Buildings should not disappear from taken cities!

[gcdavey]

I did't come here for an argument.
Yes you did.
No I did't
Yes you did.

 

[gunkulator]

But who said I liked it in Civ3? If to qualify myself of "fan", I would rather say Civ2. (ohw, cool caravans )

Buildings were lost in Civ2 city capture as well.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Buildings were lost in Civ2 city capture as well.

Well then I'm not a Civ2 "fan", my mistake...

 

[manu-fan]

Let's just think of it as having to re-build the infrastructure within the building to provide the cultural benefit it used to provide.

It was sacked, people killed, looted, maybe parts of it destroyed.

The re-build cost is to get it back to looking brand spanking new and providing the benefit it once did. Not an easy task.

Cheers.

 

[gettingfat]

Each chariot "unit" in the game represents a whole army built up in years and even longer. Do you honestly believe a few chariots can take down a whole city, or a single settler can build a new city? A city will be significantly damaged after being attacked by thousands of chariots.

The damages in ancient wars were often more devastating than the wars in modern era. Large scale lootings, genocides and arsons were very typical in ancient wars. In one famous ancient Chinese war (I believe by Qin's grandfather), almost half a million of soldiers were brutally buried alive by Qin grandfather's army in a single war after they surrendered. IMHO, human brutality can cause more damage than gunpowder, assuming the gunpowder is not used by brutal human beings.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Let's just think of it as having to re-build the infrastructure within the building to provide the cultural benefit it used to provide.

It was sacked, people killed, looted, maybe parts of it destroyed.

The re-build cost is to get it back to looking brand spanking new and providing the benefit it once did. Not an easy task.

Cheers.

"Let's just think this", "let's just think that", one can just think anything in order to advertise his opinion.

What I'm saying is that it annoys me, all the reasons of the earth will do nothing against it... and I am surprised that apparently, I am the only one, but I have to remember that I am in a damn fanatics nest......

 

[Naokaukodem]

Each chariot "unit" in the game represents a whole army built up in years and even longer. Do you honestly believe a few chariots can take down a whole city, or a single settler can build a new city? A city will be significantly damaged after being attacked by thousands of chariots.

The damages in ancient wars were often more devastating than the wars in modern era. Large scale lootings, genocides and arsons were very typical in ancient wars. In one famous ancient Chinese war (I believe by Qin's grandfather), almost half a million of soldiers were brutally buried alive by Qin grandfather's army in a single war after they surrendered. IMHO, human brutality can cause more damage than gunpowder, assuming the gunpowder is not used by brutal human beings.

That's not a question of realistic quantity, but ingame quantity. Having his buildings razed by a single unit is lame. Period.

 

[Elandal]

You can look at building disappearance from either historical point of view (yes, cities did suffer a lot when they were conquered) or from a game balance point of view (getting a fully built city would be just too sweet for the conqueror - why would people anymore build more than a couple of starting cities when they can get full infrastructure from conquests?), but trying to mix the two views won't be likely to produce good results.

Assuming all buildings survived when capturing a city, I would probably go for way more warmongering than I usually do. I could simply set up a few cities, build my infra, build army, and take cities with full infrastructure without need to develop them myself.

 

[gettingfat]

That's not a question of realistic quantity, but ingame quantity. Having his buildings razed by a single unit is lame. Period.

If you consider only the "ingame" aspect, what is so lame? This is a game! Any rule in a game is arbitrary. Why does a touchdown in American football give a team 6 point, not 5 or 9 points? or a pawn can become a "queen" in a chess game?Tell me why it's lame a single unit that take you 5 rounds to build can't destroy a few buildings? Isn't it lamer a single unit can raze a whole 14-pop city?

In a game, everything is subjected to something called game-balance. If you can take everything from a city after it's conquered, everybody will become a warmonger. What's the point of being a builder? To build the city for the warmongers?

 

[Kid Socrates]

I don't know why I even bothered.

I think in this case it's a lost cause; the gentleman's got his mind made up and no amount of explanation, thinking, fact-presenting, or discourse is going to make him realize that there are scenarios outside of his bubble. I for one agree with you and think losing buildings is good, and these explanations are fantastic for it; another thing about Civilization I hadn't dedicated much thought to until this thread.

