Can't raze capital cities?

[stealth_nsk]

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".

City states ask for help when you declare war to them, not when you start razing them. And since conquering city-states is obviously possible, I don't see any additional constrains for razing.

 

[Some guy]

By the time you reach a feasible stage to explore other continents and maintain national security, Askia would have rush-razed enough of the City-States on his continent.

 

[Slinko]

Maybe the reason you can't raze capitals is because when you do, the another city becomes the capital

 

[Auncien]

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.

Some games might fall this way, but this is by no means an assurance that the player would be unable to win diplomatically. Also, the odds of every city state in the world being destroyed by the time the diplomatic vote is called are very slim indeed given the usefulness of city states to civilizations pursuing any course toward victory. One would not "need" each and every city state's vote to win, otherwise diplomatic victory would, in every case and in every game, be impossible for the player as he or she is extremely unlikely if not prohibited from uniting all of the city states under his or her banner due to the nature of diplomatic relations in Civilization. Some are going to vote for others. Always.

Therefore I still suggest that the players should have the ability to destroy city states, but that such action should carry diplomatic consequences to ensure that the practice is not widespread or common practice.

Furthermore I suggest that the movable capital mechanic can still easily function under the new conquest rules and should in fact be implemented to allow for the destruction of capital cities as the inability to destroy them is so unrealistic as to be a design contrivance worthy of substantial derision and ridicule.

 

[Tomice]

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.

I'm starting to think that the "conquer all capitals" victory condition was a bad idea.

It just demands too many compromises. And the existence of two types of capitals makes things complicated. There should have been a better solution IMO, like "create an empire that's three times as big as any other in the world" or something.

 

[Auncien]

I'm starting to think that the "conquer all capitals" victory condition was a bad idea.

It just demands too many compromises. And the existence of two types of capitals makes things complicated. There should have been a better solution IMO, like "create an empire that's three times as big as any other in the world" or something.

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[Thormodr]

Yep. The AI is going to play to win. Perhaps Askia and Monty are going to raze cities as they see that as their best path to victory. Other AIs are going to see city states are being quite useful tools to achieve their victory conditions and will likely get in a huge war with Askia and Monty because it will conflict with their path to victory. Askia and Monty will be at a huge disadvantage as razing cities will take a fair amount of time now and the likelihood that other Civs gain up on them and beat the crap out of them will be very high while they are doing so. That and they will have no friends.

Sounds like a logical thing to me. Razing city states won't be easy and will require considerable effort. Likely the AI will consider it too risky most of the time but they should have the option if they so choose. As should players.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Some games might fall this way, but this is by no means an assurance that the player would be unable to win diplomatically. Also, the odds of every city state in the world being destroyed by the time the diplomatic vote is called are very slim indeed given the usefulness of city states to civilizations pursuing any course toward victory. One would not "need" each and every city state's vote to win, otherwise diplomatic victory would, in every case and in every game, be impossible for the player as he or she is extremely unlikely if not prohibited from uniting all of the city states under his or her banner due to the nature of diplomatic relations in Civilization. Some are going to vote for others. Always.

You play very freely with words "all" and "every"
Chances what some city states will be destroyed till UN elections are very high.
One would not "need" each and every city state's vote, one would need most of the city states' votes.

Therefore I still suggest that the players should have the ability to destroy city states, but that such action should carry diplomatic consequences to ensure that the practice is not widespread or common practice.

As I could suggest there are no diplomatic consequences in the form they were in previous Civ, so it works the same in single-player and multi-player game. The only diplomatic penalty, which could work is negative attitude of city-states, which shouldn't worry ou that much if you're playing warmonger.

Furthermore I suggest that the movable capital mechanic can still easily function under the new conquest rules and should in fact be implemented to allow for the destruction of capital cities as the inability to destroy them is so unrealistic as to be a design contrivance worthy of substantial derision and ridicule.

Let's say we've implemented the movable capital mechanics. Imagine, for example, you've conquered another civ, except for a couple of distant cities and you're taking their capital. If you conquer their capital - you may count them owned for conquest victory. If you raze the capital, the capital is moved and you have to conquer the new one.

