Do you want an increased penalty for razing cities?

[Brawndo]

In SMAC, obliterating a base was an atrocity with severe diplomatic repercussions. It almost never happened unless the UN charter was appealed, or at the end game when Planet Busters could take out entire scoops of the landscape.

Razing cities in the Civilization series has never been anywhere close. In Civ 3 and 5 there are absolutely no practical consequences, while in Civ 4 all that would happen is that the city's original owner would get even more upset at you.

Keep in mind, razing a city is not just burning it to the ground - the entire population is massacred and/or driven into the wilderness. The way most Civ players play, this is tantamount to widespread genocide of entire continents. I also hate the way the world is largely unpopulated in late game in if you are going for a conquest victory, because it is easier to burn cities instead of keeping a large occupation force.

Do you want to see an increased penalty for razing cities?


I would propose razing cities carry diplomatic consequences with the city's owner in all eras, and a happiness hit to your empire per razed city in post-Medieval eras (to represent a more "enlightened" populace and the increased flow of information with the invention of the printing press). This could be mitigated with certain Social Policies under the Autocracy tree. Also, I would propose that once the UN is built, repeatedly razing cities will result in that offending Civ being kicked out of the UN (cannot vote) and trade sanctions being placed.

 

[killmeplease]

i agree with op.
but i am not sure about razing in civ5 having no diplomatic consequences.

 

[Camikaze]

Trade sanctions are an interesting idea. They're not in the game currently, are they? They could be implemented to make the UN quite an interesting feature.

 

[Valdyr]

To increase the penalty for razing cities, you'd have to make NOT razing them a lot more viable. Given that the AI hates your stinking guts from start to finish (although it's willing to briefly pretend not to, sometimes, if you have a huge military), I don't think putting more negative diplomatic weight on razing cities will deter people. Everyone hates the human player anyway.

If I sound bitter, it may be because that I recently started a game where, literally, on the THIRD TURN--the second turn after I met him--Darius sent me an insulting message about my military. Dude! We each have one Warrior! What the HELL is your problem?! Someone should form a support group for people who have been traumatized by the AI's behavior.

 

[killmeplease]

To increase the penalty for razing cities, you'd have to make NOT razing them a lot more viable.

agree..
maybe make an option to plunder it like barbarians do.
and make just holding it doing nothing to player's happiness or whatever, but make the benefits small also. even a very small profit is better than no profit. so player will not likely to raze everything.

 

[DaveGold]

They just need to find a better version of puppet states and courthouses. Courthouses are an extremely badly thought out dumbed down concept that fails in most respects.

 

[Brawndo]

They just need to find a better version of puppet states and courthouses. Courthouses are an extremely badly thought out dumbed down concept that fails in most respects.

Apparently a building full of lawyers and judges makes an entire city forget they were part of another culture for 1000 years. Even in Civ 3, cities would remain unhappy for long periods because they wanted to return to their mother country.

Also, I think it is ridiculous you can have an empire consisting of 75% puppet states and still have no issues with rebellion or collapse. Remember how if a vassal state became too powerful in Civ 4 they would just break away?

 

[Slowpoke]

To increase the penalty for razing cities, you'd have to make NOT razing them a lot more viable. Given that the AI hates your stinking guts from start to finish (although it's willing to briefly pretend not to, sometimes, if you have a huge military), I don't think putting more negative diplomatic weight on razing cities will deter people. Everyone hates the human player anyway.

If I sound bitter, it may be because that I recently started a game where, literally, on the THIRD TURN--the second turn after I met him--Darius sent me an insulting message about my military. Dude! We each have one Warrior! What the HELL is your problem?! Someone should form a support group for people who have been traumatized by the AI's behavior.

This isn't particularly true. While A.I. civs are very hostile, it is unlikely that every single one of your neighbors is at war with you (interestingly, this did happen to me once without provokation, just my army was too small). Razing a city will make literally everyone hate you.

 

[Namaspamus]

I always disable city-razing. Would be much better with huge penalties, also maybe if we could get some refugees back.

They just need to find a better version of puppet states and courthouses. Courthouses are an extremely badly thought out dumbed down concept that fails in most respects.

+1. Progressive assimilation was good and not that complicated.

 

[Camikaze]

To increase the penalty for razing cities, you'd have to make NOT razing them a lot more viable. Given that the AI hates your stinking guts from start to finish (although it's willing to briefly pretend not to, sometimes, if you have a huge military), I don't think putting more negative diplomatic weight on razing cities will deter people. Everyone hates the human player anyway.

If I sound bitter, it may be because that I recently started a game where, literally, on the THIRD TURN--the second turn after I met him--Darius sent me an insulting message about my military. Dude! We each have one Warrior! What the HELL is your problem?! Someone should form a support group for people who have been traumatized by the AI's behavior.

This is perhaps a good way to approach it, but there have been plenty of complaints that taking cities and making them puppets is already too advantageous, so incentivising this more so could backfire.

 

[Tee Kay]

Razing cities in the Civilization series has never been anywhere close. In Civ 3 and 5 there are absolutely no practical consequences, while in Civ 4 all that would happen is that the city's original owner would get even more upset at you.

Actually, if you raze one of their city in Civ3 the owner would be "furious" with you for pretty much the length of the game.

I would propose razing cities carry diplomatic consequences with the city's owner in all eras, and a happiness hit to your empire per razed city in post-Medieval eras (to represent a more "enlightened" populace and the increased flow of information with the invention of the printing press). This could be mitigated with certain Social Policies under the Autocracy tree. Also, I would propose that once the UN is built, repeatedly razing cities will result in that offending Civ being kicked out of the UN (cannot vote) and trade sanctions being placed.

