Yeah, but so what? Nukes are way worse yet they are in every civ game. Concentration camps may be considered as worse than nukes (?), so that's why we don't have them.
[DLL] (6-88) Allow Bombing of Cities with 0 HP Left to Destroy Buildings and Population
- Thread starter Xaviarlol
- Start date
- Status
pineappledan
Deity
That's what I'm saying; worse things are already depicted in the game. It's just funny to have a proposal that is essentially "depict horrible thing"
Should note whether this can actually destroy a city by reducing its population to 0. And how this affects warmongering penalties.
Can we use event system, something like “Hurricane” effect?
For example:
Player 1:
Bombarding City X with 0 hp instead of moving further.
Each attack reduce population by 1 (with (damage)% chance) and destroy 1 random building (with (damage)% chance).
After summarazing effects of all attacks events could be triggered:
If there are victims and property damage -> Events A1 and B1 triggered
if only victims -> A2, B2
if only property ->A3, B3
----turn----
Player 2:
Event A1 occur: “Your defenseless City of X was bombarded during war conflict. It causes Y population loss and some(Z) property damage.
Your citizens are outraged: All Cities gain +15% production toward War Units and Defensive Buildings for 10 turns."
---or---
Event A2 occur: “Your defenseless City of X was bombarded during war conflict. It causes Y population loss.
Your citizens are outraged: All Cities gain +10% production toward War Units and Defensive Buildings for 10 turns."
---or---
Event A3 occur: “Your defenseless City of X was bombarded during war conflict. It causes some(Z) property damage.
Your citizens are outraged: All Cities gain +5% production toward War Units and Defensive Buildings for 10 turns."
----turn----
Player 1:
Event B1 occur: “You have bombarded defenseless Civilians and Peaceful Infrastructure of City X.
The rest of the world condemn your actions ((Y+(Z *0,5) * Warmonger penalty for 1 turn of Razing City)
- Y happiness; - Y% of culture and science for 10 turns”intellectuals don't like it
---or---
Event B2 occur: “You have bombarded defenseless Civilians of City X.
The rest of the world condemn your actions (Y * Warmonger penalty for 1 turn of Razing City)
- Y happiness; - Y% of culture and science for 10 turns”
---or---
Event B3 occur: “You have bombarded Peaceful Infrastructure of City X.
The rest of the world condemn your actions ((Z * 0,5) * Warmonger penalty for 1 turn of Razing City)"
----and all over again----
I do not know exactly how applicable this is in terms of performance
For example:
Player 1:
Bombarding City X with 0 hp instead of moving further.
Each attack reduce population by 1 (with (damage)% chance) and destroy 1 random building (with (damage)% chance).
After summarazing effects of all attacks events could be triggered:
If there are victims and property damage -> Events A1 and B1 triggered
if only victims -> A2, B2
if only property ->A3, B3
----turn----
Player 2:
Event A1 occur: “Your defenseless City of X was bombarded during war conflict. It causes Y population loss and some(Z) property damage.
Your citizens are outraged: All Cities gain +15% production toward War Units and Defensive Buildings for 10 turns."
---or---
Event A2 occur: “Your defenseless City of X was bombarded during war conflict. It causes Y population loss.
Your citizens are outraged: All Cities gain +10% production toward War Units and Defensive Buildings for 10 turns."
---or---
Event A3 occur: “Your defenseless City of X was bombarded during war conflict. It causes some(Z) property damage.
Your citizens are outraged: All Cities gain +5% production toward War Units and Defensive Buildings for 10 turns."
----turn----
Player 1:
Event B1 occur: “You have bombarded defenseless Civilians and Peaceful Infrastructure of City X.
The rest of the world condemn your actions ((Y+(Z *0,5) * Warmonger penalty for 1 turn of Razing City)
- Y happiness; - Y% of culture and science for 10 turns”
---or---
Event B2 occur: “You have bombarded defenseless Civilians of City X.
The rest of the world condemn your actions (Y * Warmonger penalty for 1 turn of Razing City)
- Y happiness; - Y% of culture and science for 10 turns”
---or---
Event B3 occur: “You have bombarded Peaceful Infrastructure of City X.
