An option to SACK a city instead of raze or capture.

[wilson6907]

This is an incredible idea I think, every city you capture you take parts of their treasury. Maybe you could make a script where all players get a fixed amount of gold in the beginning like 500 or something. Anyone get my drift?

 

[zappara]

How about ENSLAVE option (if you are running slavery civic) that reduces the city size to half and then distributes these people to other cities as slave citizens?

 

[Arakhor]

Wouldn't it be very difficult to get rid of the slaves after you're no longer in Slavery?

 

[Afforess]

This is an incredible idea I think, every city you capture you take parts of their treasury. Maybe you could make a script where all players get a fixed amount of gold in the beginning like 500 or something. Anyone get my drift?

How about ENSLAVE option (if you are running slavery civic) that reduces the city size to half and then distributes these people to other cities as slave citizens?

Wouldn't it be very difficult to get rid of the slaves after you're no longer in Slavery?

I've been meaning to change the conquered city options for some time. I always felt razing a city should give a lot more gold (100 gold for razing a size ten city, WTH!?).

Here's the plan:

• Raze City (Recieve Gold porportional to # of buildings, wonders and population)
• Capture City (same)
• Enslave Population (only with Slavery Civic, distributes 1 slave specialist to each of your cities, until half the city has been enslaved)
• Sack City (Kills random population [between 1/4-3/4], destroys random buildings (not wonders) and receive 1/2 the gold you would have you Razed the city. Also, ticks off the original owner)
• Examine City (same)

Sound okay?

Also, I plan on limit slave specialists to the slavery civic only, you will lose them if you leave slavery.

 

[wilson6907]

sounds like great ideas to implement, maybe in the next release

 

[NBAfan]

Sounds good to me.

 

[Arakhor]

Sounds good, yes, but I'm wondering why you would sack a city, rather than seizing or razing it.

 

[Afforess]

Sounds good, yes, but I'm wondering why you would sack a city, rather than seizing or razing it.

Financial trouble, but want a new city for the future. At least, that's what I'll program for the AI.

 

[kabooki108]

This will be a major boost to preindustrial warmongering. I love the idea of rampaging hordes sacking rival cities with no worries about revolutions or financial trouble. The tradeoff would be the diplo penalties, of course. But not having to raze cities you don't want to keep adds the ability to cripple a Civ without creating a vacuum where a future rival can drop cities. I love this idea bunches.

 

[Afforess]

This will be a major boost to preindustrial warmongering. I love the idea of rampaging hordes sacking rival cities with no worries about revolutions or financial trouble. The tradeoff would be the diplo penalties, of course. But not having to raze cities you don't want to keep adds the ability to cripple a Civ without creating a vacuum where a future rival can drop cities. I love this idea bunches.

I'll need to set a timer so players can't repeatedly sack cities over and over, 5 turns (scaled for gamespeed) seem fine?

 

[kabooki108]

5 turns seems fine to me. I think you should also consider setting a minimum size for sacking cities. Logically, only cities with a pretty strong population and economy would have survived a sacking. Maybe size 3? It would probably require some testing to get the balance right.

 

[Hydromancerx]

Is there already an option to liberate a city from an enemy empire to return back to an ally empire when capturing a city?

 

[kabooki108]

Is there already an option to liberate a city from an enemy empire to return back to an ally empire when capturing a city?

I think so, but I'm not sure it works properly with Influence Driven War or fixed borders, since those throw city culture out of whack. If I recall, getting cities liberated when they're supposed to be has been a big challenge for both vanilla BtS and RoM/RevDCM for ages. I can never remember if you can actually give cities to vassals or not...

 

[Grathocke]

I've been meaning to change the conquered city options for some time. I always felt razing a city should give a lot more gold (100 gold for razing a size ten city, WTH!?).

Here's the plan:

• Raze City (Recieve Gold porportional to # of buildings, wonders and population)
• Capture City (same)
• Enslave Population (only with Slavery Civic, distributes 1 slave specialist to each of your cities, until half the city has been enslaved)
• Sack City (Kills random population [between 1/4-3/4], destroys random buildings (not wonders) and receive 1/2 the gold you would have you Razed the city. Also, ticks off the original owner)
• Examine City (same)

Sound okay?

Also, I plan on limit slave specialists to the slavery civic only, you will lose them if you leave slavery.

When abolishing slavery, some of the slaves should become citizens, I think, while most of them either fade away or are too marginalized to be counted as full citizens. Certainly they are there. Maybe they can even create social discontent many years later as they attempt to attain full civil rights.

 

[szemek77]

Great idea indeed.

I would like to present some ideas (around this topic) for consideration:

1. Razing a city should be possible only for cities up to certain size (6, 8, 10?).

2. I'd consider the idea of refugees. Once you capture a city, its size would be cut by 50% (this figure can be discussed), and nearby AI cities would gain +1 size each.

3. Razing a city with a World Wonder inside should cost you solid diplo penalty. Let say -3 in relations towards all other AI Civs. I would remind in this regard the World's reaction towards Taliban who intentionally destroyed Buddhas of Bamyan, unique sculptures from 6th century:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamyan

I know of course that the attitude towards Taliban is caused by many other reasons, but my point is: destroying World's heritage should be punished!

4. Similarly, razing a city with a National Wonder should cause extra diplo penalty from this particular CIV.

Remark: both 3 and 4 penalties should last for a long, long time. I would even consider a lifelong penalty for destroying National Wonder....

 

[draz]

1. Why's that? Maybe have larger cities require multiple units to be in the city for the sacking to be enabled then?

3. Good idea essentially, but -3 might be too harsh? -1 for all civs and -2 for the civ who owned it perhaps?

 

[szemek77]

1. Why's that? Maybe have larger cities require multiple units to be in the city for the sacking to be enabled then?

Because it is completely unrealistic to raze a city of i.e. Berlin size. While I can imagine small city being burned to the ground, I can't imagine razing New York. And actually it should cost you a lot of money, instead of gaining it

Warsaw can be a good example. After Warsaw Uprising 1944 Hitler got very angry and ordered his troops to raze Polish capital. They managed to destroy large part of the city (by planting explosives house by house) but Warsaw survived anyway.

3. Good idea essentially, but -3 might be too harsh? -1 for all civs and -2 for the civ who owned it perhaps?

That is my suggestion, I can take others as well.

 

[os79]

I like the sacking idea with size limits as well.

 

[Afforess]

I have sacking cities 100% working; I just need to update the AI code so they will use it too. I'm going to work on the enslavement next.

 

[Supercheese]

I have sacking cities 100% working; I just need to update the AI code so they will use it too. I'm going to work on the enslavement next.

Nice. I look forward to actually having options when capturing cities, rather than totally destroy or completely occupy.