Can't raze capital cities?

[Thormodr]

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.

That's a good point. Maybe at the industrial revolution or perhaps if there was a United Nations built then you could have a Geneva Convention like decision that could ban the razing of cities.

I also think nations with certain social policies shouldn't be able to raze cities. This is a pretty good idea.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

That's a good point. Maybe at the industrial revolution or perhaps if there was a United Nations built then you could have a Geneva Convention like decision that could ban the razing of cities.

I also think nations with certain social policies shouldn't be able to raze cities. This is a pretty good idea.

Well city razing will take more time in the game..... if it is 1 pop per turn, or 1 turn per pop + buildings then it would be pointless to raze a late game city. (especially if it gives you unhappiness while it is being razed.

 

[Thormodr]

Well city razing will take more time in the game..... if it is 1 pop per turn, or 1 turn per pop + buildings then it would be pointless to raze a late game city. (especially if it gives you unhappiness while it is being razed.

True. You make a good point. Razing a size 15 city will take a long time and generally won't be worth it. That certainly will limit city razing as other civilizations will likely not look to kindly upon the Civ that is razing the city and may gang up on him.

I definitely think there should be gameplay restraints against city razing. Consequences for your actions in some way. In the early game, there shouldn't be many restraints. As the game progresses, they should get stronger and stronger. As suggested by Scaramanga, civil unrest due to such a heinous act should happen but only in the later game.

After all, it should be a balanced feature.

 

[Scaramanga]

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.

Razing Carthage did not turn Rome into an insta-empire. They continued to suffer from massive civil unrest afterwards and then turned their xenophobic and ultimately selfish (on the part of Julius Caesar) thirst for conquest on the Gauls.

The point of the game is not to become an empire that is as good as the Romans was, it's to accomplish something that is beyond what we can even imagine as a race. Introducing endless cycles of violence would prevent that. You may notice the Roman empire is no more, ever wonder why no one speaks Latin except the Catholic Church today?

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.

I'll introduce a word that most should be able to understand: karma.

If you act like a tyrant in the real world, somehow, something, somewhere in this big world of ours is going to throw it right back at you, whether from inside your empire or without. Implementing such a concept is beyond the scope of the game because using such means would never result in a clear winner, unless you're going for time victory.

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.

Your civilization begins in 4000 BC. If a real civilization started using heinous methods right from then it will surely burn itself out before it has a chance to develop concepts of human rights.

Edit: And even if it does, the cycle of violence has already begun and your empire will be susceptible to outer or inner sources of decay.

I also think nations with certain social policies shouldn't be able to raze cities. This is a pretty good idea.

Spend culture on a social policy that prevents you from razing cities? Brilliant! Are you not in control of your own actions?

Edit: And if you're saying, 'this policy will give a benefit but it will also prevent you from razing cities'. Then which branch would it be under? Because that would imply that the other branches support city razing. And if it's in multiple branches, which few ones are totally behind razing cities? Autocracy? Tradition? Surely not Honor? Piety?

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

I apologise for making this thread my mission but with every new person who posts, "Well this is dumb", I must respond with, "It's for your own good". To be realistic such features should have serious repercussions and, personally, I just want to finish a game once in a while and not wallow in the folly of humanity for hours. At first people complained that this feature is unrealistic, now they seem to be complaining that it's too realistic ("I should be able to do whatever I want in a video game!").

 

[Xoatl_169]

Razing Carthage did not turn Rome into an insta-empire. They continued to suffer from massive civil unrest afterwards and then turned their xenophobic and ultimately selfish (on the part of Julius Caesar) thirst for conquest on the Gauls.

The point of the game is not to become an empire that is as good as the Romans was, it's to accomplish something that is beyond what we can even imagine as a race. Introducing endless cycles of violence would prevent that. You may notice the Roman empire is no more, ever wonder why no one speaks Latin except the Catholic Church today?



I'll introduce a word that most should be able to understand: karma.