The rest of the world condemn your actions ((Z * 0,5) * Warmonger penalty for 1 turn of Razing City)"
----and all over again----
I do not know exactly how applicable this is in terms of performance
This is a very exploitable mechanic.
If you burn a city to the ground, the AI can release a Pioneer+ in a few turns and found a new city in the same place with many of the original buildings. Let there be 9 turns to release the Pioneer and 5 turns to move. Most likely, even less, since there is good production and roads.
In the proposed version, you can bomb the city until all buildings are destroyed and all citizens are killed except one. And then call a truce. The destroyed city will remain with the AI, because it will not be able to destroy it as the founder, but the time required to restore buildings and population is disproportionately higher. You will need to use several caravans with hammers, a lot of gold and in 40 turns, it may be possible to restore infrastructure equal to that given by Pioneer+ for free.
A city so badly destroyed is unable to produce science or culture, compensating for +5% of the cost.
This will literally slow down the AI, pulling it into a death loop.
If you burn a city to the ground, the AI can release a Pioneer+ in a few turns and found a new city in the same place with many of the original buildings. Let there be 9 turns to release the Pioneer and 5 turns to move. Most likely, even less, since there is good production and roads.
In the proposed version, you can bomb the city until all buildings are destroyed and all citizens are killed except one. And then call a truce. The destroyed city will remain with the AI, because it will not be able to destroy it as the founder, but the time required to restore buildings and population is disproportionately higher. You will need to use several caravans with hammers, a lot of gold and in 40 turns, it may be possible to restore infrastructure equal to that given by Pioneer+ for free.
A city so badly destroyed is unable to produce science or culture, compensating for +5% of the cost.
This will literally slow down the AI, pulling it into a death loop.
Could it be resolved with some "Resistance"-like status (but imposing a positive effect)
For example "The Victim of War" status:
"While at peace "The Victim of War" Cities gain +100% Production towards Buildings and +100% Growth until the medium Worldwide population is reached"
For example "The Victim of War" status:
"While at peace "The Victim of War" Cities gain +100% Production towards Buildings and +100% Growth until the medium Worldwide population is reached"
Xaviarlol
Warlord
- Joined
- May 27, 2011
- Messages
- 263
Razing cities and nuking cities exists in the game. Bombing cities already exists in the game (it even plays a sound effect of women screaming when you bombard a city).
This is just a mechanic to allow damaging cities instead of conquering or razing them.
I was thinking that it would roll the first part that enables the proc (eg. If city damage was 20 HP, it rolls 20% chance to proc). If it procs, it then rolls 50/50 on whether it affects a random building or 1 population.
Agreed that it should incur some kind of opinion penalty. At least with the owner of the city, and possibly with other civs also (especially friends of the victims city).
Regarding the partisan thing, keep in mind it would take a LOT of bombing to achieve the same pace of razing a city. You would have to bomb it for dozens of turns with lots of units. Remember, it's a small chance for the bombing to proc, and then half the time it does proc, it will be a building and not a pop. And you need to be in position to bomb it whilst in enemy territory, which puts ranged units at risk. I think it's no easier than dealing with partisans.
I think it should only allow a city to get to 1 pop and no buildings left. Each population loss should incur the same warmongering penalty as 1 pop city razing.
Sorry I cannot say I agree here at all. If a city is destroyed, another civ can settle the land just as quickly as the owner. Also, the use of a pioneer is not that big of a deal in the total context. And lastly, it takes way more effort to bomb the city to 1 pop, then it does to raze the city or puppet it. In fact, when a city is at 0 health, it is super easy to conquer it vs risking several bombing units in range of it in enemy territory.
Last edited:
Truthfully I don't really see what this adds.
Civilization is a game about making interesting choices, choices are interesting because they have trade-offs.
With this proposal, if there is a city I want deleted, I now have two choices.
