Can't raze capital cities?

[stealth_nsk]

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).

I disagree.

1. Reaching conquest victory in Civ 4 is boring and actually you could only achieve it by disabling domination victory.
2. Domination victory in Civ 4 is reached before you break everyone, which isn't fun.

IMHO, Civ 5 conquest victory is perfect - you win the game after you win wars with everyone. Not more, not less.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well, that depends.

If taking someone's capital insta-kills them, then yes, they should be razed.

If there's a capital timer like Rise of Nations (Of course it would be in turns) then you should have to wait until its defeated, but you should have the option then.

And city states should DEFINITELY be able to be razed.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

And i think non-razing capitals is a reasonable thing for that.

Of course a Better solution might be to have a "terrain feature" (a special type of ruins that don't pop) on the TILE of the original city... so that you can raze it, but that tile feature doesn't go away... it prevents cities being settled near it, and any city settled ON it is considered to 'refound' the 'original capital'. The same thing could be done with City-States. (you would still have influence with the City-State of Seoul even after it was gone, and by putting a Settler on the spot and 'refounding' Seoul would give you the choice of 'liberating' it. Or holding the city as your own... but it would still be Seoul, and liberatable by other civs)

 

[stealth_nsk]

And city states should DEFINITELY be able to be razed.

Why? There are strong arguments against, see above.

 

[taylor_cu]

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.



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.



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"?

I think the argument of destroying city states affect diplomatic victory is very weak.
You need to raze several city states in order to decrease their vote weigth considerably. Defeat a city state suposse an important military effort and when you raze it you have to face several diplomatic penalities. The player who prevents other player diplomatic victory destroying his potencial sources and paying the high cost for that, is playing a risky game. And players deserve the right to choose it.
On the other hand, it is so unrealistic to can´t raze cities that it affects all game flavour.
About razing capitals:
To deafeat a player empire conquering his capital is unrealistic and even more unrealistic if you can´t raze his capital (for first asseveration Moscu, for second Cartago, there are many other historic examples for both ).

 

[cr0ws]

I kinda liked the Call To Power II Apolyton mod's city conquest options.
Take it, Grant it independence (which gave it to barbarian A.I. control..a good divide and conquer and creating a buffer zone strategy) or raise it.

 

[Tatran]

IMHO, Civ 5 conquest victory is perfect - you win the game after you win wars with everyone. Not more, not less.

And what if a third civ has captured some original capitals earlier in the game?
Which capital has to be conquered, the original one or the new capital?
In case of the original capital, how does the player know which city was the original capital?
And in case of a new capital, what will be the situation for the third civ who has already captured a capital?
Will the civ, who has lost its capital, still exist and get a new capital
or is it completely removed from the game like in RoN?

 

[stealth_nsk]

You need to raze several city states in order to decrease their vote weigth considerably. Defeat a city state suposse an important military effort and when you raze it you have to face several diplomatic penalities. The player who prevents other player diplomatic victory destroying his potencial sources and paying the high cost for that, is playing a risky game. And players deserve the right to choose it.

The argument is weak, because I think civs who want to conquer city-states will be more common than those trying to win in diplomatic way.

On the other hand, it is so unrealistic to can´t raze cities that it affects all game flavour.

Well, it's not more unrealistic than:
- Immortal leaders.
- Units living for centuries.
- Changing game speed without changing unit and building speed.
etc.
It's just minor gameplay element.

To deafeat a player empire conquering his capital is unrealistic and even more unrealistic if you can´t raze his capital (for first asseveration Moscu, for second Cartago, there are many other historic examples for both ).

You don't defeat player with capturing his/her capital. You win the game once you have all the original capitals under control. Not the same. And see above about realism.

 

[SuperSmash5]

Razing city states WOULD make diplomacy impossible. The AI isn't dumb and won't vote for you, and city states don't get along and won't all love you if you just give them enough gold. No victory condition could be so easy that they'd give you so much slack by letting your own votes get wiped off the map. Also, diplomatic penalties don't exist, so the AI isn't going to go to war to try to stop Monty if he has 5x as many units. They're going to be afraid. If other city states get upset, then they're just asking to get wiped out themselves. The only reason for sticking up for a city state is to liberate them for the economic bonus of having an ally.

 

[stealth_nsk]

And what if a third civ has captured some original capitals earlier in the game?
Which capital has to be conquered, the original one or the new capital?
In case of the original capital, how does the player know which city was the original capital?
And in case of a new capital, what will be the situation for the third civ who has already captured a capital?
Will the civ, who has lost its capital, still exist and get a new capital
or is it completely removed from the game like in RoN?

You need to control all original capitals. They are shown on victory screen and are used for conquest victory only.
Civilization losing it's capital gets a new one and continues playing as usual, unless it wants to win a conquest victory - in this case it needs to regain its original capital as well as all others.

That's pretty simple.

 

[Grunthex]

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!

Close. Check boxes are out of date. You want to disable GDRs? Get the mod. You want to raze city states? Get the mod. You want more units per tile? Get the mod. Or maybe get Civ4.

 

[Earthling]

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

What I've been saying all along... since CivRev too...

I also don't like the city-states-for-diplomatic-victory idea either. What's worst of all is that both of these systems were really handled pretty well in civ4 and there wasn't a major reason to change them. I could understand if they didn't want both conquest and domination as separate conditions in the game, maybe to streamline things, but then just making a standard 50% ish domination victory should have been fine.

As for diplomatic victory - if it just went by population then city states would still matter, after all, and it would also prevent gimpy situations where a small empire nowhere close to a dominating position "wins" the game while a huge empire does nothing about it (this would usually be the player exploiting the AI of course. But then again lots of players complain about rather fair AI wins of culture/diplo cause they still didn't get to war for it)

Naturally I don't like the idea of not being able to raze certain cities at all. Especially because the AI always has and will continue to use terrible judgement in placing cities, players often would prefer to settle their own in a spot that actually gets all the resources and so on.

