Conditioned city destruction? (1.17)

[CivEnthusiast]

Noticed a persistent pattern while playing and replaying 1.17 numerous times (and it also seems to be existing in 1.18, although with some differences), that for some reasons, if certain, very specific conditions are met, a city will get destroyed.

This only seems to be taking place in the Ancient and Classical Era gameplay, and it does have some negative impacts when it happens.

Examples:

1. Founding Poti in the Caucasus as Babylonia, then if it gets seized by Persians soon after they spawn, the city gets erased. Otherwise, if it gets conquered later by anyone else or if Babylonia collapses by itself, the city remains intact.

2. Phoenician Sur gets conquered by Babylonia, then Greeks take over it, but once the Greeks collapse, the city gets razed by itself. Otherwise, if Sur remains unconquered until Romans, it stays intact, even after the Roman conquest.

3. A number of Ancient Egyptian cities "self-destruct", as once the Greeks or Babylonia occupy them and later collapse, they get razed by themselves. Otherwise, they stay intact.

4. Burdigala and Tarraco sometimes remain intact, but sometimes get razed, in first case when seized by the Germanic Barbarian units from Celts, in second case when seized by the same Germanics after the Western Rome collapse.

The problems that arise with it is that those cities then require to be rebuilt manually, otherwise an AI will never do that, leaving a huge empty tile space on a map throughout the entirety of the gameplay. Or in case with Sur, it's simply impossible to rebuild the city, a Roman settler is simply blocked from settling at the ruins of Sur. It also hinders with the Roman conquest goals, as instead of just taking a city a Roman player has to waste additional time to rebuild those cities that were erased for some very strange seemingly scripted reasons.

 

[Leoreth]

I think you are mixing up a number of concerns here, so let's disentangle them.

1. City destruction on conquest: that is a rule from the base game. If a city is small (iirc only 1 population) OR has never reached the first culture level, it is automatically razed on conquest.
2. City destruction on collapse: this is a DoC mechanic that occurs on collapse. Its intent is to curb close AI city placement. Cities that are two tiles apart can be destroyed in this way, but only if they are small enough, not very cultured, and don't contain anything important like wonders or holy cities. In that case the "lesser" (by size and culture) of them is chosen to be razed.
3. Being unable to found on a previously destroyed city: that sounds like a bug, please report a save of such a situation.

If you have issues with (2), I would prefer to discuss it based on concrete examples (saves or before/after screenshots). That said, it might make sense to disable this rule now that we are on the new map, there is more space and the AI settler behaviour has been streamlined so that there is not nearly as much city spam.

 

[CivEnthusiast]

I think you are mixing up a number of concerns here, so let's disentangle them.

1. City destruction on conquest: that is a rule from the base game. If a city is small (iirc only 1 population) OR has never reached the first culture level, it is automatically razed on conquest.
2. City destruction on collapse: this is a DoC mechanic that occurs on collapse. Its intent is to curb close AI city placement. Cities that are two tiles apart can be destroyed in this way, but only if they are small enough, not very cultured, and don't contain anything important like wonders or holy cities. In that case the "lesser" (by size and culture) of them is chosen to be razed.
3. Being unable to found on a previously destroyed city: that sounds like a bug, please report a save of such a situation.

If you have issues with (2), I would prefer to discuss it based on concrete examples (saves or before/after screenshots). That said, it might make sense to disable this rule now that we are on the new map, there is more space and the AI settler behaviour has been streamlined so that there is not nearly as much city spam.

Alright, understood, thanks for clarifying, in any case, the mechanic feels rudimentary as within the context of DoC an automated city razing makes the land previously held by it stateless, and if to bring up the tribal migrations shown with the barbarian units, them conquering a city rather than razing it would somewhat depict them settling into the area rather than continue with their nomadic lifestyle.

Alternatively, it could remain, but for the civilizational collapse event. Such as Indus Valley collapse (already depicted in the game), or Bronze Age collapse, this is where it makes the most sense in my opinion, where large territories practically became stateless, devolved to almost tribal communities and fragmented city-states, as the result of the large movements of peoples and other factors leading to the whole civilizations turning into dust. For example, a Sea Peoples barbarian unit could make a city become razed upon capture

 

[Logoncal]

I would love to see a 3000BC game where Carthage, Babylon and other ancient cities dont reach lategame always. When i start in 3000BC for example i sometimes miss seing cities like Baghdad.

 

[Bickerstaff]

Yes, that would be great. Right now, all the ancient wonders survive forever.

I'm currently playing Harappa -> India -> England, and the Roman Empire just collapsed. Taking stock of which cities got razed, it was... Naples. None of the cities packed close in the Levant, not Sparta (with Athens so close to it), and not any of the cities in the Maghreb, which are packed two tiles apart except for the last one in Morocco.

 

[urbestfriend]

Your Roman settler probably couldn't found on Sur because it's a different continent than your capital. You need to have the exploration tech to found cities on a different continent.

Edit: Apologies, I am incorrect as pointed out below

 

[Leoreth]

But for the purpose of that rule, the Middle East is considered the same continent as Europe proper.

 

[Hickman888]

I thought Exploration was only needed in order to train Settlers on another continent, I didn't think there were any restrictions on settling another continent? Something else must be going on here.

 

[banzay13]

Taking stock of which cities got razed, it was... Naples.

Vulcanic eruption was so huge near Pompeii and Naples was destroyed too

 

[CivEnthusiast]

So regarding the city foundation, it was probably a weird glitch as on that particular round I was also unable to place a city anywhere else where technically I should've been able to. Upon having a full replay, the issue was seemingly gone by itself, allowing me to place the cities as the Roman civ wherever I want once again.

 

[Leoreth]

I would prefer savegames over speculation.

 

[CivEnthusiast]

I would prefer savegames over speculation.

The save, if you need one, was already overwritten by other numerous saves that I always keep making, but anyways, I assume it doesn't matter anyways with 1.18 being under way

 

[Leoreth]

It does, because it is unlikely to be affected by any of the changes included in 1.18. It is always a good idea to include the save when you make a bug report. considering that you should still have it at that time.

 

[SultanRedSnake]

Hey an idea just hit me!

I believe there is a rule forbidding new settlements in a civs birth area for as long as the corresponding tiles are labeled “Rise of…”.

@CivEnthusiast can you confirm this was the case?

 

[AOS9001]

That's probably it. Rise of Byzantines or Rise of Arabs can prevent you from filling in the eastern gaps in the Roman Empire if that's what you were doing.

 

[CivEnthusiast]

Hey an idea just hit me!

I believe there is a rule forbidding new settlements in a civs birth area for as long as the corresponding tiles are labeled “Rise of…”.

@CivEnthusiast can you confirm this was the case?

Ohhhhhh, must be making sense now, as it happened just around the time when Byzantium was about to rise in my case in late III Century AD and just limited to the broad area that was meant to flip to Byzantium several turns later

 

[AOS9001]

I was once trying to set up a historical Roman Empire for a Byzantium game, and to my embarrassment forgot to found either Iconion or Trapezounta. I sent a settler, and too late, the Rise of Byzantines prevented me from settling!

 

[SultanRedSnake]

Ohhhhhh, must be making sense now, as it happened just around the time when Byzantium was about to rise in my case in late III Century AD and just limited to the broad area that was meant to flip to Byzantium several turns later

NOBODY:
ME: