Buildings should not disappear from taken cities!

[Naokaukodem]

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.

Not sure there. Some players claim to never do war, they are claiming themselves to be "builders". But I think that warmongering is: going to war when it is not absolutely necessary. [in order to run a decent game] On the case you described, it was necessary, that's what confused me I guess.

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.

-Not produced- but only kept. It would not increase anymore until proper buildings built over.

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.

What makes me saying that is that you have to develop overwhelming efforts in order to benefit from a single taken city. You took it, and then you don't really have it... I mean the defense in the game is already high enough (higher than the attack that doesn't benefit from defensive bonuses, cultural, fortifications and walls included), so if at that you add the necessity to destroy a couple more cities to only have a good one...

 

[Naokaukodem]

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.

You talk as if religion was the center of the world... you would be surprised to consider that it can be considered kind of benign.

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?

Cultural what? Haha, let me laugh. For a useless victory, it is hard to make better. So what, yeah two more capitals would be great. But not sure victory though.

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?

Not sure, if all parties benefit from it. You seem to forget a certain amount of parameters when saying that, just as if you wouldn't have to actually play the game and win. For example, what if an AI becomes more advanced than you? Wouldn't you be happy to benefit from one more decent city as soon as possible? And it could always take it back... You are talking as if soon or later you will conquer the whole world, there were no competition, other civs conquering, no game balance from the start, just as if you were the number one every time and the enemy cities with no unit inside. If it's too easy, just play on Deity man...

 

[Elandal]

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

Indeed I'm quite satisfied with the single sentence. Compared to the number of hammers needed to build midgame infrastructure, the units are cheap. Really. So by conquering a city with infrastructure you need to spend less hammers on the units than you would to a settler and the infrastructure of the new city. Which would be encourage warmongering even more.

And why would this shift my play to more warlike? I like playing peacefully, teching towards space, making friends to see if I can possibly get diplomatic victory. I end up building more infrastructure and less units. But if I could get the infrastructure for half the price (or other multiplier below one, which is my point regarding unit cost vs. infra cost in hammers), wouldn't it be the most efficient method of building infrastructure?


However, Naismith's proposal of buildings being damaged not destroyed would be fine by me. What this could mean IMO is that any and all existing buildings would be in the city after conquering it, with various degrees of damage. This would mean that the conqueror would still have to spend the hammers to infrastructure, although not for the full value (already buildings have a chance to survive, so this is fine).

Now, if you capture a city that already has your culture deeply ingrained, the damage to the buildings should be lower. Or going even so far as to have some of the damage removed, maybe representing the ease of rebuilding such buildings that are very familiar to you, or maybe volunteer labour, or maybe some of the manuscripts (religious regalia, etc) had been taken to safekeeping by private people of the city when it was originally conquered and are now returned to the facilities (this is realistic even)?

I do agree that in case where I'm taking back a city that was held for a short period by another civ (reflected by my culture still being around 95-100% in the city) having the former buildings back wouldn't be unbalanced. However, they should still be damaged to some degree, reflecting the warring within the city, the looting by conquerors, and so on. When I liberate my own city, I would love to have some of the old glory survive, not just smoking ruins.

 

[kcbrett5]

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

Well the building were first built by men without chariots. So tell my why men with chariots would be unable to unbuild a building? They could tear it down stone by stone if they have to.

 

[Masquerouge]

I suggest you play a mod if you're not happy with the vanilla version

 

[Nikis-Knight]

It might be nice if the cultural buildings were slowly lost over the period of rioting. It is kind of annoying when some punk takes a city of mine and I take it back the next turn, only to find 3 or 4 buildings gone already.

But then again, that's what I deserve for ignoring defence or stretching myself too thin.

 

[Joxer]

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

This is your sole argument. Trying to determine the difference between "Realistic Quantity" and "Ingame Quantity"

"Realistic Quantity"
Half of Chicago was destroyed by a fire in 1871, that started in a single barn. Probably set by one person or by a glowing ember from a chimney. So one person can destroy quite a bit, even without big gauge units.

Stone vs Fire argument
Lime mortar was the apoxy used to cemet stones together at the time of the chariots. Its more flexible than stuff used today which allowed building to move and slide with the changing earth without cracking, but not nearly as durable, (or flame resistant). The stones dont burn but the apoxy holding them together.

"Ingame Quantity"
We can build libraries, granaries and other "stone" buildings without acquiring a stone resource. You can build them out of wood but a firestorm would be the easiest way to destroy that city with a single chariot unit. So how real do we want to go about needing stone to build stone buildings? Lets assume this is a moot point.

The real bug is how a single chariot unit destroys the buildings. You dont believe fire will do it nor pulling them down with horsepower. Only catapults or modern era weapons. Well, at the time chariots are used, turns take about 15 years in a marathon game and more as you change the game setting to Epic or Normal. A lot can happen in that amount of time, even if it is guys with BFHs. (Big ____ Hammers)

Besides, if both sides benefit from this feature, who cares.

