Can't raze capital cities?

[Schuesseled]

Not really, as there was no intent to completely destroy the city of London on the part of the German High Command. The idea was to demoralize the population through peristent, day-in-and-out attacks and hopefully provoke the British into suing for peace. By the time the Blitz had started, the Germans had scuttled any ideas of an actual invasion of the British Isles.



Er, no, because Dresden isn't a capital, and it wasn't 100% destroyed either--there's still an inhabited city of Dresden. Dresden is more an example of bombarding a city until it's size 1 under the older Civ game mechanics.

Oh my apologies, i had no idea you were on this forum, mine Furor, please forgive my ignorance.

 

[Earthling]

I can see allowing it if the player has turned off the conquest victory conditions, yes... but otherwise, it is unfeasible and stupidly complicated to allow for razing capitals when controlling all capitals is a victory condition.

Yes, which is part of the reason it's a poor way to implement the victory condition.

The city states' relation to diplomatic victory is far worse and isn't a sufficient reason to not allow razing, I will give it that as the capitals part is at least necessary given another (poorly designed) game mechanic. Also, nobody has answered any questions or arguments of mine from earlier in the thread - anybody have more evidence of actual gameplay? I've actually heard some odd things, like diplomatic victory depending on the total number of civs/city-states "originally" in the game, which is a horrible way to go about things.

 

[Cristoval]

Wow, what if I want to raze a poorly built capital that caused a lot of casualties, and would be a strain on my economy if I annexed it? Limitations like that are bad.

 

[Scaramanga]

Ok, you've convinced me. Razing capital cities should be in the game.

As long as your empire takes a massive unhappiness hit - proportional to city-size and age-advancement - due to your citizens' realization that they've desecrated a site as sacred as the Seven Hills of Rome and the birthplace of a fellow civilization. Only bloodthirsty barbarians (not a personal insult, simply a description of your in-game populace) would be free of such guilt, and you are, by default, better than them.

So yes, such limitations shouldn't be placed in the game. As long as the consequences for such actions are also not omitted.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Ok, you've convinced me. Razing capital cities should be in the game.

As long as your empire takes a massive unhappiness hit - proportional to city-size and age-advancement - due to your citizens' realization that they've desecrated a site as sacred as the Seven Hills of Rome and the birthplace of a fellow civilization. Only bloodthirsty barbarians (not a personal insult, simply a description of your in-game populace) would be free of such guilt, and you are, by default, better than them.

So yes, such limitations shouldn't be placed in the game. As long as the consequences for such actions are also not omitted.

Given that Razing is now a multiple turn process, it would be VERY simple to just say that if you are razing a Capital/city-state it simply never goes below 1 pop. (you are just continuously razing it until someone else recaptures it and decides to Not raze it.) You can remove all the buildings and tiles from the city... but it stays there.

 

[Scaramanga]

Given that Razing is now a multiple turn process, it would be VERY simple to just say that if you are razing a Capital/city-state it simply never goes below 1 pop. (you are just continuously razing it until someone else recaptures it and decides to Not raze it.) You can remove all the buildings and tiles from the city... but it stays there.

Sure... but I don't know how your people, depending on how advanced in civilization you are, would react to such actions. Give orders to promote mayhem and plundering in a rival capital until you get kicked out? Sounds like poor generalship to me. When Mehmed II captured Constantinople in 1453 he allowed his army a few days pillage but kicked them out after that. I think most population loss would generally come during a siege rather then after it.

Edit: Like I've said before, choosing between good and evil is beyond the scope of the game.

 

[Scaramanga]

Wow, what if I want to raze a poorly built capital that caused a lot of casualties, and would be a strain on my economy if I annexed it? Limitations like that are bad.

Ok, so the United States invades Iraq and marches into Baghdad. George W says, "You know what? Maintaining this city is going to cost us billions. Just burn it."

 

[Happyman!!]

Well, technically the capitals or city-states could be able to to be razed. Because if you originally capture say London, then you don't have 2 capitals, London becomes just a regular city. so if London were to be taken again, it technically would no longer be a capital so then you could raze it.

 

[Thormodr]

A summary of the French article CanardPC


ALPHA preview

the Alpha preview was full of bugs. Numerous CtD. 90% of his save games freeze.
Average crash occurred every 2 to 3 hours. Record number of turns without crash 250.

INTERFACE

* Overall the new interface is very good.
* The mini-map is the clearest he ever seen.
* When there is an event, like a city gained a population, an icon falls from top of screen.
* the "Next Turn" icon becomes "Choose Production" if a city has nothing in its production queue. It becomes "Units Await Orders" if a unit hasn't been given a task. It becomes a "Choose Research" if there is no tech being chosen. So with that, it's hard to waste a turn without forgetting something to do.