1) is raze it, which is costly, gives me a diplo penalty, a happiness penalty, and causes partisans to spawn
2) plink at it with ranged/artillery until it dies, I get to farm risk-free (risk free because if I'm conquering a city I have map control around it, so my ranged units may take some bombardment damage but are otherwise at no risk of death) XP, I receive no diplo or happiness penalty, and there are no partisans. The only disadvantage I see is this takes longer than razing but I can just keep my siege units chugging away at it as my army pushes to the next city as they have to wait for map control around the next city anyway.
Right now this option is better in every way than razing, that's not an interesting choice.
Maybe if you add happiness/diplo penalties/etc then they're both more equal, but at that point you've just added "razing 2" but now with a bunch of additional coding requirements for tactical AI, penalties, etc to re-create something the game already does.
This is just scope creep for scope creep's sake, this doesn't meaningfully expand the option-space of the game.
Civilization is a game about making interesting choices, choices are interesting because they have trade-offs.
With this proposal, if there is a city I want deleted, I now have two choices.
1) is raze it, which is costly, gives me a diplo penalty, a happiness penalty, and causes partisans to spawn
2) plink at it with ranged/artillery until it dies, I get to farm risk-free (risk free because if I'm conquering a city I have map control around it, so my ranged units may take some bombardment damage but are otherwise at no risk of death) XP, I receive no diplo or happiness penalty, and there are no partisans. The only disadvantage I see is this takes longer than razing but I can just keep my siege units chugging away at it as my army pushes to the next city as they have to wait for map control around the next city anyway.
Right now this option is better in every way than razing, that's not an interesting choice.
Maybe if you add happiness/diplo penalties/etc then they're both more equal, but at that point you've just added "razing 2" but now with a bunch of additional coding requirements for tactical AI, penalties, etc to re-create something the game already does.
This is just scope creep for scope creep's sake, this doesn't meaningfully expand the option-space of the game.
Last edited:
Does it? I mean once its at 0 basically every high level attack will kill or build a pop, and its easy to put out 10-15 attacks on a city if you start including bombers and the like. I can wreck a city way faster than the 1 pop per turn that razing does.
The value of using Pioneers+ is very easy to assess - capture a city, burn up to 1 citizen and sell all the buildings that are possible. And then measure the time it will take you to restore the city to Pioneer+ level.
In VP, the AI founds a lot of cities early enough that it's rare to see new cities in the late game. In the vanilla version, Pioneers+ are more popular.
But in the proposed version, the city belongs to the founder throughout the entire period of bombing. This city does not produce anything useful, is constantly losing population and buildings, and is unable to compensate for the +5% cost of science and culture. Consumes gold from the imperial treasury to maintain the remaining buildings. It produces unhappiness, since there are looted tiles in the city and there is no way to repair them.
Also, such a city indirectly generates unhappines in all cities, since the median of the citizen demands is calculated partly on the imperial income. This can be seen when a citizen is born in city A, but happiness may drop in city B. The besieged city cannot get enough resources from due to looted and blocked tiles.
The besieger receives no penalties.
If the city is captured, the price of technology and culture for the invader will increase by 5%, but the city will not compensate for this increase, since it is completely paralyzed. Unhappiness will increase. The city will consume gold from the treasury. The invader receives a huge warmonger penalty for both capturing and burning the city. There are some advantages for the invader - a temporary increase in the unit limit due to the increased population, temporary access to luxury resources and minerals.
You could have the pop loss limited per turn, disregarding the amount of ranged attacks, if there is concern it will "dismantle" a city too fast.
As others said, the warmongering malus should be similar to razing if a pop loss occurs.
Regards
XSamatan
As others said, the warmongering malus should be similar to razing if a pop loss occurs.
Regards
XSamatan
There IS no warmongering penalty for razing. There's a "civilian killer" penalty, but that doesn't count for anti-warmonger fervor or other warmonger calculations.
Moreover, the amount of warmongering penalty (and military rating, for AI calculations) obtained when capturing a city is partially based on the city's population. As written, by reducing the population to 1 before conquest, you can cheesily exploit your way to having far fewer diplomatic and combat penalties.
Nukes can also destroy population, but they are late in the game and apply a warmongering penalty to all known civs.
