Abandoning Cities

Discussion in 'Rise of Mankind: A New Dawn' started by Noyyau, Mar 25, 2015.

  1. Noyyau

    Noyyau Privateer Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    1,442
    Location:
    Italy
    To avoid discussing it in the Build thread, I'm opening this.

    I'm in favor of keeping the ability for the player to raze cities. And to demolish buildings as well.
    Sure the AI has no clue how to use this, but sometimes (as someone pointed out) it is better to keep the AI-placed city and demolish it later.
    Do the reasons matter? Maybe I don't want to risk moving in a settler into a contested area. Maybe I want to keep the city as a strong point right now, but it is in an inadequate location for later growth.
    Maybe I like the location, but sometimes I prefer my own UU and UB to those of the conquered civ (I play with the Assimilation option).
    Maybe I founded a city and later discover a resource that I want it to work, and it is just that one tile out of reach...

    To make the Abandon City option not an exploit, there need to be made a few modifications:

    -if the predominant culture (>50%) is not yours, then you get a "you razed our cities" diplo penalty with the owner of the most culture in the city.

    -there should be a nation wide temporary :mad: penalty for abandoning a city (small one, maybe 1 or 2:mad: depending on size, for 5 turns on normal speed indicatively), "we cannot forget your cruel oppression" is a good one

    -when razing an enemy city (maybe only if running slavery, vassalage, or other appropriate civics), you should get the same amount of Workers as when abandoning said city (and this MUST be automatic for the AI as well when it razes cities)

    -in fact, even when abandoning your own cities, you should get Workers only if running the appropriate civics.
     
  2. 45°38'N-13°47'E

    45°38'N-13°47'E Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    5,972
    Location:
    Just wonder...
    After afforess last changes you can still raze cities, you simply can't abandon them. I'm not sure, I kinda like your proposal but I'm not sure how much coding they require
     
  3. Zeta Nexus

    Zeta Nexus Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2014
    Messages:
    4,459
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    In a constant brainstorm...
    I agree with everything Noyyau said.
    Although I almost never use it, I just can't see any reason why it was disabled. I'd like to have the option to do so if I want.
     
  4. oldnooob

    oldnooob Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2013
    Messages:
    475
    Location:
    Aberdeen Washington
    Noyyau you have added valuable points to this discussion. 45 and dbkblk are trying to sidetrack the discussion by talking about city razing at the time of conquest.
    the abandon city mod was developed around 2005-2006 by Dale if I remember right. Afforess added and adapted it to RoM.
    The abandon city mod is important to RoM - AND because it allows a city to be relocated a few tiles when necessary. It also allows for the player to raze their own city instead of allowing it's capture by enemy forces.
    The AI does not understand the concept of strategic city placement. in any one game I will move the captured city location a few tiles approximately 50% of the time and sometimes I will wait and hold a city a few turns in order to fly in spies , settlers or medical troops. then abandon the city and relocate to a nearby strategic location.
    Because Abandon City was originally a separate mod I believe it should be made optional. That way it would be available for those of us who use it and every one else could just ignore it.
    The hallmark of RoM - AND used to be feature choices. I am beginning to be concerned that that attitude is beginning to change with some of the recent modifications. I hope this does not signal a fundamental change in policy.
     
  5. Arkatakor

    Arkatakor King

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2006
    Messages:
    616
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Personally I do see the concept of abandoning captured cities as a cheat, as it allows you to destroy them without suffering diplomatic consequences. So I understand Afforess' decision to do this.

    On the other hand however, it would be great if abandoning cities would be allowed (and thus a non cheat option) if the players themselves built the city. Sometimes I make mistakes in city placement and I would like to continue to have the possibility to relocate them one or two tiles away. This is a feature I always enjoyed in AND and I too would regret seeing it taken away in its entirety.
     
  6. dbkblk

    dbkblk Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,781
    Location:
    France
    This sentence is precisely what I find paradoxal in your argument. Basically, what you say is "I don't want to raze the city when I capture it. Instead I prefer to capture it, gain all the benefit and abandon it later.".
    I don't think this is sidetracking the discussion by saying this is an exploit. Don't you think so? I mean -optional or not- discussion apart.
     
  7. oldnooob

    oldnooob Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2013
    Messages:
    475
    Location:
    Aberdeen Washington
    Gain what benefit? I see bad city placement as a hindrance to smooth gameplay. It is a nuisance to have to relocate every poorly placed city that I capture. I do raze almost al poorly placed cities upon capture but occasionally I need to hold on to a captured city for one or two turns in order to fly in extra manpower as stated above. This has been made more important with the hardcoding of culture introduced by Afforess recently.
     
  8. Afforess

    Afforess The White Wizard

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    12,239
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    The reason abandoning cities was moved behind cheat-codes is that it is cheating. Here's how it is cheating:

    • AI is unaware of the feature and can not use it
    • It is not a feature listed anywhere and can only be accesed by an obscure un-documented shortcut
    • It circumvents standard rules of civ, bypassing penalities for razing cities

    Players here can argue all they want but those are the facts. Suggestions for improvements must be weighed against the development costs of expanding the feature, writing AI support from scratch, testing, etc. As the abandon city feature is implemented entirely in python, this means the entire featured would need to be re-written in C++ for any of the above improvements. The development time for this is not trivial. It's weeks worth of my time. Weeks I could spend elsewhere.

