Abandon City?

[buckeye96]

couldn't you starve them down to one and then have them build a settler and "abandon" the city that way? I think that worked in Civ III.

 

[Willem]

That won't work in Civ 4 anymore. There's no population loss when a Settler or Worker is built now, instead the city just doesn't grow.

 

[vmxa]

Who cares about reality, just give us back abandon city please. Now I have to raze or gift them, is that realistic?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

What am I suppose to do with this settlement I took from the barbarians that can't produce culture or hammers????

Well it will be able to produce at least 1 hammer (from the city spot), just put some workers into it and it will be just as good as your capital eventally (other than any Wonders).

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Who cares about reality, just give us back abandon city please. Now I have to raze or gift them, is that realistic?

I agree abondon city Should be in...perhaps taking time (one pop lost every X turns, etc. until it is all gone)

OK here's my new proposal: an option with any city is Abandon.. when a city is set to abandon
1-it stops All production of hammers, excess food, commerce, culture research, Great People Points

2-One population point is removed each turn until it reaches a population of one (population points of YOUR civ are removed first)

3-If the city's cultural level is greater than its population then it drops by a certain % each turn

4-once the city is at 1 radius and 1 population it is eliminated (if the one remaing pop is NOT of your civ, it is counted as a razing)

 

[i42]

Also agree that you should be able to abandon. Earlier objections pointed to no "real world" examples of this happening in modern times. I think you only need to look at Ukraine in the '30s, China in the '60s, Cambodia in the '70s, and North Korea in the '90s to see that yes, this is still happening. Also agree that there should be an upper level limit of the size city that can be completely razed.

 

[Zhahz]

Why would you want to abandon a city that was large?! If it got to be that large it can't be all bad.

 

[Tunch Khan]

It would be fun and exciting to have all of the above options:

A- Abandon City (classical action, provides settler unit(s).)
B- Raze City (raze population, perhaps from a different culture, city reduced to 1 and becomes your culture)
C- Disown City (or abandon your authority, which makes them barbarians)

 

[kasner]

my idea:

set a city you want into irreversible 'abandonment mode', which stops all production of gold and shields, science culture, food etc. (stops functioning as a city).

every single turn, your city produces a 'refugee' unit, and your city shrinks by one (therefore, if your city has a population of 12, it will take twelve turns to abandon, and eventually produce twelve refugee units).

all city improvements are gradually sold off one by one each turn. badluck if you can't sell them all off (7 improvements for a population of 3, for example, you'll only sell 3 improvements). eventually, the city will be empty, and decaying ruins remain on the map, possibly a good place for barbs to hide out. abandoned cities should grant a 50% defence bonus for units.

these refugee units can only do one thing. go to a new city and 'resettle' adding a population point. that's all they can do. they can't do anything a worker or settler can do. if you don't settle them, they'll just loaf away, drawing away precious gold (you'll have to support them until they get settled again!).

there, that's my idea!

 

[yo_gadgetboy]

I would rather a game to be more playable than trying to be too realistic.
Is it real that other nations can come and build right on top of one of your cities, forcing you to loose city squares and road access. I am basing this on the first three Civs (I am still waiting for Nov 3). From what I am reading here, sounds like it is still a problem.

I would prefer an abandon city option, some of the suggestions I think are getting too complicated for a simple problem, although anything is better than nothing.

Here is a simple solution, if they make this an option like Civ3, use it if you want this option otherwise ignore it is there. Another option would be to make it selectable (Off or On) before you start the game.

Some people have suggested using the editor to remove the city, do you still receive a score at the end of the game?
I remember with one of the Civs (II, I think), if you used the cheat menu, then this would disable the scoring at the end of the game.

 

[Scatter]

Does the AI still build cities that intrude on your resource squares?

yes it does, and it's a major, major pain in the arse.

to answer a question in this thread - why would you want to abandon a large city? well, i wouldn't if the AI actually had any idea on how to place the damn things decently. it's been a problem in every version of the game, and in Alpha Centauri too. you build a city that grows into a large metropolis. over time, another foreign powers cultural borders grow towards the edge of that city (or you build a city near the border of said foreign power). then, for some stupid reason, the AI will build a city three squares away from your booming metropolis, and take away half the cities resource tiles and cause starvation. even though the new city has a population of one (a rather mangy cow, and daschund named colin ).

it sucks when it happens, and is my biggest gripe with the game. it wouldn't be so bad if you could just abandon the p!ss-pot town after you win it over culturally, but now the only way to get rid is to declare war and raze it...

