing to dismantle the city. There's at least a mask of letting people leave while you raze the city, versus artillery fire that is destroying people and buildings

Razing a city involves killing it's citizens (hence population loss) and destroying it entirely if continued.

I kinda imagine it like what Nero did to Rome or what Daenerys Targaryen did to Kings Landing. Horrible stuff.

 

[ma_kuh]

Maybe you're right, razing isn't much better, thematically speaking. But that's all the more reason to keep the actual drawbacks in place. Though I'd laugh if you left the tortured city at 0, then a bunch of barbarians spawned due to unrest and then stole it from both sides.

 

[pineappledan]

I don't really have an opinion other than this is explicitly gamifying a war crime.

Not that we don't have lots of those already, it's just funny that this proposal is essentially Feature Request: Add War Crime

 

[spinx_911]

I would love to bomb nations back to the stone age!

 

[azum4roll]

I would love to bomb nations back to the stone age!

New counterproposal: you can also destroy techs, policies and beliefs by bombing!