Another neat understated touch in Civilization.

 

[Naismith]

In general, I agree that keeping all buildings in a conquered city would not be good for game balance. I don't think this game needs more ways to encourage warmongering.

However, I wonder if instead of losing buildings altogether, it would be more interesting if all the buildings survived, but were "damaged". They would not function until you repaired them. You would repair them by putting them in your build queue. If a Library was 50% damaged, you would need 50% of the library cost (in hammers) to repair it. Until they were repaired, buildings would produce no benefits at all. Of course, there would have to be some way of determining how much each building was damaged when the city was taken. It could be random. Perhaps you could use a Great Engineer to instantly repair all the buildings in a city.

Although I personally like this idea, it doesn't make the top 10 in terms of changes I would like to see in the game.

One thing that bothers me now: Especially mid to late game, you have the problem of captured cities being engulfed by culture from other Civ's. It's bad enough that you may have to wait for ~10 turns of resistance, but when it's over you have a city that is producing no culture. I know you can immediately build/whip/rush Theatres and such, but some cities are just destined to lose the culture war, unless... you raze or take neighboring cities.

Being able to get culture producing buildings back online more quickly might actually discourage warmongering to some degree.

 

[Naokaukodem]

getting a fully built city would be just too sweet for the conqueror

Why? You seem to be sastified with your one sentence "explanation" of what is the center of the problem.

I say, equally, that it would be the reward of taking a city, you investing money in units maintenance & supply, and not build buildings instead. Plus, both parties would take benefit from it, as I ALREADY said, the conqueror and -if you want- the "builder", not to think that the one can not become the other on his turn. Can you read it? (with your eyes)

But I figure now that it was not my problem. My problem was in the case of a re-conquest. Maybe it could be made so that the conquest back cities keep their former buildings. So that you and your army of fans would be happy.

why would people anymore build more than a couple of starting cities when they can get full infrastructure from conquests?

Weird, but that's what are actually doing most of players. Anyway, you can't build too many cities in Civ4 (because of the maintenance and civic upkeep), not counting into the AI taking all the room !

Assuming all buildings survived when capturing a city, I would probably go for way more warmongering than I usually do.

Then you would do... but honestly, I don't think it would change much. Why? Again, because you would have to build and support an army + WIN over your opponents, who would become as much eager than yourself.

 

[Naokaukodem]

In general, I agree that keeping all buildings in a conquered city would not be good for game balance.

- Not all. Culture ones should disappear, unless conquered back.

However, I wonder if instead of losing buildings altogether, it would be more interesting if all the buildings survived, but were "damaged". They would not function until you repaired them. You would repair them by putting them in your build queue. If a Library was 50% damaged, you would need 50% of the library cost (in hammers) to repair it. Until they were repaired, buildings would produce no benefits at all. Of course, there would have to be some way of determining how much each building was damaged when the city was taken. It could be random. Perhaps you could use a Great Engineer to instantly repair all the buildings in a city.

Good idea.

Although I personally like this idea, it doesn't make the top 10 in terms of changes I would like to see in the game.

And what is your top ten list then? I'm curious.

One thing that bothers me now: Especially mid to late game, you have the problem of captured cities being engulfed by culture from other Civ's. It's bad enough that you may have to wait for ~10 turns of resistance, but when it's over you have a city that is producing no culture. I know you can immediately build/whip/rush Theatres and such, but some cities are just destined to lose the culture war, unless... you raze or take neighboring cities.

Being able to get culture producing buildings back online more quickly might actually discourage warmongering to some degree.

You mean once in a war, it would discourage warmongering? I don't get you there.

 

[Thyrwyn]

I probably shouldn't, but i'll try. . .

You complain because buildings are arbitrarily destroyed when ownership of a city changes hands involuntarily. You believe that this is illogical. But Buildings" are nothing - it is the infrastructure and the workers who operate those buildings that provide the benefits. A building, in "real" terms is an empty shell; a building, in "civ" terms is the shell, the staff, and the support systems which, once built, grant the city certain benefits. The destruction of those "civ" buildings represents, in turn, the destruction of that infrastructure.

If I moved into a city that had a building it called a "barracks" and decided to give 50 of my friends swords and armor, would they be any better or more experienced than if I had given them the swords and armor in some empty field somewhere? Without officers and drill instructors to run the facilities the "building" means nothing. And I hardly think that the conquered staff is going to stick around and train my guys.