A Warmonger is:
1.) a person who advocates, endorses, or tries to precipitate war.
2.) one who advocates or attempts to stir up war.
so you dont have to constantly war to be a warmonger. You dont even have to go to war to be one.

About the culture thing, just look at the war in Iraq. The US took over the country but its still in chaos 4 years after the fact. By the arguments I read, it should have been pacified the second the ground was controlled. Of course rioting should be implemented and the culture boundary reduced. If the cities are re-taken, the boundaries are restored anyway.

-Edit- Some spelling mistakes

 

[Buccaneer]

Single unit at the Civ-scale probably represents 5-10,000 real-life units. Doesn't he understand scale or abstractness?

Besides, look at how much American culture was spread throughout Iraq from capturing Baghdad (with about 20-22 "units" mind you). Don't you think Partisans from the "conquered" culture would have something to do with preventing an aqua border from taking hold (esp. since the surrounding tiles are still 99% non-aqua)? This has happened constantly throughout history. It takes a long time to supplant a new culture in an area of previous culture(s), so how would you abstract that in a game?

 

[Naokaukodem]

Single unit at the Civ-scale probably represents 5-10,000 real-life units. Doesn't he understand scale or abstractness?

Can't you understand the fact to be conquered during 1 turn and take the city back next turn without any building in it is pretty LAME ?

Com'on...

That's what I tryed to explain by "ingame quantity": single charriot - one turn - no buildings. Nothing to do with realism pretexts...

 

[agc28]

academy doesn't disappear.. but i dont think it produces any more culture.

Do military academies stay?

 

[Buccaneer]

Can't you understand the fact to be conquered during 1 turn and take the city back next turn without any building in it is pretty LAME ?

Com'on...

That's what I tryed to explain by "ingame quantity": single charriot - one turn - no buildings. Nothing to do with realism pretexts...

1 turn = 40 years. 40 years to seige and capture a city, 40 years to re-capture it back. I would say a lot can happen in 80 years. Or if you prefer more modern, the time would still be a total of 4-8 years. I recall the American Civil War as well as WW2 doing a lot of damage to buildings and culture in that time period.

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

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.

They weren't exactly buried "alive". It was logistically impossible in the BC era to bury half a million people alive as a means to kill them if they were still very alive, and weren't already attacked by weapons to the point of no resistance or even movement. It was probably hundreds of large holes in the ground with bodies thrown in with no respect. Remember when Qin Shi Huang buried hundreds of non-combatant scholars during his rein, he used thousands of troops and still plenty escaped.

The brutality of the ancient era was not limited by human imagination, but rather by technology and organization. Many cities suffered pillaging even when they weren't supposed to be, and many cities that were meant to be completely cleared also sees large percentages of survivors. Leaders back then simply didn't have so much control over their armies, and things weren't so systematic.

Things are done for a purpose. Pillaging was necessary because armies didn't have the means to carry supplies so far for so many, and mass rapings were really the only way the area could be repopulated. Laws and social structures weren't so strong, courts ruled wrongly as often as they ruled correctly, and the strong still take from the weak in villages and towns. A single mother in the ancient times was not better off than being forced to be a foreign soldier's wife (the soldiers themselves wanted kids to take care of their old age, which was probably in the mid-thirties, so they would take care of the woman and her children, ). And the mortality rates of slaves versus citizens weren't that different anyway.

The reason why I mentioned all that is an attempt to explain why buildings, or system of buildings, disappeared upon capture. My answer: they didn't destroy buildings on purpose. It's just that if city services weren't maintained, they fell into decay and were effectively destroyed. A classical example was when the Goths entered Rome: they tried their very best to maintain the Roman infrastructure and culture, which they greatly admired, but everything fell apart in a few years anyway, and were rebuilded from scratch only in the early medieval period.

 

[gettingfat]

They weren't exactly buried "alive". It was logistically impossible in the BC era to bury half a million people alive as a means to kill them if they were still very alive, and weren't already attacked by weapons to the point of no resistance or even movement. It was probably hundreds of large holes in the ground with bodies thrown in with no respect. Remember when Qin Shi Huang buried hundreds of non-combatant scholars during his rein, he used thousands of troops and still plenty escaped.
.