EARLY GAME

1. Granary has less importance than previous version of Civs, providing 2 food.
2. City need minimum 2 population to begin constructing settler.
3. Once you get Optics, which comes very fast, your Settler can cross water to build if your Civ is being blocked in by a rival.
4. Even on normal difficulty, it seems the Barbarians are more aggressive than before. They will go for your Settlers and Workers. When capture they bring those civilians units back to their camp. So you can free them later by attacking the Barbarian camp. You can even free the workers and settlers from another Civ and they will become your omg BFF!!! ( exaggeration) on the diplomatic level.
5. During these mini barbarians wars in the game, the archer is the best unit thanks to their range.



Something about City States.
They offered quest in exchange for their eternal love and alliance: Monaco will become your ally if you burn Rio to the ground.
EDIT: This offer applies to ALL Civilizations, first come, first serve.

WAR

* The A.I. does fairly well in combat, using z.o.c. to do pincer movement and outmaneuver the player.
* If the A.I. see a large amount of troops on the border, they will open a diplomatic channel, to ask you to stop playing Americans (this jab is added by me. ) , oops, I mean stop playing Gun Boat politics. Then they will start bringing their own troops to the border.
* AI is very capable of calculating its chance of survival in a total war, and will not hesitate to sue for peace to save their capitals.



STEAKS and FISH.

basically the reviewer burnt a good amount of fish and steaks because he play "one more turn" and totally forgot about his cooking and what was on the stove! One his first day, during evening, he played 6 hours, the next day 11 hours.

I am curious as to what the person meant by that statement.

 

[Cristoval]

Ok, so the United States invades Iraq and marches into Baghdad. George W says, "You know what? Maintaining this city is going to cost us billions. Just burn it."

If I want to burn a city in a video game, then why not?

 

[Scaramanga]

If I want to burn a city in a video game, then why not?

By all means, put it in. But such an action, in order to be realistic and produce balance in the game, would need destabilizing consequences at home. You can't enjoy the perks of civilization while creating such trauma; you're not exterminating another species. Executing such an order would and should hamper your progress towards becoming a civilization that transcends time. The amount of dissension that could exist in your empire, either from equally bloodthirsty power-brokers or those with a sense of humanity (not personal insults, referring to your in-game persona), has been underestimated in Civ IV and if you disrespect another civilization's capital, which began its existence on even footing as you (depending on difficulty level), then no one is going to respect yours, not even your own people. Xenophobia is a false objective and any attempt to create hegemony through it only leads to more dissatisfaction, which is what it feeds on. If you can find a nation in history where brutal treatment brought them closer to any of the goals the game is laying before you then I'd like to know. Perhaps we've become drunk with power due to previous Civ games but realism suggests there should be measures in place to curtail such actions, and so does gameplay since it would be odd to let the player regress into an anarchic and murderous state and renouncing one's claim to civilization would be a rogue path indeed, although not an unpopular one.

I guess we'll have to wait and see if razing a regular enemy city will have similar effects, unless it is implied that you're exiling them and abandoning the city in a somewhat orderly fashion. If not then what I've said in this post may not be relevant.

To answer your question more directly, you can but maybe Civ 5 is just not the video game you're looking for. Yet.

 

[Thormodr]

By all means, put it in. But such an action, in order to be realistic and produce balance in the game, would need destabilizing consequences at home. You can't enjoy the perks of civilization while creating such trauma; you're not exterminating another species. Executing such an order would and should hamper your progress towards becoming a civilization that transcends time. The amount of dissension that could exist in your empire, either from equally bloodthirsty power-brokers or those with a sense of humanity (not personal insults, referring to your in-game persona), has been underestimated in Civ IV and if you disrespect another civilization's capital, which began its existence on even footing as you (depending on difficulty level), then no one is going to respect yours, not even your own people. Xenophobia is a false objective and any attempt to create hegemony through it only leads to more dissatisfaction, which is what it feeds on. If you can find a nation in history where brutal treatment brought them closer to any of the goals the game is laying before you then I'd like to know. Perhaps we've become drunk with power due to previous Civ games but realism suggests there should be measures in place to curtail such actions, and so does gameplay since it would be odd to let the player regress into an anarchic and murderous state and renouncing one's claim to civilization would be a rogue path indeed, although not an unpopular one.

I guess we'll have to wait and see if razing a regular enemy city will have similar effects, unless it is implied that you're exiling them and abandoning the city in a somewhat orderly fashion. If not then what I've said in this post may not be relevant.

To answer your question more directly, you can but maybe Civ 5 is just not the video game you're looking for. Yet.

Pretty easy to answer that. Rome razed Carthage, sold 50,000 inhabitants into slavery and became the preeminent superpower in the Mediterranean. The Romans from rich to poor certainly didn't give a damn about Carthage's fate and it didn't create any social trauma whatsoever. Romans profited from their crime and genocidal actions and had no regrets.

BTW, ever wonder why we know so little about the language that the Carthaginians spoke?

As much as the Romans admired Greeks and their culture, it didn't stop the Romans from razing Corinth to the ground either. Even with a culture that they respected, they still carried out such heinous actions.
Friend or enemy, it didn't matter to the Romans.

Sorry to say it but history isn't some fairy tale where immense brutality didn't happen. The Romans could be complete savages at times and frequently were to their enemies. Just like many empires throughout history.