When cities violently change hands, infrastructure gets disrupted and destroyed and has to be rebuilt - the game simulates this by removing the buildings. The rebuilding process is simulated by having to rebuild the buildings (rebuild the infrastructure).

 

[Naismith]

And what is your top ten list then? I'm curious.

Just off the top of my head, and in no particular order:
1) Improvements to diplomacy.
2) Changes to U.N. (I posted an idea in Ideas and Suggestions.)
3) Improvements in AI warmaking abilities (being worked on by Blake, I believe).
4) Changes to the way AI decides who to declare war on.
5) New victory conditions (Sevo's (?) mastery victory, cumulative cultural win).
6) Make non-Ancient era starts work more sensibly.
7) Improvements to naval units and naval warfare.
8) Rebalancing of game post-patch to encourage builder style gameplay.

Most of the above have more than one component.

You mean once in a war, it would discourage warmongering? I don't get you there.

Let me give an example: You declare war on Mansa Musa, and take four of his 8 cities. Let's say you don't really want his last 4 cities - however, the last 2 cities you took are being culturally engulfed by his remaining cities, and are therefore almost worthless. What do you do? You take or raze his neighboring cities, that's what. So your inability to combat Mansa's culture encourages more warmongering. Now, let's say you take his last 4 cities. Oops, the last two are culturally engulfed by Mansa's neighbor, Salidan. What do you do? Well, you either put up with two almost worthless cities, try and give them away, or you attack Saladin. Of course, you could just raze the last couple of cities you take from Mansa Musa, but you get the idea.

At least if you can repair existing buildings, and get the city pumping out culture faster, you would be more equipped to deal with the culture problem without resorting to taking or razing the neighboring cities.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Let me give an example: You declare war on Mansa Musa, and take four of his 8 cities. Let's say you don't really want his last 4 cities - however, the last 2 cities you took are being culturally engulfed by his remaining cities, and are therefore almost worthless. What do you do? You take or raze his neighboring cities, that's what. So your inability to combat Mansa's culture encourages more warmongering. Now, let's say you take his last 4 cities. Oops, the last two are culturally engulfed by Mansa's neighbor, Salidan. What do you do? Well, you either put up with two almost worthless cities, try and give them away, or you attack Saladin. Of course, you could just raze the last couple of cities you take from Mansa Musa, but you get the idea.

At least if you can repair existing buildings, and get the city pumping out culture faster, you would be more equipped to deal with the culture problem without resorting to taking or razing the neighboring cities.

First off, to me warmongering is the fact that you go war with someone. So in your case your already a warmonger. Warmongering is the policy, the fact of agressivity. The lenght of the war is a different topic, which is linked directly with war weariness.

But also with this culture problem. But don't you think it would be more efficient to keep all the culture influence? Maybe not the building, that you would have to rebuild, but the culture only? Some mod out there create a culture boost after conquest; I think this is the reflection that it is really a problem, an non intentional feature.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I probably shouldn't, but i'll try. . .

You complain because buildings are arbitrarily destroyed when ownership of a city changes hands involuntarily. You believe that this is illogical. But Buildings" are nothing - it is the infrastructure and the workers who operate those buildings that provide the benefits. A building, in "real" terms is an empty shell; a building, in "civ" terms is the shell, the staff, and the support systems which, once built, grant the city certain benefits. The destruction of those "civ" buildings represents, in turn, the destruction of that infrastructure.

If I moved into a city that had a building it called a "barracks" and decided to give 50 of my friends swords and armor, would they be any better or more experienced than if I had given them the swords and armor in some empty field somewhere? Without officers and drill instructors to run the facilities the "building" means nothing. And I hardly think that the conquered staff is going to stick around and train my guys.

When cities violently change hands, infrastructure gets disrupted and destroyed and has to be rebuilt - the game simulates this by removing the buildings. The rebuilding process is simulated by having to rebuild the buildings (rebuild the infrastructure).