Do you think that's real? Do you want to add additional complications for that kind of "realism"?

 

[stealth_nsk]

I'm starting to think that the "conquer all capitals" victory condition was a bad idea.

It just demands too many compromises. And the existence of two types of capitals makes things complicated. There should have been a better solution IMO, like "create an empire that's three times as big as any other in the world" or something.

I don't think "conquer all capitals" is a very good solution, but all other conquest victory implementations are even weaker.

I'd suggest mostly playing with names:
- Some building representing original capital. This building could not be moved and city with it is not destroyable. Let's call it "Ancestral home", while more cool name could be suggested.
- Movable palace for trade routes and stuff. The city with palace is called capital.
- City states have the same "Ancestral home" building just to indicate the cities aren't destroyable.

This way the mechanic will look more complex, while almost the same as it's now (except for movable capital).

 

[Infiltrator]

I want to be able to level everything. This is a no-brainer and it opens up different tactical approaches when warmongering.

 

[Emperor_Jackal]

So uh, is there an actual dev source saying that you won't be able to raze capitals and citystates? I'm not quite content with trusting junior members of 2kgames with their uncited posts.

 

[cr0ws]

That's why Civ 5 needs to be as customizable as possible, you want the Giant Death Robot? check the box!...you want cities that can be raised? Check the box! You want more units per tile? Check the box! Otherwise play the default programmed options.

Customizable is the keyword because customizable means flexible. From Civilizations to their units to Flags to the leaders picture or animation displayed to the world to game length and victory conditions to everything! CHECK THE BOX!

 

[Thyrwyn]

no, there has been no confirmation one way or another. The speculation is because it was handled that way in Civ Rev.

 

[stealth_nsk]

That's why Civ 5 needs to be as customizable as possible, you want the Giant Death Robot? check the box!...you want cities that can be raised? Check the box! You want more units per tile? Check the box! Otherwise play the default programmed options.

Customizable is the keyword because customizable means flexible. From Civilizations to their units to Flags to the leaders picture or animation displayed to the world to game length and victory conditions to everything! CHECK THE BOX!

You want the game to be playable? Check the box, which disables all other boxes

 

[SalmonSoil]

There are hardly any historical reasons to allow razing of capitals and city states. The only major cities I can think of which no longer exist is Babylon and Knossos. Most cities that get razed are refounded in the same or a nearby location. Examples would be Carthage and Jerusaleum.

 

[rastak]

You want the game to be playable? Check the box, which disables all other boxes

Yea, you spend a couple years designing and balancing the game and check boxes are added to throw it out of wack. You can raise cities, just can't raze capitals.

 

[cr0ws]

Yea, you spend a couple years designing and balancing the game and check boxes are added to throw it out of wack. You can raise cities, just can't raze capitals.

Dude...listen to yourself...how are the check boxes going to "throw it out of wack"? All it's does is offer different paths to the same goal, it satisfies the many variations of people who prefer to see their game played out this specific way and not that...and if they don't like it they can always go beck to the many years taken to make "wacked up" default settings. And everyone is happy because they CHECKED THE BOX! Or didn't have to if they didn't want to.

 

[Zhahz]

It's not confirmed, wait 3 weeks and you will know.

No way. Freak out now! Say you won't buy the game over something this trivial regardless of how you feel about it. You know you wanna.

 

[Purpureus]

No way. Freak out now! Say you won't buy the game over something this trivial regardless of how you feel about it. You know you wanna.

But how about re-spawning the city states (not necessarily the same ones) after they're razed?
Something like:this arse* has razed Geneva but the survivors, after years of refuge on some coast/ woodland/ river valley manage to get their stuff together and form a new colony of the old mother-city...

This of course if rumors of not being able to raze them are true...

 

[Disgustipated]

Don't like this, and I also thought the conquest victory conditions were dumb. I was fairly happy with conquest and domination in civ4 (although dom was far easier to get than conquest).