Buildings should not disappear from taken cities!

[Naokaukodem]

The title says it all. It has always bothered me. Like one of my city is taken by an enemy chariot, and when I take it back the next turn, there is not any building anymore in it! What is this? A bug?

 

[Falcon02]

Not a bug, but a game mechanic designed to try to "balance" things, you can't just take over a city and instantly have a power house once the rioting stop.

Is it realistic... not really, but it's in there for a reason.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Well the riot creates high population decrease, and is long enough.

At least, it could give back our OWN buildings...

EDIT: and why not btw... if this is the same for all.

 

[Psyringe]

Well, ever seen a real city after a war? Buildings *do* get destroyed when people are fighting in a city ...

Speaking in game terms, when a city gets captured, all culture-producing buildings are destroyed. This is to make the attacker actually having to *work* to spread his culture in the areas he conquered. Otherwise a just captured city could immediately churn out a dozen culture points per turn to spread the aggressor's culture.

If you retake the city, you former buildings are still gone, of course. I akways imagine that the attackers, aware that they couldn't hold the city, destroyed anything they could (a tactic often used in many real wars).

 

[Naokaukodem]

I don't think a couple men with charriots could destroy stone buildings...

As to game terms, there is a mod that triggers culture boosts after conquests, and an option in the normal game that allows to keep culture if i'm right... so it should not sound too rough, considering the culture would not rise all of a sudden. Plus it is not only culture buildings that disapear but every kind of buildings.

If you can't keep a city, better to destroy it rather than left it empty which is pretty the same.

I would not be against collateral damage if catapults are used, but it would not be as bad as it is now.

 

[Psyringe]

I don't think a couple men with charriots could destroy stone buildings...

Depends on how many men there are and how well the walls were constructed ... keep in mind that architecture has gone through a lot of improvements in history. And if you have chariots and a rope, then using horsepower to remove a supporting pillar might be a good start. Never underestimate man's creativity when it comes to destroying things.

But I agree with you that a solid, massive, properly cared-for building will probably survive an attack by troops of this era unless catapults become involved.

However, I wouldn't think of just the building. Destroying a library, for example, actually has little to do with smashing its walls. Piling up any books and scrolls and setting them on fire, as well as killing the people who know how to run the library, are both far more destructive, and much easier to do, than trying to tear down massive walls. Afterwards, even if the original owner of the library retakes the city, he'll have to rebuild it, because aside from an empty shell there's nothing left that could be called a library.

As to game terms, there is a mod that triggers culture boosts after conquests, and an option in the normal game that allows to keep culture if i'm right... so it should not sound too rough, considering the culture would not rise all of a sudden. Plus it is not only culture buildings that disapear but every kind of buildings.

If you can't keep a city, better to destroy it rather than left it empty which is pretty the same.

Well, razing a city *is* more difficult (and takes a lot more time) than destroying some key buildings (unless you can set the whole city on fire, which depends largely on the construction of the houses). Actually, I think razing works a little too fast in Civ.

I agree with you that the change you propose probably wouldn't be too rough for gameplay. I just don't see a need for it.

I would not be against collateral damage if catapults are used, but it would not be as bad as it is now.

I don't think it's bad now. Destruction of buildings during a war is historically correct and works well in gameplay. It lets you care about your cities' defenses.

 

[Xanikk999]

Just so you know it was the same in civ3 and i know your a civ3 fan.

 

[Naokaukodem]

How many men: one single poor charriot, well two, i mean one Civ4 unit, even if it represents several men.

On this spot I think we agree.

On the part about the men behind the library, I think you are going a little far.

I was just thinking about fire. Fire in early eras destroyed entire cities. On the other hand, stone buildings are another match.

It is all about the intention: or you pillage and destroy the city, and WON'T profit from buildings, or you let it live, but you can't just profit from (remaining) buildings and them to suddenly disappear once conquered.

It is historically accurate also to let a city live after conquest.

As to the reason to do it, OK, it let you care about your cities defenses, but the other way would let you (and the AI) care about keeping a conquered city! Historically, it would emulate the fact that cities are conquered very often. (there you are going to say that they were pillaged nearly as much often, but I will answre you that in Civ, where a library takes 1000 years to be build, we can't emulate this)

 

[Naokaukodem]

Just so you know it was the same in civ3 and i know your a civ3 fan.