The infrastructure within a building does not take any time to be build over, once you have the experience of it. It is like you have discovered the technology to build a granary, you know how to do it, you did it once, you know how to run it, you only have to find and form persons who will fit in it. It is like the prototype in Alpha Centauri: the first one cost more to build than the following one. It gives me an idea: why shouldn't we build only "national wonders" that would give a given building in ALL our cities, instead of just in one: build such a thing takes no time to be built, in History early cities popped with every building in, have been destroyed and build over, etc... it is only a matter of experience and spreading, both could be contained into a "national wonder", expensive to be built. Once you destroy this wonder, this becomes a lost knowledge. Roman have had more experienced units, hence the power of the legions in the game, but in fact it was only the culture of the war and the experience those troops had. Roman should have a unique "national wonder" in order to make their swordmen more experienced than the others. It would solve also the problem with the duality builder/warmongers, a player being a mix of the two rether than the one or the other.

 

[DarkFyre99]

to put my own $1.95 in...

From time to time, I like to play Galactic Civiliziations II. In the game, when you take a planet, you get the infrastructure intact, including all the "buildings" and its "culture."

The game is fun, but I tend to win a lot of "cultural" victories. How? Through warfare, of course. Rather than having to push my own "culture," I simply take over my neighbors' culture. Take a planet, and I take all of its surrounding space. A mutual neighbor has no chance of taking over via "cultural" rebellion, despite having influenced that planet for years.

Not only that, as soon as my troops take a well developed planet, I can start turning out ships and my research increases dramatically. The only downside is that the invasion kills most of the inhabitants, and that's easily remedied by shifting people from heavily populated (and often unhappy) worlds to the newly conquored worlds with colony ships... which in turn allows me to increase my tax rate.

Thanks to not having to rebuild the planets I take, victory in war makes victory in general almost inevitable. There is no period of vulnerablility between winning the war, and rebuilding what I've just taken.

I'm not faced with having to protect an area twice as large with what I once had, since my production and research has also doubled. My new border planets are all churching out new warships at the same rate as my old planets. My new borders have pushed deep into my new neighbors' territory, rather than the other way around.

Back to CIV... cities being damaged when they're conquored makes sense. Looting is common, regardless of era. So is killing off potential sources of rebellions (like academic and religious leaders) and destroying symbols of their former rulers (such as paintings and statues). Lets not forget the tendancy to want to destroy "heathen" or "heretical" religions and replace them with your own.

It also makes sense for game balance. Could you imagine how easy a cultural victory would be if all you had to do was take over two capitals, rather than having to build up two of your own cities? Could you image how easy conquest or domination victories would be if you didn't need 30+ turns to get that city you took anywhere close to its former glory, or another war to eliminate foreign cultural pressure?

In GC2, warfare is the way to go every time. In CIV, its one option among many. One which often times has to be carefully weighed for its benefits, and what your goals are.

 

[Veritass]

I don't know if this is already taken into account, but the amount of buildings that are destroyed should be proportional to the number of attacks that it took to seize the city. If it took eight bombardments and twelve attacks to take the city, that should destroy 80% of the buildings. If it took only three attacks to take the city, that should destroy 20% of the buildings.

 

[Naismith]

First off, to me warmongering is the fact that you go war with someone. So in your case your already a warmonger. Warmongering is the policy, the fact of agressivity. The lenght of the war is a different topic, which is linked directly with war weariness.

Warmongering is all a matter of degree. If you believe that declaring war even once in a game makes someone a warmonger, then I would say almost everyone is a warmonger. I see warmongering as a style of play that involves almost constant warring.

But also with this culture problem. But don't you think it would be more efficient to keep all the culture influence? Maybe not the building, that you would have to rebuild, but the culture only? Some mod out there create a culture boost after conquest; I think this is the reflection that it is really a problem, an non intentional feature.

Culture is one of the most important benefits that buildings can have. I think it would be strange if culture continued to be produced if the buildings were gone, if that's what you are suggesting.

I don't believe the way culture works now (for conquered cities) is a non-intentional feature. I dimly remember people posting that it was an intentional change for Civ4 - an attempt to fix a perceived exploit in Civ3 - jacking up your score by conquering lots of cities late in the game. I could be wrong.

In any case, I wish there would be some adjustment to the current craziness where you can conquer a city (usually in the late game), and it is completely engulfed in the enemy Civ's culture. I'm sure some people think it's fine just as it is, but to me it's kind of bizarre.