IT SHOULD BE A WARCRIME to......

[Ravinhood]

It could also be a "negative" to your overall game score and also have adverse affects on you getting "elected" in the diplomatic victory part of the game.

 

[Olleus]

What if that city is one tile from a ocean square or if its to close to one of your own cities? no let plunder carry on.
Actually you sohuld have three options when capturing a city

1)occupy- same as capture now

2) enslave-you get extra gold for doing this and half of the city's population is turned into workers. -1 relations to all nations (-2 if it has emancipation and -3 towards the owner of that city)

3)Burn- the city is destroyed and you get a lot more gold -2 relations to all nations (-5 to the owner of that city)

Adds a little extra depth to the game.

 

[Louis XXIV]

It would never work in game - it would be either too universally applied to the extent that it makes the game boring, or the process of deciding whats a war crime and what isn't would be far too complicated.

But that's true for almost anything to do with the UN in Civilization. My idea of a UN Resolution outlawing city raizing is fairly straight forward with an obvious gain. I'm thinking more for gameplay than realism, since complete realism would require significant changes to the UN.

 

[zeeter]

I don't understand your reference to Hitler. As evil as he was, he wasn't particularly known for destroying infrastructure and burning whole cities he captured, was he? I could certainly think of better examples of those who did.

In fact, as the Russians pulled back they raized their own territory. Scorched earth, I think they called it, to keep the Germans from utilizing it. Of course, as the Germans were being pushed back two years later they scorched it again so that the Russians couldn't use it. Wonder how long it took for the land and towns to recover.

 

[walt526]

In fact, as the Russians pulled back they raized their own territory. Scorched earth, I think they called it, to keep the Germans from utilizing it. Of course, as the Germans were being pushed back two years later they scorched it again so that the Russians couldn't use it. Wonder how long it took for the land and towns to recover.

In some cases, they still haven't. A good chunk of Belarus and the Western Ukraine was once prime farmland. Indeed, the ancient Greeks considered the plains just north of the Black Sea to be the most fertile land they had ever seen. But following WWII, Stalin directed that much of the land be industrialized, partly because it was no longer suitable for farming. Since they gained sovereignty, there's been some effort to restore the recultivate the land but it's still very much a work in progress.

Actually, the ability to poison the land would make for a pretty interesting ability for workers and an interesting tactic. I'm assuming its possible to program an improvement to result in negative food production--anyone know for sure? Also, is it possible to make the "improvement" difficult/impossible to remove or reverse? Something like pollution from Civ3, but something that units could deliberately inflict. TIA

 

[walt526]

Duh, obviously negative food production from improvements is possible as that's part of the tradeoff with Workshops.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, you do get a rep hit if you raze a civs cities-but I think only the civ to whom the city belonged. You get an ADDITIONAL penalty if you raze their Holy City. In Sullla's walkthrough, he had a -6 diplomatic penalty JUST from razing the Confuscian Capital (-2 for razing Victoria's city, -4 because it was their Holy city!) I know its not a HUGE amount, but its something.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Ravinhood]

The ICC world 'wonder'?

In love, war and computer games all is fair. Except if you're playing an MP game, then you gotta stick to certain rules.

Yeah they call em "house rules" and I hate em. If the designer says I can do it I should be able to do it, not because some whiney crybaby can't figure out a way to stop losing without making some silly houserules. And that's what 99.9% of house rules are made from, because someone lost. Winners never whine.

 

[CitizenCain]

Hmmmmm....Civ for Flowerchildren. I'm not sure it would be practical from a gameplay point of view. Just try to keep in mind when you are crushing your enemies that they are not real people, and maybe you won't have to play with such a heavy heart!

They aren't? Well ####. That takes all the sadistic joy out of Civ for me. I guess it's back to setting the neighbor cats on fire.

 

[CitizenCain]

In fact, as the Russians pulled back they raized their own territory. Scorched earth, I think they called it, to keep the Germans from utilizing it. Of course, as the Germans were being pushed back two years later they scorched it again so that the Russians couldn't use it. Wonder how long it took for the land and towns to recover.

Most famously, they did it to Napoleon. Not only did they pull a schorced Earth play on him, but just before Napoleaon reached Moscow, the Russian army fought a delaying battle (Borodino) so that all the convicts they had let out of Moscow's jails would have time to burn the city to the ground. The Russians actually set a bunch of criminals and psychopaths loose on their own city rather than give it up to an Italian engineer.