If you act like a tyrant in the real world, somehow, something, somewhere in this big world of ours is going to throw it right back at you, whether from inside your empire or without. Implementing such a concept is beyond the scope of the game because using such means would never result in a clear winner, unless you're going for time victory.



Your civilization begins in 4000 BC. If a real civilization started using heinous methods right from then it will surely burn itself out before it has a chance to develop concepts of human rights.

Edit: And even if it does, the cycle of violence has already begun and your empire will be susceptible to outer or inner sources of decay.

Spend culture on a social policy that prevents you from razing cities? Brilliant! Are you not in control of your own actions?


I apologise for making this thread my mission but with every new person who posts, "Well this is dumb", I must respond with, "It's for your own good". To be realistic such features should have serious repercussions and, personally, I just want to finish a game once in a while and not wallow in the folly of humanity for hours. At first people complained that this feature is unrealistic, now they seem to be complaining that it's too realistic ("I should be able to do whatever I want in a video game!").

1. I'm not great with history, but as far as a i remember, it helped quite a bit.
2.Who are you to say what the point of the game is? I make the point of my games, if i want to raze every city that isn't mine to the ground, i should be able to.
3. Karma doesn't exist, sometimes dicks get away with doing terrible , life isn't a fairytale.
4. How do you know that would happen? Your judging it based on their ideologies instead of events that would happen in and around that hypothetical civilization and events matter much more then ideologies, no one ideology is inherently bad and impossible to implement and have a successful civilization.
5. Why?
6. Go play a white knight and declare war on every civ you deem evil, or better yet, test your ability to get techs, see how quick you can get to the modern age on marathon mode in earth map. The best i got to was late 1700s. Make your own challenges and scenarios in your game that you want to play out. With the World builder this should be 10x easier. Frankly just because you don't like civ's being dicks to each other and burning down major civs because it resembles too much like real life (But you seem to have contradictory ideas here cause i think i remember you saying its not realistic to raze cities) then do something about it, adapt, or don't play the game. Thankfully Firaxis isn't going to change their game over one persons problems with humanity.

 

[Thormodr]

Razing Carthage did not turn Rome into an insta-empire. They continued to suffer from massive civil unrest afterwards and then turned their xenophobic and ultimately selfish (on the part of Julius Caesar) thirst for conquest on the Gauls.

The point of the game is not to become an empire that is as good as the Romans was, it's to accomplish something that is beyond what we can even imagine as a race. Introducing endless cycles of violence would prevent that. You may notice the Roman empire is no more, ever wonder why no one speaks Latin except the Catholic Church today?



I'll introduce a word that most should be able to understand: karma.

If you act like a tyrant in the real world, somehow, something, somewhere in this big world of ours is going to throw it right back at you, whether from inside your empire or without. Implementing such a concept is beyond the scope of the game because using such means would never result in a clear winner, unless you're going for time victory.



Your civilization begins in 4000 BC. If a real civilization started using heinous methods right from then it will surely burn itself out before it has a chance to develop concepts of human rights.

Edit: And even if it does, the cycle of violence has already begun and your empire will be susceptible to outer or inner sources of decay.

Spend culture on a social policy that prevents you from razing cities? Brilliant! Are you not in control of your own actions?

Edit: And if you're saying, 'this policy will give a benefit but it will also prevent you from razing cities'. Then which branch would it be under? Because that would imply that the other branches support city razing. And if it's in multiple branches, which few ones are totally behind razing cities? Autocracy? Tradition? Surely not Honor? Piety?

I apologise for making this thread my mission but with every new person who posts, "Well this is dumb", I must respond with, "It's for your own good". To be realistic such features should have serious repercussions and, personally, I just want to finish a game once in a while and not wallow in the folly of humanity for hours. At first people complained that this feature is unrealistic, now they seem to be complaining that it's too realistic ("I should be able to do whatever I want in a video game!").

The fact that Rome had civil unrest in that period is entirely different from your little pet theory that razing Carthage to the ground upset the populace somehow.

The Romans were glad that Carthage had been destroyed and it didn't bother them in the slightest that their people had committed this genocide.