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

 

[GoodGame]

I have to agree with this. And even when the rioting stops, the new culture has work its way into the city. Probably the same for science buildings.

I don't agree that all parts of the economy/growth buildings need to be rebuilt though. Markets, factories, forges, granaries etc... should have a chance to be spared. Banks probably shouldn't though.

But by emancipation, this should change I think. Like say if a civ with emancipation captures a city that came from a civ without it....should everything really need to be built from scratch?

Well, ever seen a real city after a war? Buildings *do* get destroyed when people are fighting in a city ...

Speaking in game terms, when a city gets captured, all culture-producing buildings are destroyed. This is to make the attacker actually having to *work* to spread his culture in the areas he conquered. Otherwise a just captured city could immediately churn out a dozen culture points per turn to spread the aggressor's culture.

If you retake the city, you former buildings are still gone, of course. I akways imagine that the attackers, aware that they couldn't hold the city, destroyed anything they could (a tactic often used in many real wars).

 

[Naokaukodem]

Even if buildings are made of stone, there are things inside it which burn, like scrolls inside a stone library. And it was impossible for a victorious general to prevent his slodiers from looting a city. The only thing he could do is tell them to not burn down every building.

And a unit does not represent 2 chariots. How many armies do you now of made from 2 chariots? It's a group of a few hundred aristocrats on chariots supported by a few more hundred people. In all, about 400-500. That many people can easily destroy a city.

You don't build books in Civ. Therefore, you can't destroy them. Your "explanation" is not satisfying to me. You are just inventing things as "arguments" in order to "win" some debate.

Plus do you have a source where you see that a victorious general can't prevent his soldiers to loot? I have one that says the contrary, the nowadays events.

Btw... the fact is that it annoys me and that I fail to see the point here.

Anyway, more generally the player who conquers a city may have a bigger army than his enemy, and the city could not be taken back.

However, there are some cases where a city could be taken back. More often, those are "accidents", i.e. you didn't see an enemy single chariot and the following turn AI takes your city defended by one equal unit when you have others fortified around. Or the armies are the same, or the conqueror's is inferior, but in that case it would be wiser to destroy the city.

All tends to that: destroy the city or not. I think this is enough possibilities, because one would destroy a city knowing its enemy may take it back at full and immediate power.

 

[Psyringe]

You don't build books in Civ. Therefore, you can't destroy them. Your "explanation" is not satisfying to me. You are just inventing things as "arguments" in order to "win" some debate.

Nobody's inventing arguments. We are just *trying* to explain to you why we, in our games, don't see a problem in this feature that apparently bothers you. If you choose to discard alternative points of view as "inventing things as arguments in order to win some debate", then you're just limiting your possible enjoyment of the game in this case. You're free to do that, of course.

I don't think you're treating Olleus' explanation fair btw. Sure, you can say that there are no books in the in-game libraries. But Olleus wasn't talking about abstract game features in this sentence, but about historical realism and plausibility. Certainly it's not unconceivable that a building which is called "library" might contain books, which might be vulnerable to fire, which in turn might offer an easy possibility to destroy a library without tearing a whole building down. The game doesn't explicitly specify that its libraries contain books or scrolls, but this is an historically plausible way to look at it.

Now you're saying that using historical plausibility as an argument is just "inventing things to win some debate". However, you yourself were using the very same reasoning some posts above, when you said that you "don't think a couple men with charriots could destroy stone buildings". So what did you do there - inventing things to win some debate? Either using historical realism is an acceptable way of argumenting - then we can assume that important buildings are made of stone, and we can just as well assume that libraries contain books. Or it's *not* an acceptable way of argumenting - then we can not talk about books (because the game has no books), but then we can't assume that buildings are made from stone either (they could be painted cardboard or anything, most of the time you don't even *have* stone as a resource when you build them). But using historical plausibility for one's own arguments, while discarding it in others' arguments as "inventing things" doesn't really work.

Plus do you have a source where you see that a victorious general can't prevent his soldiers to loot? I have one that says the contrary, the nowadays events.

Really, this is common knowledge about classical and medieval warfare. I wouldn't say that it was totally impossible to prevent looting, but it was mostly common practice to allow it - sometimes for a fixed duration, i.e. the soldiers were explicitly allowed to loot, destroy, rape etc. for one day, but on the next day order had to be reinstated. You'd need an enormously good discipline to prevent that, because when a winning army enters a city, you cannot really control what they're doing, you can't even *know* what everyone is doing. You'd have to rely on the victims to vindicate any misoings ... and if you do really choose to punish your troops based on something the "enemy" said, then good luck with your next mission, you'll need it dearly ...