    That said, I think oldnoob has raised one good idea. Some times you want to raze a city but need the forward outpost in enemy territory to continue your advance. So a simpler alternative would be to add a new option when capturing a city beyond raze / keep, "raze + fortify encampment", which would cost some gold, but replace the city ruins from the city with a fort, and give you culture ownership of the city tile. This would be relatively simple to implement (one day of development, approx.). This would allow players to heal in a fortified position and advance further without maintaining the city.
     
  9. oldnooob

    oldnooob Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2013
    Messages:
    475
    Location:
    Aberdeen Washington
    I think that idea has some merit, having said that, this would not allow for the purpose that I use Abandon City Mod for, which is to fly in one or two key people for their specific purpose. Access to a forward outpost is seldom available anymore due to the dramatic culture change you introduced recently. A fort cannot expand it's own culture zone as to allow more than one tile access.
    I also asked you for the specific files you changed to remove the Abandon City Mod. I would like to know so that I can reference that code when I reinstall the Abandon City Mod for My personal use. If you are uncomfortable displaying it on the public forum then please PM it to me.
     
  10. Afforess

    Afforess The White Wizard

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    12,239
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    I was under the impression that with a Fixed Borders civic, forts would exert culture 1 tile around themselves if manned. Is that no longer the case?

    You can get the old file here. And the mod isn't removed, just only allowed in cheat mode.
     
  11. oldnooob

    oldnooob Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2013
    Messages:
    475
    Location:
    Aberdeen Washington
    Thank you very much Afforess.

    I do not use closed borders. It is a feature that I do not understand.

    Yes a fort will effect a one tile radius around itself.
     
  12. Noyyau

    Noyyau Privateer Captain

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    1,442
    Location:
    Italy
    A fort doesn't ALWAYS control all the 8 tiles around it, it does depend on culture on some level.
    I saw several times how a fort (built near some resources to gain them) had lost some tiles due to a nearby foreign city expanding its culture.
     
  13. oldnooob

    oldnooob Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2013
    Messages:
    475
    Location:
    Aberdeen Washington

    Yes that is true more often than not.
     
  14. Zeta Nexus

    Zeta Nexus Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2014
    Messages:
    4,459
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    In a constant brainstorm...
    All you say is true and I understand. It only "hurts" - I'd like to use a milder word, but English is not my mother tongue, so please don't be offended. So the only thing that hurts me (and I feel the rest too) that there was no previous discussion about it. You speak of balancing but didn't consider that a majority of the players DID like this feature. When the fans feel like the devs are modding not for them they quickly become loud.

    I only wrote this because you addressed the above to my post.

    But I really like this fortification option, so I say no more on this issue.
    Thank you for your time and work on the mod :)
     
  15. Afforess

    Afforess The White Wizard

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    12,239
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    I'm not offended. I'm not really interested in providing advance warning for all changes. It's great to get feedback, but design by committee tends to yield over-complicated solutions. Let's just say I see great appeal in dictatorships. I also think when there is disagreement, there should be discussion, so I am fine with a thread like this, and if more players are upset, they should speak up and say so. Players have the right to free speech (broadly speaking, within the rules of cfc). But the ultimate decision remains with the modding team here.

    I do think its important to point out that us developers are not modding for fans though. I have never seen a paycheck, you aren't our customers, there is no contract between us, so I have no obligations. That doesn't mean we don't care what users think. But it does mean we do not have to make decisions they want. We can't please everyone, nor do we have to.

    I think broadly, the goal of RAND is to create a finely polished mod with minimal bugs, a strong AI for civilization 4. I don't think giving players extra advantages over the AI fits into these goals anywhere.
     
  16. Caymon

    Caymon Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2014
    Messages:
    66
    Hi.
    I applaud the decision to remove abandoning cities, mainly because there are so many ways to exploit this:
    -Can abandon a city if about to lose it to an enemy, so enemy gets no benefits - not realistic.
    -A big one - AI is clueless about it (actually Super spies is similar in that too)
    -The other reasons mentioned.

    However, I think selling buildings is a good idea. However, the "1 building per turn" rule should apply here, since exploitation to sell off all buildings on one turn when a city is going to be captured would then be possible (and is also not realistic). Perhaps you could sell off buildings by clicking on the building in the city screen building list (much like Civ V).

    And of course, if it is possible, have the AI know how to do this.

    P.S. You guys are doing an awesome job with the mod. The AI is beginning to be quite threatening on the battlefield now! I had to actually set up forts to keep a giant stack (150 units!) from advancing in, and range bombard to prevent them from plowing through my forces. Aggressive AI was on too. Nice stuff!
     
  17. dbkblk

    dbkblk Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,781
    Location:
    France
    Even if it may have been better to discuss it first, I have to say I agree 100% with Afforess change. That said, the fortification + 1 tile culture radius is a really good alternative for keeping position. We may also force culture 1 tile around fort à la "reclaim territory".
     
  18. 45°38'N-13°47'E

    45°38'N-13°47'E Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    5,972
    Location:
    Just wonder...
    In this case I would call it an enlightened dictatorship [emoji13] (or oligarchy)
     
  19. Afforess

    Afforess The White Wizard

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    12,239
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    Absolutely.

    I am thinking of forcing the +1 tile around a fort change in addition to the "raze + fortify encampment" option. Forts are just rather weak right now.

    I don't see why selling 1 building per turn is useful. The gold is small enough that you might as well run the Wealth process instead.

    That said, I have thought about the ability to temporarily disable buildings. The code to make that work already exists, so it would be much simpler.
     
  20. 45°38'N-13°47'E

    45°38'N-13°47'E Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    5,972
    Location:
    Just wonder...
    Dismantling a building could be useful if I want to get rid of warhead factory for example, with its meltdown risk
     

Share This Page