Oh and as far as that insta empire crapola goes...

The main cause of the Punic Wars was the clash of interests between the existing Carthaginian Empire and the expanding Roman Republic. The Romans were initially interested in expansion via Sicily (which at that time was a cultural melting pot), part of which lay under Carthaginian control. At the start of the first Punic War, Carthage was the dominant power of the Western Mediterranean, with an extensive maritime empire, while Rome was the rapidly ascending power in Italy, but lacked the naval power of Carthage. By the end of the third war, after more than a hundred years and the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of soldiers from both sides, Rome had conquered Carthage's empire and razed the city, becoming the most powerful state of the Western Mediterranean. With the end of the Macedonian Wars — which ran concurrently with the Punic Wars — and the defeat of the Seleucid King Antiochus III the Great in the Roman–Syrian War (Treaty of Apamea, 188 BC) in the eastern sea, Rome emerged as the dominant Mediterranean power and one of the most powerful cities in the classical world.

The Roman victories over Carthage in these wars gave Rome a preeminent status it would retain until the fifth century AD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punic_Wars

The Karma argument doesn't correlate well either. Rome remained a dominant power for another 550 years after the genocidal actions they committed. The reasons Rome eventually fell were totally unrelated to their actions in 146 BC.

If you like consequences for your actions, EU3 and Victoria 2 by Paradox Interactive have a badboy system. If you are too big a warmonger it'll come back to bite you in the butt. That keeps nations in check and restrains them somewhat.

 

[Scaramanga]

The fact that Rome had civil unrest in that period is entirely different from your little pet theory that razing Carthage to the ground upset the populace somehow.

The Romans were glad that Carthage had been destroyed and it didn't bother them in the slightest that their people had committed this genocide.

Sure they were glad, for a time. Such actions do not bring lasting peace. Once one enemy is gone people will find another one, or turn on each other.

Oh and as far as that insta empire crapola goes...

Ok, I worded that badly. Razing Carthage ensured Rome's dominance in that part of the world but it did not instantly transform them into the great empire of the Caesars. More bloodshed and civil war was needed before that could happen.

The Karma argument doesn't correlate well either. Rome remained a dominant power for another 550 years after the genocidal actions they committed. The reasons Rome eventually fell were totally unrelated to their actions in 146 BC.

You can't possibly make such a sweeping statement. As I mentioned before, Rome was a giant slave state and it fell once they ran out of people to conquer since the workforce was not self-sufficient. Enslaving the people of Carthage was one step towards this. Again, the purpose of the game is not to make an empire that lasts 500 years. You'll be playing for at least 4000. The good aspects of Rome made it lasting and influential, the bad ensured its eventual demise, so why dangle false options in front of the player?

If you like consequences for your actions, EU3 and Victoria 2 by Paradox Interactive have a badboy system. If you are too big a warmonger it'll come back to bite you in the butt. That keeps nations in check and restrains them somewhat.

Cool .

1. I'm not great with history, but as far as a i remember, it helped quite a bit.
2.Who are you to say what the point of the game is? I make the point of my games, if i want to raze every city that isn't mine to the ground, i should be able to.
3. Karma doesn't exist, sometimes dicks get away with doing terrible , life isn't a fairytale.
4. How do you know that would happen? Your judging it based on their ideologies instead of events that would happen in and around that hypothetical civilization and events matter much more then ideologies, no one ideology is inherently bad and impossible to implement and have a successful civilization.
5. Why?
6. Go play a white knight and declare war on every civ you deem evil, or better yet, test your ability to get techs, see how quick you can get to the modern age on marathon mode in earth map. The best i got to was late 1700s. Make your own challenges and scenarios in your game that you want to play out. With the World builder this should be 10x easier. Frankly just because you don't like civ's being dicks to each other and burning down major civs because it resembles too much like real life (But you seem to have contradictory ideas here cause i think i remember you saying its not realistic to raze cities) then do something about it, adapt, or don't play the game. Thankfully Firaxis isn't going to change their game over one persons problems with humanity.

Well I thank you for getting to know my argument better.