And in many cases of scorched Earth, the area NEVER recovers. Especially as it often involves poisoning the water wells - no sense in letting the other guy have fresh water either. Any citizens of the area that don't stay and starve leave and don't usually return, since all they have to return to is poisonous wells and ash. It's easier to set up a new life where ever they end up.

 

[BlackTerrain]

(Perhaps a relations hit for razing once the United Nations is built? Certainly not before then.)

-C[/QUOTE]


Sounds awesome, bet you'll see it in the game soon

 

[KabeDerlin]

Isn't it funny how in a game something that is so evil is now called FUN?

Haha. I remember when I first started playing Civ when I was like ten and didn't realize breaking Peace Treaties was bad for your rep, I enjoyed bringing a Civ to it's knees, willing to give me all but a few cities and every tech they have. I would delcare peace, get the stuff, and then invade them anyway. Muahahahaha... Then I wondered why nobody wanted to Align with me...

 

[Animosity]

Its a good thing modding lets you keep the more ridiculous desires to a per-person basis.

 

[DBear]

Geez, Godwin's Law in the first post.

I thought everyone knew that the Vikings and Mongols were kings of pillaging and razing cities.

 

[IATyco]

But, burning a city to the ground, tisk tisk tisk, that's "barbaric" (not civilized) And this is a game about CIVILIZATION, not about Barbarianism. hehe

Anyone remember that in the original civilization, the only victory condintion is to kill all other civilizations?

 

[mhl30]

Anyone remember that in the original civilization, the only victory condintion is to kill all other civilizations?

No it wasn't. You could clear off to Alpha Centuri, if you were a girl (I was 8 at the time so am not quite sure about the last part.)

 

[Commander Bello]

No it wasn't. You could clear off to Alpha Centuri, if you were a girl (I was 8 at the time so am not quite sure about the last part.)

You are not sure if you were a girl at that time?

Back on to topic:
While pillaging was an integral part of warfare at least throughout history if not partially performed in modern times as well, I too would like to see city razing regarded as warcrime with significantly dropping your reputation amongst all other leaders.
With razing cities, we virtually delete / massacre / annihilate people in the 100.000's - this has been done in real life history, but I think it was never willingly "accepted".

 

[CitizenCain]

You are not sure if you were a girl at that time?

Back on to topic:
While pillaging was an integral part of warfare at least throughout history if not partially performed in modern times as well, I too would like to see city razing regarded as warcrime with significantly dropping your reputation amongst all other leaders.
With razing cities, we virtually delete / massacre / annihilate people in the 100.000's - this has been done in real life history, but I think it was never willingly "accepted".

Yeah, and when Ghengis Khan did it, it inspired a lot of other cities to surrender. He was well known for peacefully taxing and governing cities that surrendered to him without a fight, and razing, pillaging and massacringthose that resisted him first. I bet that a lot of people thought he was a bad man because of it, but so what? I don't see what other people thought of him has anything to do with anything. In the end, being feared as the scourge of Satan worked better for Khan than being polite ever could have.

 

[CurtSibling]

Perhaps Hitler thought that way also. Isn't it funny how in a game something that is so evil is now called FUN? And by some people even called HALF THE FUN of the whole game. lol But, even in that respect WAR is evil as well, but, it is a "necessary" thing when it comes to solving issues with other nations as the past history shows. BUT, pillaging and razing isn't a necessary thing except for sustanance but, that would be called foraging.

I wouldn't call "starving" an entire city just because you had issues with the military units inside FUN!! hehe

That's why I suggested that one could pillage just the production and/or the income of that particular city without hitting the food values. But, burning a city to the ground, tisk tisk tisk, that's "barbaric" (not civilized) And this is a game about CIVILIZATION, not about Barbarianism. hehe

I think having the whole world goto war with you for pillaging and razing would be HALF the FUN.

Pah!
Another bleeding heart!

I suggest if you cannot take the realities of war,
you should play 'the Sims' or a 'Barbie' game!!!



It is only a simulation. And a abstract one at that.
Sometimes it is useful to remove a city, rather than
withstand a wasteful occupation of an enemy town...

Personally, I find it a hoot to ram my Panzers down an enemy civ's throat
until they weep. Then, I raze the cities...If I ever meet you on multiplayer,
I now will make a point of demolishing your population centres!!!

 

[mastertyguy]

Haven't read half the replies, so don't blame me!

Pillaging should have no effects on world opinion, since it is totally fair.
Razing should have effect only in the late game or it should be impossible in the late game.