Can't raze capital cities?

There are some people that think they can be razed, others that don't. I'm not sure myself if it's been said for certain anywhere one way or the other. I don't see why city-states couldn't be destroyed, though. Seems like a rather nice tactic if you don't want to have to deal with them, wiping them all out. :)

I hope you can destroy them, at least.
 
I don't see anything wrong with it, once original capitals have their special gameplay value, as well as city-states.
 
Capitals I can sort of understand but it would really, really suck if you couldn't destroy city states. :(

It would be too easy anti-Greek strategy.
 
Honestly, if this is true it might be the straw that breaks it. More and more limitations keep popping up in this supposed "living world." On the box is it going to have the words "Civilization: Revolution" scribbled out with "Civilization V" written over it in crayon?
 
Honestly, if this is true it might be the straw that breaks it. More and more limitations keep popping up in this supposed "living world." On the box is it going to have the words "Civilization: Revolution" scribbled out with "Civilization V" written over it in crayon?

Didn't hear any arguments for allowing razing original capitals and city states yet.
 
Didn't hear any arguments for allowing razing original capitals and city states yet.

I have to explain why its a lazy, gimmicky, unacceptable game mechanic to have specific cities that cannot be razed after previous titles in the series allowed it?

If I do that, we go round and round for 30 pages whereby people of one inclination battle those of the opposite with no resolution, as the result doesn't change.

If I don't, my perspective is marginallized by default.

See where this would end up?

I'll just state that for me, as a player, this would be an unacceptable change on top of so much other streamlining and simplification, not to mention STEAM DRM and all of the other controversial topics that have arisen in previous months. I should be excited beyond restraint and I'm just not at this point. The more I find out the more it seems like this game is too similar to a 'Revolution for the PC,' despite what game critics are saying.
 
Didn't hear any arguments for allowing razing original capitals and city states yet.

Open up a history book and see how many smaller empires have been utterly destroyed by bigger ones.

Carthage would be a good one to check into first.
 
Open up a history book and see how many smaller empires have been utterly destroyed by bigger ones.

Carthage would be a good one to check into first.

Open up a history book and try to find any leader who ruled more than 100 years. So why not stop the game after second turn with the leader death?

It's a game, you know. There are VERY strong gameplay reasons to not allow razing original capitals and city states. And no gameplay reasons against.
 
Open up a history book and try to find any leader who ruled more than 100 years. So why not stop the game after second turn with the leader death?

It's a game, you know. There are VERY strong gameplay reasons to not allow razing original capitals and city states. And no gameplay reasons against.

Only because they changed the Conquest rules. For that, I can understand the non razing of Capital cities. I don't have a problem with that.

However, the non razing of city states is wrong in my opinion. If I want to do that and alienate the other city states who likely won't trust you at all afterwards, I think that would be a fun challenge.
 
Only because they changed the Conquest rules. For that, I can understand the non razing of Capital cities. I don't have a problem with that.

However, the non razing of city states is wrong in my opinion. If I want to do that and alienate the other city states who likely won't trust you at all afterwards, I think that would be a fun challenge.

I expect warmongers (especially Askia and Monty) to conquer city-states quite often. If they'll be able to raze city-states, other players will not be able to liberate them back, so diplomatic victory will be unreachable.
 
Only because they changed the Conquest rules. For that, I can understand the non razing of Capital cities. I don't have a problem with that.

However, the non razing of city states is wrong in my opinion. If I want to do that and alienate the other city states who likely won't trust you at all afterwards, I think that would be a fun challenge.

The new conquest victory rules could have been served just as well in my opinion by fixing it so that if your capital is razed then another of your cities inherits the capital status (as in Civilization IV) and becomes the point of contention as far as the conquest victory goes.

Alos, I agree with you wholeheartedly about city states. If they get annoying I want to be able to just wipe them out. Forcing thier importance as a gameplay mechanic in every game by conjuring a rule that says "oh you can't destroy that" is just lazy.
 
I expect warmongers (especially Askia and Monty) to conquer city-states quite often. If they'll be able to raze city-states, other players will not be able to liberate them back, so diplomatic victory will be unreachable.

Seems like a pretty smart tactic by the AI actually. It's up to you the player to prevent it.

Also, I hope there are severe diplomatic penalties for doing so. So, the remaining city states will be hostile towards Askia and Monty and will be much more willing to ally with you to gain your protection and making it easier for you to gain a diplomatic victory.

I don't see the problem here.
 
The new conquest victory rules could have been served just as well in my opinion by fixing it so that if your capital is razed then another of your cities inherits the capital status (as in Civilization IV) and becomes the point of contention as far as the conquest victory goes.

Alos, I agree with you wholeheartedly about city states. If they get annoying I want to be able to just wipe them out. Forcing thier importance as a gameplay mechanic in every game by conjuring a rule that says "oh you can't destroy that" is just lazy.

That's a little overcomplication:

1. There's already "actual" and "original" capital concept. Not it will be "actual", "original" and "actual full-featured" capitals.

2. Currently single "no raze" mechanics works for both capitals and city-states, you suggest separate ones.

3. As I wrote before, razing city states will make it too easy for warmongers to prevent diplomatic victory in the game.
 
Seems like a pretty smart tactic by the AI actually. It's up to you the player to prevent it.

If you start on the other continent from Askia, you'll be unable to stop him from razing city states on his continent. You could tear him to pieces in modern era - you'll still be unable to diplo win.
 
If you start on the other continent from Askia, you'll be unable to stop him from razing city states on his continent. You could tear him to pieces in modern era - you'll still be unable to diplo win.

Please explain why this would prevent the player from obtaining a diplomatic victory.
 
If you start on the other continent from Askia, you'll be unable to stop him from razing city states on his continent. You could tear him to pieces in modern era - you'll still be unable to diplo win.

Likely it isn't going to be a walk in the park to raze a city state. Askia would likely be ganged up on by the other Civs who would likely not be pleased with him, especially if they were friendly towards the city states or had designs on them. This in addition to the City States who would throw their lot in with the other Civs to prevent "the madman".

The game would make it so that the AI would not likely do such an unwise course of action. A big alliance would beat the crap out of him.

I think the player should be allowed to do something like this if they want to add an extra challenge to the game by alienating everyone. It's not my game play style but I don't see the point in limiting others when some not unreasonable is possible.

Finally, even if Askia or Monty razed one or two city states, this would in no way shape or form prevent a diplomatic victory. It might make it slightly more difficult. Suck it up.
If we have 8 Civs and 16 city states that's 24 votes. Say 2 city states get razed. There are 22 votes left. Before you needed 16 votes. (I assume 2/3rds of the vote is the standard). Now you'd need 14.67 votes, rounded up to 15. Your argument holds no water. Say 6 city states get razed. We are down to 18 votes. So, you'll need 12 votes for the victory. A diplomatic victory is still valid and obtainable.
 
Please explain why this would prevent the player from obtaining a diplomatic victory.

Facts. It was said what city states have the same 1 UN vote as big civs, so they are critical for diplo victory.

Suggestions. Since AI is playing to win and is rational, there seems to be no way to force them to grant their vote for you. So you need enough city-states as your allies to beat the big civ opinion. I don't remember exact numbers from diplo victory screenshot, but it's like you need about 70-80% of city states as your aliies, depending on map setting. Razing several city-states will make the number unreachable.
 
Top Bottom