 

[KrikkitTwo]

my idea:

set a city you want into irreversible 'abandonment mode', which stops all production of gold and shields, science culture, food etc. (stops functioning as a city).

every single turn, your city produces a 'refugee' unit, and your city shrinks by one (therefore, if your city has a population of 12, it will take twelve turns to abandon, and eventually produce twelve refugee units).

all city improvements are gradually sold off one by one each turn. badluck if you can't sell them all off (7 improvements for a population of 3, for example, you'll only sell 3 improvements). eventually, the city will be empty, and decaying ruins remain on the map, possibly a good place for barbs to hide out. abandoned cities should grant a 50% defence bonus for units.

these refugee units can only do one thing. go to a new city and 'resettle' adding a population point. that's all they can do. they can't do anything a worker or settler can do. if you don't settle them, they'll just loaf away, drawing away precious gold (you'll have to support them until they get settled again!).

there, that's my idea!

Actually, I'd avoid the refugee units, because I can see that being exploited to allow one city to rapidly grow...it produces settlers that make abondoned cities ie 100 food+production becomes one more population point for a large city....If you have a city that is production rich and food poor...allows you to use production to grow your population.

I'd say you get nothing out of the city, except maybe the ruins, thats a good idea (have the bonus decay by 5% every 100 years)

 

[esdawg01]

How about an option to move populous? You could have people migrate to another city in your own civ.

Heh: imagine a super city with 100+ population because everyone migrated.

You could also use this to protect people from invasion by evacuating them.

 

[abbamouse]

Phnom Penh (sp?) was abandoned by the Khmer Rouge after they took power. Of course, this caused massive death and was part and parcel of a genocide. Civ should let you abandon size 1 cities without penalty, size 2-6 with some penalty, and size 7+ should trigger a reaction similiar to a player using nukes -- genocide is rather unpopular. Still, it should be an option.

 

[GrendelS]

No sorry, can't be done. No more commiting genocide on your own people.

that's the problem, it should create settlers (refugees) as many as the size of the abandoned city. ppl don't just vanish.

 

[Mazruk]

OK, now I'm confused. People are talking about abandon and raze as different? Can you raze a city?

All I want to do is have the ability to get rid of it (in game - no editor) whatever the rep hit might be?

 

[brokguitar]

my idea:

set a city you want into irreversible 'abandonment mode', which stops all production of gold and shields, science culture, food etc. (stops functioning as a city).

every single turn, your city produces a 'refugee' unit, and your city shrinks by one (therefore, if your city has a population of 12, it will take twelve turns to abandon, and eventually produce twelve refugee units).

all city improvements are gradually sold off one by one each turn. badluck if you can't sell them all off (7 improvements for a population of 3, for example, you'll only sell 3 improvements). eventually, the city will be empty, and decaying ruins remain on the map, possibly a good place for barbs to hide out. abandoned cities should grant a 50% defence bonus for units.

these refugee units can only do one thing. go to a new city and 'resettle' adding a population point. that's all they can do. they can't do anything a worker or settler can do. if you don't settle them, they'll just loaf away, drawing away precious gold (you'll have to support them until they get settled again!).

there, that's my idea!

Im glad i read all the way through this before posting. I agree with above said because:
A) you should be able to abandon cities.. I have accidently settled a city, the settle button is close to the move button and there is no cancel city settle button so i was forced to settle the city and could not cancel it.
B) it is a great idea to be able to refugee or take the population and move it to another city, like you could do with workers in civ3. Great thinking !!!!

 

[MeteorPunch]

OK, now I'm confused. People are talking about abandon and raze as different? Can you raze a city?

you have the option to raze a city you capture the moment you capture it.

 

[Zertez]

They need to put the abandon option back in for balance. With the new fees attached to cities, it can really drag a good civilization down. In MP games this isnt a big deal but it is nasty to the AI in SP, you can gift the city to a civilization, you intend to take out. So while you are conquering your main rival, you are weakening the next one. Hard for leaders to say no to a gift city and then the rest of their empire is watered down.

 

[Mazruk]

you have the option to raze a city you capture the moment you capture it.

How about if you "capture" it due to a culture flip? Or do you get the chance to "rebuff" the flip?