Cities are instantly razed

[stealth_nsk]

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.

Maybe, but not too often too. Also, in Civ6:
- Conquered city instantly regenerates 50% of Health.
- Due to blockade mechanics it's more common to capture cities from all sides.
- A lot of Warmonger penalties for razing a city.
So I expect this to be even rarer case.

 

[DeutschDachs]

Well, this is one of very few new features I actually strongly dislike.
I makes no sense from realistic point of view to be able to completely annihilate a city very fast, and it sounds very gamey and unfair in-game to be able to erase opponents progress so easily.
In civ5 razing took some turns, thus giving a previous owner the chance to retake it (which sometimes happened).

Besides, I still think city razing should be completely disabled once you enter industrial/modern era, there are simply no instances in modern history of industrial states annihilating entire cities to the ground, the outrage would be unreal. It wasn't even happening in as extremely evil circumstances as Third Reich conquest of Soviet cities because it's unfeasible on the scale of modern cities. The last instance of total big city razing/sacking I can think of are fall of Ayuthaia in 18th century.

I think Warsaw would like a word... the Nazis completely liquidated other Slavic villages like Lidice in the Czech Republic (a man returning home was confused when he returned to only see a field where the town once stood). But Hitler personally ordered the razing of Warsaw, demolition crews and flamethrower squads went block by block to destroy the city. In terms of Civ, they basically accomplished it in 1-2 turns of time. I agree that razing should take a few turns though, maybe even 2-3 pop a turn rather than 1.

 

[Depravo]

I think Warsaw would like a word... the Nazis completely liquidated other Slavic villages like Lidice in the Czech Republic (a man returning home was confused when he returned to only see a field where the town once stood). But Hitler personally ordered the razing of Warsaw, demolition crews and flamethrower squads went block by block to destroy the city. In terms of Civ, they basically accomplished it in 1-2 turns of time. I agree that razing should take a few turns though, maybe even 2-3 pop a turn rather than 1.

Warsaw and many other cities were substantially physically destroyed, but according to Wiki it was a million city again within about ten years of the end of the war. Name one city that was PERMANENTLY destroyed and its population dispersed in the twentieth century. I can't think of any, at least in Europe.

 

[DeutschDachs]

Warsaw and many other cities were substantially physically destroyed, but according to Wiki it was a million city again within about ten years of the end of the war. Name one city that was PERMANENTLY destroyed and its population dispersed in the twentieth century. I can't think of any, at least in Europe.

At the end of the war, 90% of the buildings were destroyed and less than 6% of the original population remained, I think you're kind of underselling it. 10 years later be damned. Warsaw could have lost 100% of its buildings and population and Poles would have rebuilt it.

 

[Depravo]

At the end of the war, 90% of the buildings were destroyed and less than 6% of the original population remained, I think you're kind of underselling it. 10 years later be damned. Warsaw could have lost 100% of its buildings and population and Poles would have rebuilt it.

Guess the question is, was post-war Warsaw the 'same city' as it had been at the outbreak of war? With that kind of damage and disruption, followed by 'rebuilding' on Stalinist lines it's hard to say yes without reservations, but for Civ purposes I'd say a large drop in population would be the best way to represent what happened. It remained the Polish capital and a cultural centre rather than a depopulated, region-sized black gap on the map.

Konigsberg on the other hand... that could be said to have been razed and rebuilt, badly. The original population was displaced and much of what remained of the region's past deliberately effaced after the war, right down to administrative divisions and place names.

 

[thunderbird_14]

What about the bombing of Dresden? I realise there is a lack of certainty about the death toll (some put it at only around 25,000), but if the higher estimates are to be believed, there were between 200,000 and 500,000 killed.

Eh, the high death tolls were just propagated by Nazi Sympathizers, from what I've read about WW2, Dresden wasn't that special (and historians do put it only around 25-30 thousand). In regards to OP though, maybe scaling with population with partisans spawning, it'll make conquest more reactive and less one-sided.