The AI isn't dumb and won't vote for you

Where has this been stated, or are several of you people just assuming this is the case because you think it's something you want?

I haven't seen any evidence this is actually the case, but if it is it's a horrible decision and they might as well have removed diplomatic victory from the game entirely.

1. Reaching conquest victory in Civ 4 is boring and actually you could only achieve it by disabling domination victory.
2. Domination victory in Civ 4 is reached before you break everyone, which isn't fun.

Regarding 1) you have very little idea of what is actually true about civ4, apparently.

Regarding 2) - it's a self-defeating argument, in the sense that by that reasoning you should oppose all cultural/diplomatic type victories entirely. And then there's the matter that for a large number of people the sole reason they think the new conquest victory is better is because it removes the "tedium" of cleaning up the last conquered nations, but if you claim it was easier in civ4 to win without having to do so that is no longer a valid reason.

Changing game speed without changing unit and building speed.

Wait, is this confirmed as well? What in the world could have possibly motivated them to do this?

 

[Tarkhan]

I just find it annoying that I must fortify my random start position throughout all of history. I've gotten some truly abysmal tundra capitals in Civ4, that I move away from soon as I can get into better land.

 

[Tatran]

You need to control all original capitals.

Of all of the remaining civs or also of the civs who have been wiped out before you've met them, which seems a little weird?

 

[City Raider]

You can still conquer city states. Razing would be a neat option, but once you conquer a city state they become one of your cities, so I assume at that point they won't have a seperate UN vote or anything, afterall they'll be one of your cities. You'll have the vote.
Essentally razing wouldn't be any different then conquering in terms of diplo win.

I'm for razing more for the potential aesthetic purposes. I like my empire to have a certain look with as little overlap from cities as possible. Now with 37 hexes per city I might tolerate slightly more overlap but I'll be disappointed if some city states get in the way of my perfect grid of cities.

Also AI placement of some cities (including some capitals, ie 3 tiles from the coast instead of 2 or next to coast) is questionable so I'd imagine you might see an occassional city state on the wrong hex, so razing is always a nice option to fix this situation.

 

[Tarkhan]

Hahah, nice logic

To WAR! In the name of continental symmetry, we must burn your heathen hovels to the ground!

 

[Churchill's Hat]

I'm for razing more for the potential aesthetic purposes. I like my empire to have a certain look with as little overlap from cities as possible. Now with 37 hexes per city I might tolerate slightly more overlap but I'll be disappointed if some city states get in the way of my perfect grid of cities.

Also AI placement of some cities (including some capitals, ie 3 tiles from the coast instead of 2 or next to coast) is questionable so I'd imagine you might see an occassional city state on the wrong hex, so razing is always a nice option to fix this situation.

You do realize that in many Civ V previews, they talked about how exact city placement wasn't as important anymore? Furthermore, with strategic resources now being more important to your military, you may want to forgo the idea entirely and make sure that Montezuma or Askia don't grab those 4 horses or 4 iron on your border.

 

[Seven05]

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.

You don't even need most, you just need more than the next guy. That may be two out of ten for all we know.

1. Reaching conquest victory in Civ 4 is boring and actually you could only achieve it by disabling domination victory.

I wouldn't call it boring, but yes it was annoying that essentially the only way to win a conquest victory in Civ 4 was to disable domination victories or some other special case, like OCC games.

Twenty-two days of wild speculation remain...

 

[City Raider]

You do realize that in many Civ V previews, they talked about how exact city placement wasn't as important anymore? Furthermore, with strategic resources now being more important to your military, you may want to forgo the idea entirely and make sure that Montezuma or Askia don't grab those 4 horses or 4 iron on your border.

Right, certain cities you have to keep, and this occured in Civ 4 as well. Whether it was a capital which was usually on good land (had good resources) or a city that built a shrine/wonder or had immediate resource to hook up.

But I know, just from playing Civ since Civ 1, my style is to maximize each cities tiles, and creating the "perfect" grid with only 1-3 overlap per city. Again this is just personal playing style. I realize you don't have to do it that way or that it is even necessary. But I like having the Monster cities. I forsee myself playing as India quite a bit in Civ 5.

 

[SuperSmash5]

What I've been saying all along... since CivRev too...

I also don't like the city-states-for-diplomatic-victory idea either. What's worst of all is that both of these systems were really handled pretty well in civ4 and there wasn't a major reason to change them. I could understand if they didn't want both conquest and domination as separate conditions in the game, maybe to streamline things, but then just making a standard 50% ish domination victory should have been fine.

As for diplomatic victory - if it just went by population then city states would still matter, after all, and it would also prevent gimpy situations where a small empire nowhere close to a dominating position "wins" the game while a huge empire does nothing about it (this would usually be the player exploiting the AI of course. But then again lots of players complain about rather fair AI wins of culture/diplo cause they still didn't get to war for it)

Naturally I don't like the idea of not being able to raze certain cities at all. Especially because the AI always has and will continue to use terrible judgement in placing cities, players often would prefer to settle their own in a spot that actually gets all the resources and so on.

Diplomacy in Civ4 was always kinda . The modifiers and all the requests for free stuff made it really cheesy, and it compromised the AI's ability to win the game, most notably, when they actually vote for someone else to win. It's impossible to have realistic diplomacy with all the modifiers. That's why they have the city states. Now the AI can still try to win but you can win a diplomatic victory by getting votes from someone who isn't managing such competitive diplomacy.