 

[The Leviathan]

I don't understand why this topic is 10 pages long.. is there really that much of an argument over this?

Controlling all the capital cities was a balancing and understandable change to the domination victory. I don't understand why not being able to raze ONE city out of a whole ton of cities a civilizations will have is that such a big deal. If you hate the placement or don't want the city that badly, you could always create a puppet state out of the city.

What is up with all the tears in this topic? Cause I really don't feel like reading that many pages of this topic to find out

 

[Egnarts]

bla bla bla

Uh, hello, did we forget about the discovery of america? See alot of native americans around do we? Alot of old city remnants? Again, why even bring in realism into the picture, it's a game.

It's a feature that's been in every other civ that I've played, why not put it in this one? It's halfway there, except for some odd reason they mutulated it.
"No sir, we can't raze this city, it's just not possible! But if you look over here, we can raze this one instead. How about that Sir?"
Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense.

 

[cr0ws]

Pretty easy to answer that. Rome razed Carthage, sold 50,000 inhabitants into slavery and became the preeminent superpower in the Mediterranean. The Romans from rich to poor certainly didn't give a damn about Carthage's fate and it didn't create any social trauma whatsoever. Romans profited from their crime and genocidal actions and had no regrets.

BTW, ever wonder why we know so little about the language that the Carthaginians spoke?

As much as the Romans admired Greeks and their culture, it didn't stop the Romans from razing Corinth to the ground either. Even with a culture that they respected, they still carried out such heinous actions.
Friend or enemy, it didn't matter to the Romans.

Sorry to say it but history isn't some fairy tale where immense brutality didn't happen. The Romans could be complete savages at times and frequently were to their enemies. Just like many empires throughout history.

Well said...I do not believe that humans evolve or become "civilized" over time, we retain our genetic code no matter what environment we may find ourselves in. Rome was not the first "civilized" ruthless empire nor will be the last. Now back to the great giant chessboard called LIFE!

 

[Wolle68]

Well said...I do not believe that humans evolve or become "civilized" over time, we retain our genetic code no matter what environment we may find ourselves in. Rome was not the first "civilized" ruthless empire nor will be the last. Now back to the great giant chessboard called LIFE!

Humans don't evolve to become civilized over time, but societies might. I think it would make sense to tie the ability to raze cities to social policies or technological advancements, for instance. After all, you don't see much city razing any more.

 

[cr0ws]

Humans don't evolve to become civilized over time, but societies might. I think it would make sense to tie the ability to raze cities to social policies or technological advancements, for instance. After all, you don't see much city razing any more.

Fallujah...Iraq...practically razed

 

[SalmonSoil]

Try to make a list of cities which have been razed and never rebuilt.
The problem with razing is that most major cities in history which are razed are refounded years later. For example, a poster a wee bit above mentioned Carthage and Corinth. Both of those were resettled roughly 100 years later by Julius Caesar.
Jerusaleum has been razed a number of time.
The only ones I can think of are Babylon and most native american cities (Many of which have had European cities founded on top of them, like Mexico City).
In reality, important cities really just don't get extinguished from existence at all.

 

[marioflag]

By all means, put it in. But such an action, in order to be realistic and produce balance in the game, would need destabilizing consequences at home. You can't enjoy the perks of civilization while creating such trauma; you're not exterminating another species. Executing such an order would and should hamper your progress towards becoming a civilization that transcends time. The amount of dissension that could exist in your empire, either from equally bloodthirsty power-brokers or those with a sense of humanity (not personal insults, referring to your in-game persona), has been underestimated in Civ IV and if you disrespect another civilization's capital, which began its existence on even footing as you (depending on difficulty level), then no one is going to respect yours, not even your own people. Xenophobia is a false objective and any attempt to create hegemony through it only leads to more dissatisfaction, which is what it feeds on. If you can find a nation in history where brutal treatment brought them closer to any of the goals the game is laying before you then I'd like to know. Perhaps we've become drunk with power due to previous Civ games but realism suggests there should be measures in place to curtail such actions, and so does gameplay since it would be odd to let the player regress into an anarchic and murderous state and renouncing one's claim to civilization would be a rogue path indeed, although not an unpopular one.

I guess we'll have to wait and see if razing a regular enemy city will have similar effects, unless it is implied that you're exiling them and abandoning the city in a somewhat orderly fashion. If not then what I've said in this post may not be relevant.

To answer your question more directly, you can but maybe Civ 5 is just not the video game you're looking for. Yet.

I agree that city razing in previous iterations of the game was quite excessive. There are a lot of cases of cities razed but they were just a small minority of all cities conquered during wars. So i find the limitations created in Civ5 more realistic.
Nevertheless you should also consider that human rights and dissent created by war crimes is mostly a modern issue. Slavery, rapes, razed villages were more common and didn't create such dissent in empires which were guilty of those crimes, because there wasn't a great sensitivity towards those themes.

 

[Wolle68]

Fallujah...Iraq...practically razed

None of those are razed in the sense that razing occurs in Civilization. It's closer to the way that the population drops and some buildings are destroyed when you take a city in the older versions of Civilization.