Sorry, you are wrong. This was well-documented in the official Chinese history (Chinese history was usually more accurate and detailed than the ancient Western counterparts) and was proved to be one of the bloodiest and most epic wars ever in ancient Chinese history:

Qin's army surrounded and splitted Zhao (another warlord) army and cut off their supplies. The Zhao's military leader at that point was a rookie appointed by the Zhao King for some very stupid reason. This leader decided to build forts and waited for reinforcement. Qin's king immediately mobilized everybody older than 15-year-old in his country to further surrounded Zhao army. After 46 days Zhao army was starved to the point they have no fighting ability. That leader wanted to break out and got shot (probably by the famous Qin's crossbows ) to death. Zhao's army finally surrendered and gave up weapons. The starved and weaponless soldiers were tempted to dig holes (probably splitted into groups first and was told to dig tombs to bury the dead bodies) and then forced to jump down the holes they dug by Qin's soldiers and got buried (in fact, the same trick was used by the Japanese in China in WW2). About 0.45 million soldiers were killed. Only 240 soldiers were spared and sent back to Zhao to spread the bloody news to further scare their people.

The scholars escaped you mentioned probably did not "escape from the soldiers". Qin's soldiers were absolutely ruthless, well trained and well equipped and you think those "scholars" can escape? They were escaped from being arrested in the first place. China, even at that time, was still huge in size and it's not easy to catch a person.

Ancient Chinese wars quite often involved hundred of thousands soldiers and could be horribly scary. Their logistics were much more advanced than any western armies at that point. Read Sun Tzu in detail and you will realize all the figures cited are actually based on realistic situations. That's why I always believe it's luck for Alexander not able to cross the Himalayas Mountain and got to China at that point. He will not be memorized as "the Great" if he succeeded.

 

[Naokaukodem]

A classical example was when the Goths entered Rome: they tried their very best to maintain the Roman infrastructure and culture, which they greatly admired, but everything fell apart in a few years anyway, and were rebuilded from scratch only in the early medieval period.

Another example is the Sumerian (the very first regional civ) irrigation infrastructure, destroyed by pure time, and built over only in the modern age.

It's just that if city services weren't maintained, they fell into decay

But it may have nothing to do with maintenance. Maybe the Sumerians didn't think about long period of time further in History, because this infrastructure was strong and didn't need immediate maintenance. And maybe this infrastructure simply could NOT be maintened, because of the nature of it, but only built over.

This way, it would not really be "maintenance". Another example is that the wonders of the world do never disappear. However, they get old. On the contrary, did the Egyptians expected the Pyramids to remain that long? Or the roman their aqueducts? One thing is certain: it wouldn't if it didn't need maintenance. So it is not that much a question of maintenance here, but rather a question of something that escapes to the Man influence. So why a human event would make some buildings disappear?

That's why I would not rely on this story of decaying. War and human destruction did most of the damages to buildings and wonders, and I can understand that as long as siege weapons have been created, or even the fire discovered as long as the aimed cities are in wood, not stone. I don't have nowadays the Historical references though, but this is common sense. This is common sense also that an aqueduct or anything else can't be destroyed the time citizens realise they have been defeated.

All this to say that Historical referencies may not work to explain the destruction of the buildings without catapults. And that gameplay-wise, it doesn't seem necessary to me, as anyway, when we take big cities most of the buildings are kept, but I'm talking actually of small size ones, where the buildings should be kept also, IMO, for both the profit of the conqueror and the denfender. I wouldnt' say it would even change much, unless we take into consideration the destruction of a city also, what would need several turns like in Civ3, and much more units involved than a single charriot, but it would overpass the simple gameplay needs.

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

Really a shame we know so little about the Sumerians. It's easy to look at the remains of their physical structures, but how they were used, we will never know. 4000BC was probably chosen for gameplay purposes I suppose, because they certainly fought with more advanced weapons than clubs. Who came up with the idea that the first wars were fought with clubs? Thrown spears would be a lot more realistic.

About the Zhao army being buried - the Qin army wasn't being particularly cruel, but rather it was common practice to kill all the enemy, hence digging their own graves. Of course they knew. At least they didn't systematically massacre all the non-soldiers too, also common practice of the day. Unlike most believe, successful conquers of the ancient world were usually more advanced than those that they defeated in many ways, including being less cruel. I definitely don't think the world "barbarian" was totally relative, as evidenced by the Goth's inability to maintain the infrastructure of the Romans, or the Mongols during the Yuan, or the Europeans during the first Crusades when they held Jerusalem.

 

[Yeekim]

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).

Partially true. While we are at it, we might divide "buildings" into categories. Some, like lighthouses, aqueducts, granaries, walls etc are mostly about "stones" - once completed they do not require especially numerous or skilled personnel to be kept operational. Thus, they should have really low chance of being destroyed, if city is taken without extensive bombardment. Others, like banks, grocers and universities are the opposites - are all about staff to run them and not so much about the building itself. And third kind - such as factories and hospitals - need both to function properly. Depending on this, buildings should have different chances of getting destroyed. However - this all gets fairly complicated and is not on my top list of needed changes.

I do think, however, that if I capture a city, buildings of my state religion should at least have a high chance of being kept intact...

 

[Thyrwyn]

I would agree with that. The problem is this: should they survive, but not provide culture (like wonders)? If so, that would deny the conqueror several culture building options, and people would now be complaining about that