Moreover, the amount of warmongering penalty (and military rating, for AI calculations) obtained when capturing a city is partially based on the city's population. As written, by reducing the population to 1 before conquest, you can cheesily exploit your way to having far fewer diplomatic and combat penalties.
Nukes can also destroy population, but they are late in the game and apply a warmongering penalty to all known civs.
Rekk
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2017
- Messages
- 2,604
To clarify, this is a diplomatic penalty separate from the warmonger diplomatic penalty.
Xaviarlol
Warlord
- Joined
- May 27, 2011
- Messages
- 263
That is one use case. There are others that are much more relevant.
I think a lot of responses to this thread are focusing on this one use case to raze cities, and missing the point of this mechanic. It is not meant as an efficient alternative to razing a city to 0, and is easily tweakable if it turns out that it is.
More relevant use-cases:
1) To punish another Civ for doing something bad, without a full scale invasion and conquering their cities. At the moment there is really nothing between denouncement and full-scale invasion. This is both unrealistic and frustrating.
2) To pressure an enemy to make peace
3) For freedom loving non-conquering civs to have a more immersive way to wage "just" wars without being forced to do full-scale invasion. It would be cool to be able to send a Carrier strike group over to a belligerent civ and hit their economy, for example.
4) As a simple alternative strategy to wage economic war by degrading enemy infrastructure
I think I get what you're looking for, but the population aspect hits wrong from a thematic point, if this is the list of actions you want to promote.
You can already pillage all the tiles around a city, and cut its trade routes, so it's not true that economic damage is absent from the current system. With that in mind, I can see the idea behind adding buildings to the list of things you can "remove" from a city.
Also, if you're walking up on a city and getting it to 0 hp, that's already an invasion-level event. Just because you're being "nice" by killing their civilians and footing them with the empire-size-modifier costs doesn't change that, in my opinion.
You can already pillage all the tiles around a city, and cut its trade routes, so it's not true that economic damage is absent from the current system. With that in mind, I can see the idea behind adding buildings to the list of things you can "remove" from a city.
Also, if you're walking up on a city and getting it to 0 hp, that's already an invasion-level event. Just because you're being "nice" by killing their civilians and footing them with the empire-size-modifier costs doesn't change that, in my opinion.
Xaviarlol
Warlord
- Joined
- May 27, 2011
- Messages
- 263
Yes I think you're right. I will amend the proposal to just destroy buildings.
Unhappiness during war has a direct effect on the fighting strength of units. -10% CS. (and, it seems, -20% if you are very unhappy)
If someone captures a large city, for example 20 citizens, then his entire army can instantly receive a penalty if the empire is unable to compensate for the increased population due to lack of production, gold, science, culture, luxury. Plus a decline in indigenous population growth and production. Plus other empires will have the anti-warmonger bonus.
Capturing cities is very difficult to fight continuously due to these factors.
With this proposal, the aggressor does not lose combat power or be forced to use its economy as efficiently as possible to neutralize the increase in unhapiness - for example, by changing specialists or working without specialists at all, or by switching city tiles. If someone is capable of isolating and destroying one city, then it is unlikely that he can be stopped easily. It snowballs - victims lose combat power due to unhappiness, instead of losing territory with plundered tiles and reducing the cost of technology and culture when losing a city, which can help them become stronger for the next war.
If someone captures a large city, for example 20 citizens, then his entire army can instantly receive a penalty if the empire is unable to compensate for the increased population due to lack of production, gold, science, culture, luxury. Plus a decline in indigenous population growth and production. Plus other empires will have the anti-warmonger bonus.
Capturing cities is very difficult to fight continuously due to these factors.
With this proposal, the aggressor does not lose combat power or be forced to use its economy as efficiently as possible to neutralize the increase in unhapiness - for example, by changing specialists or working without specialists at all, or by switching city tiles. If someone is capable of isolating and destroying one city, then it is unlikely that he can be stopped easily. It snowballs - victims lose combat power due to unhappiness, instead of losing territory with plundered tiles and reducing the cost of technology and culture when losing a city, which can help them become stronger for the next war.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked