Cities are instantly razed

[CaiusDrewart]

If they wanted to make razing take longer, maybe they could have a city lose 1 district per turn until there were none left. Then the city center disappears.

But really, instant razing is fine.

 

[Depravo]

Do the districts stay? If yes (and unpillaged), most of the infrastructure could still be used even after the centre is razed.

This begs the question, can a small city use all the districts in its area if it hasn't reached the population threshold that allowed the previous civ to build them in the first place?

 

[Biz_]

civ5 was a huge step backward in terms of strategy and pacing because cities took forever to capture and then forever to assimilate/raze/whatever

a turn can be several decades in this game. there is tons of historical precedent for razing cities in 1 turn

 

[Galbias]

This begs the question, can a small city use all the districts in its area if it hasn't reached the population threshold that allowed the previous civ to build them in the first place?

They did state at one point that you just need population in order to build districts, and that if the population went down in a city somehow you would still keep the districts.

 

[Bad Wolf]

makes no sense from realistic point of view to be able to completely annihilate a city very fast

Maybe but remember turns in Civ represent anywhere from several months (late game on slower speeds) to several decades. And of course, it's way easier to destroy something than it is to build.

I feel like you should have to destroy each district separately, however. This would leave at least something to salvage if your city centre gets destroyed.

 

[Zanteogo]

civ5 was a huge step backward in terms of strategy and pacing because cities took forever to capture and then forever to assimilate/raze/whatever

a turn can be several decades in this game. there is tons of historical precedent for razing cities in 1 turn

It can also take a hundred years to move an army across an empire. So this is a weak argument to allow this. Also, in the modern area, we are talking about full size cities and turns taking 1 year.

It should take time and effort to swallow up an empire.

 

[Jaybe]

I feel like you should have to destroy each district separately, however. This would leave at least something to salvage if your city centre gets destroyed.

If you're going to raze the city you will want to pillage the districts first.

 

[Depravo]

They did state at one point that you just need population in order to build districts, and that if the population went down in a city somehow you would still keep the districts.

Thanks, that's nooz to me.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think it's great. Without global unhappiness, there's no reason to require the wait IMO. A nice convenience feature.

I liked the wait because it allowed you to get it back before it's destroyed.

 

[Zanteogo]

I liked the wait because it allowed you to get it back before it's destroyed.

This.

There should be a few turn delay on it at the very least.

 

[King Jason]

I feel like it's better for the A.I. if it's insta-raze. So I'm all for this change.

There's little challenge to most human players against a computer opponent. So we need to be punished harsher than they are when it comes to ours mistakes over there's. Operating under the assumption that a human player can almost always outsmart a computer civ player, then the reasonable course of action is to provide immense repercussion for when the computer does beat the human.

This is pretty much my overall A.I. philosophy - anything design decision or mechanic that might inherently benefit the A.I. over the human is always a good thing.

That said, in this particular case I'm not 100% certain if it doesn't benefit the A.I. more - but it certainly seems like it does.

 

[MistyRonin]

Though, one concern I'd have is with the whole "don't have to destroy units in the city to take it, just have to reduce city health to zero". This means there's very little you can do in order to make a last-ditch effort to defend a city, if it gets low then it may just be gone (if your opponent is inclined to raze it). It made more sense when you could stack units in the city and have them actively defend the city. So hard to say one way or the other.

Well, I guess they try to reproduce the fact that many sieges ended as soon as the walls were breached and the besiegers could assault the city/fortress/castle. I'd have to play the game to judge if I like that design option, or not.

Although I'm not a huge fan of razing a city in one turn, as it gives few chances to recover it in a counter-attack.

 

[phryxolydian]

It gives zero chances.

I wonder what the MP guys think about this? I guess if you've let the enemy advance that much and you haven't been able to fight back then you wouldn't have a chance of talking it back anyway but still, with these new movement rules and with traders being the ones that create roads then how will you get your units back in time if someone declares war with a huge army advancing on a city you left only 1-2 units for basic defense if you have a wide empire? I think instant razing is too convenient.

 

[Biz_]

It gives zero chances.

I wonder what the MP guys think about this? I guess if you've let the enemy advance that much and you haven't been able to fight back then you wouldn't have a chance of talking it back anyway but still, with these new movement rules and with traders being the ones that create roads then how will you get your units back in time if someone declares war with a huge army advancing on a city you left only 1-2 units for basic defense if you have a wide empire? I think instant razing is too convenient.

it's really important for multiplayer to reward aggression and punish players who don't invest in defense

assuming equal land, every ffa game is stacked in favor of whoever gets in the fewest wars and can focus their resources on tech+growth

military units are a negative investment especially if they die (eg. from warfare), so it's important that you're able to do something effective with army superiority. although in that case you probably want to keep the cities instead of raze them...

 

[BenZL43]

I would consider what happened in Syria nowadays as an example of modern cities razing by non-nuclear war. It didn't happen instantly, but 1 turn in-game isn't one year either.

 

[bite]

I think there should at least be a chance to reclaim the city even if it is a small one.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think there should at least be a chance to reclaim the city even if it is a small one.

I don't think there's a real difference between razing city in 1 turn and in, say, 5. After cities got their own attack and health in Civ5 you can't loose a city by overlooking a single enemy unit, it have to be some real siege.

 

[bite]

I don't think there's a real difference between razing city in 1 turn and in, say, 5. After cities got their own attack and health in Civ5 you can't loose a city by overlooking a single enemy unit, it have to be some real siege.

not necessarily, I have had numerous times where I have recaptured a city 2 or 3 turns after losing it

 

[stealth_nsk]

not necessarily, I have had numerous times where I have recaptured a city 2 or 3 turns after losing it

How often those 2 cases occur at the same time:
- You were able to recapture city fast.
- The city raizing was started.
I don't think it's more than 1% if cases, so generally it could be ignored. No need to have complex mechanics of gradual raizing for it.

 

[Camikaze]

I think city re-capturing happened not too infrequently in Civ5, actually. If your army was approaching from one side, and other army was occupying a number of tiles behind the city on the other side, then sending a single weakened unit into a city, which, having just been captured, would have very low defence, was often a recipe for immediate recapture. The halving of the population each time wore down the city quite rapidly, but at least there was the opportunity to retake something.