1. Resettling and developing Carthage makes Rome great. Burning it and slaughtering its citizens, while advantageous, plants the seeds of its downfall.
2. I'm basing my opinions on the goals Firaxis has set before the player. Three fourths of which require you to be quite dedicated to the advancement of civilization.
3. I'm not referring to the actions of an individual but nations as a whole over the span of centuries.
4. The civilizations in the game that have been around the longest (China, India) are generally more spiritually aware. They don't go marching around the world destroying as they please and have survived cataclysmic invasions and inner turmoil. Civilizations that ended before their time, like the Inca, I admit I have no comment for at this time, but their conquest certainly did not ensure the longevity of the Spanish Empire. Most of the civilizations in the game who are past their prime fell because people resented their rule.
5. Because the foundations of the civilization are rotten. It will unravel if the people can't overcome their age-old differences, if they can, I'd say you've pretty much built Utopia .
6. I'm not the one who is demanding change to the rules as we know them. I'm just trying to perceive the intentions of the designers so I can have maximum enjoyment when I play the game and not feel I have to mod it up the hilt. Any suggestion that I had anything to do with the current rules is quite flattering though . I'm also not going to use my civilization as a hammer of God towards "evil" civilizations. If the game lasted for eternity then all such nations should be dealt their comeuppance by the game rules eventually, not me. If you pursue evil with the intention of destroying it, you will become it. It's not realistic to completely raze certain cities because a settler managed to appear there at the beginning of the game to simulate the site of a city, that, like some in real life (Jerusalem, Athens, Rome, Paris) are incapable of being destroyed entirely though no stone is left upon the other. Nor would your civilization be capable of doing so because you would renouncing your claim on civilization and accepting the burden of doing such a thing, which is your inevitable defeat. Even Nature knows that one life form cannot cover the entire earth - there must be balance.

 

[Thormodr]

Your game in a goody two shoes world sounds pretty boring.

Personally, I almost never raze cities and I play as a peacenik a lot of the time. However, variety is the spice of life and I enjoy grinding a rival Civ into the dust every once in a while. Especially as revenge for early treachery.

I think the game will be the poorer for limiting players. I won't be able to role play as well and AARs will be a little bit worse.

I also can actually deal with losing a city to razing and not restarting the game. Unlike a lot of people apparently as ciV seems to baby players more than anything. (No nasty random events or negative goodie hut results.)

It's fun to role play it out and eventually crush Monty or another warmonger for their misdeeds.

Thankfully FFH3 won't have such a foolish mechanic. Perhaps I'll just play that.

 

[SUPR Dishwasher]

I just want to have the option to raze any city, and when I click the raze button
one of those annoying people I must pay to advise me pop up and be all like, "are you sure? You will be seen in the eyes of he world as an evil monster if you massacre this center of human civilization!".

And when I click "Burn baby, burn!" I will have no regrets when the mega super liberator freedom fighters for democracy and peace rise up and put me on a
stake.

 

[DaveMcW]

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.

One City Challenge - capitals can be razed!

 

[nokmirt]

Any city should be able to be destroyed. It should be up to the player or AI that captures it. This also means that a capital that is destroyed should also be able to be rebuilt. This should be the case in large huge map games where you have to eliminated a the other civs to win the game. Who wants to keep a hold of all those capitals unless you need to, it does not make sense.

There must be a way to change the xml to raze capitals. I will look into it.

 

[Joe78man]

The only real difference between a capital city and a non capital city, it is written in documents, but no real difference at all. There is no porperty that won't permit an army to tear down each building and people of a city, capital or not.

There are many reasons why it should be complicated, not worth it, whatever you might have in your mind, but taken to facts, razing a capital is possible. Besides that, it is a game, I should have the option available. Make it as inconvenient as you please, keep in mind all the downsides you can find, but the option should be there.

At least that's what I see

 

[Galgus]

Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure they cannot.

I really wish that they could, but would leave ruins of the city behind- which would allow a City State diplomatic victory inclined player to rebuild the CS.