Sounds good in principle. However, for much of history it was not an uncommon practice to raze enemy cities, especially if you're only intent on destroying or weakening the enemy and not actually on staying and governing (and, given the manpower, distance and resources constraints faced by most states before the early modern era, many states indeed didn't have the resources to stay on and govern). So, yes, diplomatic consequences should definitely be a penalty, but it should not be too prohibitive (prior to the modern era, anyway). The idea of a UN penalty is great.

To increase the penalty for razing cities, you'd have to make NOT razing them a lot more viable.

Indeed. This reflects actual history and how states will often weigh the advantages of razing vs conquering.

 

[Johan de Witt]

In addition to external penalties, there should be internal penalties too. Your own people wouldn't like it when you start burning cities (at least in later ages).

However, for much of history it was not an uncommon practice to raze enemy cities, especially if you're only intent on destroying or weakening the enemy and not actually on staying and governing (and, given the manpower, distance and resources constraints faced by most states before the early modern era, many states indeed didn't have the resources to stay on and govern).

In ancient times, leaders didn't regularly have the tools to commit genocide. most people would scatter into the wilderness when confronted with a burning army.

In game terms; burning down a city but then abandoning the site completely (moving armies away and not settling the spot yourself) should lead to resettling of the land by the people that scattered. Perhaps just as barbarian camps.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I vote no because I refered to Civ5: if razing would hit our rep, it would be a happiness nightmare. (it is already)

 

[CivMyWay]

When you conquer a city you should have options of:
- plunder city (on a sliding scale) - destroy all defensive structures, destroy z% of other buildings, kill x% and take y% of population as slaves, take v% of gold (based on relative city value in empire).
- raze - (essentially plunder, with everything set to 100%). No buildings survive; some population escape and redistribute as population to nearby cities, or become resistance fighters.
- settle city - plunder, but no destruction of buildings; less gold taken.

 

[DaMav]

How about doing it like they do in the real world? If you raze a city, every five turns thereafter some self important academic type pops up on your screen and throws a hissy. If you have the Free Speech civic you can't get rid of the popup for 30 seconds. Raze a second city and popups of hippies begin harassing you randomly . After 3 you start getting ineffectual notices from the UN.

 

[Camikaze]

When you conquer a city you should have options of:
- plunder city (on a sliding scale) - destroy all defensive structures, destroy z% of other buildings, kill x% and take y% of population as slaves, take v% of gold (based on relative city value in empire).
- raze - (essentially plunder, with everything set to 100%). No buildings survive; some population escape and redistribute as population to nearby cities, or become resistance fighters.
- settle city - plunder, but no destruction of buildings; less gold taken.

And presumably an option of just taking the city without plundering it?

How exactly would a slave system work? Would this be in the form of workers, or would you gain some free population points in some of your cities?

 

[CivMyWay]

And presumably an option of just taking the city without plundering it?

How exactly would a slave system work? Would this be in the form of workers, or would you gain some free population points in some of your cities?

Well, actually no to the plunder. A city should always be plundered to a degree. Plunder should be made up of two components:

plunder = state sanctioned plunder + spoils of war

Where state sanctioned plunder = slider value + civic policies.

spoils of war = military discipline + how your people feel about the civilization they conquer + corruption


Plunder was historically a key motivation for people willing to go to war (IMO). You joined the army, or at least weren't too upset about being drafted, with the concept of plunder. (I think I wrote elsewhere that you could even have plunder-spoils offset maintenance costs; forcing you to be successful in battle or disband your army fairly quickly). Plunder, quite often also negated war weariness (except in modern times).

There should always be a minimum level of spoils of war (say 10%). However if your discipline was high, and the state sanctioned no plunder, then it would not be above this minimal.

If you do conquer a city with no state sanctioned plunder, the citizens would understandably be a lot happier with you than if you strip them of everything; of course, it may not please your troops.

EDIT: I should add that you do NOT get any money taken by the soldiers as spoils of war. It comes out of the enemy treasury and disappears.

As for slaves:
- They should be transferred to a worker unit, and be "settleable" in prison camps. The prison camps then provide production bonuses for surrounding tiles.
- Slaves can be traded
- If a prison camp is liberated then a proportion of the slaves become (weak) enemy combatants.
- If too many of your people are taken as slaves, then this becomes a source of unhappiness for your people.
- I'm not sure on the balance of this, but it would be good for them to be considered as a luxury (but also a mechanism where too many is a bad thing).
(Slaves should be a resource i.e. you can build a colosseum when you spend X slaves )

 

[Camikaze]

I doesn't quite seem to make sense to me to plunder a city that you are liberating.

As for the slaves idea, I recall a similar POW mechanism in a WWII mod, and it was quite a good one. The prison camps were buildings within cities though, and I have the impression you are meaning them to be improvements.

 

[Tee Kay]

I doesn't quite seem to make sense to me to plunder a city that you are liberating.

Berlin 1945?

 

[CivMyWay]

I was meaning improvements, and I think they should be. Having a PoW / slave camp comes at a cost (the tile where the camp is)... it also becomes harder/additional spot to defend.

Armies will always plunder any city which they have fought for, to a degree. Also, there are very few places where an army is liberating a city (and the populace see it that way as well). Besides that, you could chalk up the loss as collateral damage, or internal pillaging by an oppressed populace.