Btw... the fact is that it annoys me and that I fail to see the point here.

Well, this is a forum. If you tell people that something in the game annoys you, be prepared that others voice their opinion. They may agree with you, they may see things differently, they may even offer insights that might help you adapt to a game feature that annoys you. If you see no point in that, then, well, what did you expect? What *would* have a point then?

 

[kristopherb]

if i remember correctly you keep
courthouses
wonders
granary
walls ?
castle?
if the ub is kept is transfromed into the "normal" version.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Nobody's inventing arguments. We are just *trying* to explain to you why we, in our games, don't see a problem in this feature that apparently bothers you.

Yeah, it bothers me, and "you" do convolutions in order to "explain" your feelings. But it is only feelings, no need to explain them, unless there is a good reason, which simply does not appear here IMO.

I don't think you're treating Olleus' explanation fair btw. Sure, you can say that there are no books in the in-game libraries. But Olleus wasn't talking about abstract game features in this sentence, but about historical realism and plausibility. Certainly it's not unconceivable that a building which is called "library" might contain books, which might be vulnerable to fire, which in turn might offer an easy possibility to destroy a library without tearing a whole building down. The game doesn't explicitly specify that its libraries contain books or scrolls, but this is an historically plausible way to look at it.

When you build a aqueduct in Civ4, do you mean you "build" the water in it, also? And when you detroy it, you destroy the source of water? What I'm trying to say is that you can find such things in order to justify your point of view, but, to me, they are not good reasons. I can for example reply that books are "fluent" and that they "build" themselves automatically during the game, just like productions transport. They are simply not managed. Well, that would be MY version of the things.

Anyway, let's put the things straight: buildings disappear when the cities are conquered. Then this happens in the process. Logic would say: collateral damage. But you can always imagine that buildings are destroyed by humans during the process. If it is by the owner, then nothing says that owners would destroy automatically their own building in order to not let them at the hands of the enemy. A good reason is that I would personnally NOT order such things within my game of Civ. This works for both simulation and History. If this is by the attacker, of course this would be stupid (voluntarily) if the city is not razed.

Now you're saying that using historical plausibility as an argument is just "inventing things to win some debate".

Not really. By the way, I prefer to argue for both History and gameplay, not only one of the two.

However, you yourself were using the very same reasoning some posts above, when you said that you "don't think a couple men with charriots could destroy stone buildings". So what did you do there - inventing things to win some debate? Either using historical realism is an acceptable way of argumenting - then we can assume that important buildings are made of stone, and we can just as well assume that libraries contain books. Or it's *not* an acceptable way of argumenting - then we can not talk about books (because the game has no books), but then we can't assume that buildings are made from stone either (they could be painted cardboard or anything, most of the time you don't even *have* stone as a resource when you build them). But using historical plausibility for one's own arguments, while discarding it in others' arguments as "inventing things" doesn't really work.

I know what you mean. I just think that the argument of the books in a little too much researched.

Really, this is common knowledge about classical and medieval warfare. I wouldn't say that it was totally impossible to prevent looting, but it was mostly common practice to allow it - sometimes for a fixed duration, i.e. the soldiers were explicitly allowed to loot, destroy, rape etc. for one day, but on the next day order had to be reinstated. You'd need an enormously good discipline to prevent that, because when a winning army enters a city, you cannot really control what they're doing, you can't even *know* what everyone is doing. You'd have to rely on the victims to vindicate any misoings ... and if you do really choose to punish your troops based on something the "enemy" said, then good luck with your next mission, you'll need it dearly ...

I know Alexander the Great was not allowing his troops to loot, if I'm right. It is also based on culture: some cultures has repect towards others, for their achievments, and will do less damage to them purposely.

Well, this is a forum. If you tell people that something in the game annoys you, be prepared that others voice their opinion. They may agree with you, they may see things differently, they may even offer insights that might help you adapt to a game feature that annoys you. If you see no point in that, then, well, what did you expect? What *would* have a point then?

I just thought I would own this forum and its members, so that I could ask for a ransom. ;P

 

[KrikkitTwo]

OK when you build a Building in Civ 4 you build it with HAMMERS, which come from Hillsand Forests, Horses and Elephants. The Buildings in civ 4 are VERY abstract representaions of "development" of a city.
For what the game results are, and an Explanation

Cultural Buildings... all destroyed because you are there to eliminate that Enemy (Fascist/Barbarian/Corrupt Liberal/Heathen) Culture (Propaganda/Lifestyle/Oppression)

Other buildings chance of being destroyed because of
Looting by your troops
Looting by desperate enemy soldiers
Looting by mobs
Collateral damage
Punishment against the local populace/enemy for resisting
Destruction by the Local populace/ to keep it out of your hands

[destroying Marketplaces/ Banks, etc. is easy look at the level of economic activity in any city After it has been invaded... a marketplace is 'destroyed' if it is empty. If you kill all the Lawyers a system of courts is going to take Effort to build back up, etc. If the chaos of invasion kills/scares off all the people who MAINTAIN AND OPERATE the "building" then the "building" is effectively destroyed.]

World Wonders... Never Destroyed because of you wanting to capture those (unless you are so barbaric as to raze the entire city)

 

[Naokaukodem]

try to pick pathetic holes in it which have no relevance

Really... HUH?

1) There is a battle inside a city and there is a lot of fighting in the streets. What is more realistic: That this has no effect on buildings at all, or that some buildings are destroyed in the fighting?

Honestly, it sounds it would make sense with tanks.

2) What is better for gameplay: For you to conquer a city and just after to start pumping troops like there was no tomorow, enabling you to conquer the rest of the world or for captured cities to be weak and for it to take time for them to become usefull again?

The more you have cities, the easier it is for you to win... but the strong part is to take the first cities. Actually, it is already the case in Civ. You capture the cities and pump troops like there was no tomorrow... A barrack is enough. But this is without counting on civic upkeep, maintenance, anarchy.

Please be comprehensive and mind this: what I reproach to the game is that an ephemere conquest does too much damage. I don't talk about long conquests here. At least, it should keep it logical and not involve building destruction without weapons of big gauge.
It would be a benefit for both conquerors and former owners.

 

[strollen]

Really... HUH?
At least, it should keep it logical and not involve building destruction without weapons of big gauge.
.

Given that you are European I surprised you think that building being destroyed require big weapons. Europe is filled with cities that are built on ruins. I bet in your own city of Riems there were numerous Gaulic temples, Roman temples, theaters, baths/aqueducts. How many are still standing toda?, how many of them were destroyed deliberately versus were destroyed during or right after battles?

It seems me that most major European cities were sacked and/or razed at least twice in the last 2,000 years, almost all all before the age of artillery and airplanes.

 

[Naokaukodem]

By weapons of big gauge I meant catapults included, sorry if I have been unclear.

 

[Heeringas]

There is a chance that almost all the buildings survive...(exept cultural ones)
In my latest game I captured Washington. There were Lighthouse, harbor, market, grocer, bank, courthouse, academy, military academy, forge, and couple of wonders including Temple of artemis...That was quite good size 13 city right after the revolt...
I think it´s good that buildings get destroyed...It would be way too easy to win the game if you could have "ready made" cities from the enemy or if you wouldn´t need to worry about losing your core cities (while you could capture them back next turn with all the buildings in)...nope...
It´s quite balanced now...This game should not be made any easier...

And ye, about realism...One tile in map is a size of one city...in stone age it takes 40 years to move one tile that´s a reeally huge city...and even with railroads it might take 2 years to move from border to border inside your country...hmm what I try to say...this is NOT a realistic game...if you want realistic CIV you have to become a dictator

 

[Naokaukodem]

if you wouldn´t need to worry about losing your core cities (while you could capture them back next turn with all the buildings in)...nope...

I still fail to see the relevance of the argument... Why should one lose his core cities in the first place? If they are captured, especially the core ones, there is little chance them to be captured back. In the case they can be captured back, it would be fair to have all the buildings back. And you seem to forget that it would still be easy to completely destroy it.

All in all a city being taken back is a pretty rare event anyway...

Not much that I feel it that unrealistic, but more like a lame thing, like a single chariot can capture a city and then the AI is very happy, fine for it. A human would destroy the city in such a case. If the AI is too much earger and stupid, it is its problem, not mine. It is enough annoying already.