Destroying a legendary city

[chopstyx]

A couple of points about culture:

In my current game I went to war with Pacal II, mainly because he was close to winning a culture victory when I was after a conquest.

So I invaded his continent, and eventually captured his capital which had gone Legendary a few turns before. I saved it just before I captured it, so that I could try razing a legedary city to see what happened. Absolutely nothing! I think this should be fixed - there should be some -1 or -2 modifier from everyone for razing the most cultural city in the world (which contained the AP & UN!)

In the 'real' game I captured his capital and kept it, and then captured his other cities, finally spinning off a colony with Cyrus in charge of all of Pacal's cities. And because Pacal had been vanquished, Cyrus had 100% ownership of most of the cities. It's quite a nice way of ridding a leader & all culture from a civilization but keeping the country intact!

This brings me to my next question: If I had made Pacal a vassal instead of creating a new colony, would he still be able to win a culture victory being under my control? Obviously with Cyrus all of the culture was reset to 0.

 

[CTH]

I think there should be something more to the legendary cities, like you said, they give soemthing negative when you raze them, but Í think they should give some kind of boost when you capture them. I don't reall know what, but perhaps + 3 happines in all your cities for the time the city is in dissorder. It could be needed, because you are after all in a war.

 

[Sephlock]

Ditto for razing cities with wonders in them- Great Library anyone?

 

[Quotey]

I believe there's an alignment modifier if you raze a Holy City, perhaps the same could be done for a legendary city? I'm not too sure about having a modifier for razing cities with wonders though. It seems a bit excessive.

 

[IronCrown]

Shouldn't the other civs rather be grateful because you prevented Pacal from winning? Why should they care about other countries' culture? It means nothing to them.

 

[bonafide11]

"When I hear the word 'culture', I reach for my revolver."

 

[Martinus]

Shouldn't the other civs rather be grateful because you prevented Pacal from winning? Why should they care about other countries' culture? It means nothing to them.

And yet razing of the Great Library of Alexandria, capture of Constantinople first by crusaders and then by Turks, or destruction of the Buddha statues by Taleban some years ago all caused international outrage.

 

[IronCrown]

But who felt those events were outrageous? Certainly not the whole world. Public opinion (or part of it) in western countries were infuriated by what the Taleban did, but I guess most people in islamic or hindu countries didn't give a damn. I'd even go so far and say that even in the West the vast majority had all but forgotten the incident after a week or a few months.

So if there is to be a penalty for destroying a legendary city, it should only be with civs that were pleased or friendly with the victim.

 

[Rex rgis of Ter]

Imagine if someone destroyed one of the new world wonders, the Hagia Sophia for instance. Everyone would be horrified someone could destroy such a great work of art, and turn their back on them.

 

[Zetetic Apparat]

Really everyone should be horrified by the fact you just razed a city, nevermind what wonders were there...

 

[Littlelisa]

Razing cities should give you a 30 turn (or something) -1 relation penalty to friends of the civ
'-1 You razed our Friends city' or something like that.

Though i guess it could work both ways,
'+1 You razed our hated enemies city'

Guess legendary razing should give everyone
-1 You razed one of the greatest cities in the world

 

[Ghandi33]

Razing a city should give an unhappiness penalty to every city in the razing civilizations control. It seems that committing mass genocide should have some sort of unhappiness penalty, especially when you consider the unhappiness penalty associated with the rather benign act of defying certain UN orders. Just to get some perspective, I can see US citizens being intensely more upset if we were to march into Toronto, burn it to the ground, and kill all it's citizens as compared to rejecting the Kyoto protocal.

If they are going to apply happiness penalties for actions that are deemed unacceptable by common civilized standards or that cause the "world to consider you a villain" then they should at least be consistent and it apply to all such actions.

 

[frob2900]

Razing a city should give an unhappiness penalty to every city in the razing civilizations control.

Like all the unhappiness in Rome after they razed Carthage? Or the unhappiness in Germany while the 1941 offensive against Russia was going well (and the germans were burning and slaughtering as much as they could in Russia).

Sometimes people love the idea of their nation razing the enemies cities. In fact I'd wager that most of the time this is true.

 

[m4gill4]

I would really like to know if you can still achieve cultural victory if you are a vassal of someone else?

 

[agoodfella]

to play Devil's Advocate, razing a city doesn't erase the cultural achievements that that particular city was able to attain and contribute to any particular Civ.

For example, think about how London was bombed during WWII... even if it were totally razed to the ground it still wouldn't erase that cities or the British empires cultural achievements.

 

[Molon Labe]

For example, think about how London was bombed during WWII... even if it were totally razed to the ground it still wouldn't erase that cities or the British empires cultural achievements.

True. They'll never get rid of brown sauce, marmite and cricket.

 

[Mewtarthio]

to play Devil's Advocate, razing a city doesn't erase the cultural achievements that that particular city was able to attain and contribute to any particular Civ.

For example, think about how London was bombed during WWII... even if it were totally razed to the ground it still wouldn't erase that cities or the British empires cultural achievements.

Yes, but there is no city on Earth that would be considered a Legendary city. A Legendary city has been focused on culture since the stone age. It is the center of the arts for as long as history records. Seriously, think of what would happen if somebody burned Rome to the ground. Now try to extrapolate that to what would happen if Rome had never fallen, had mantained its importance all the way into the modern day, and then somebody burned it to the ground.

 

[MrFelony]

i can see where you're going with that, but it just doesnt make complete sense. One example of an accidental razing, the chicago fire. that provided the room for great improvements for the city. but in general, you just can't get some artwork or buildings back. but you are right in that just because it's destroyed it doesnt mean it's memory is gone.

 

[Mewtarthio]

i can see where you're going with that, but it just doesnt make complete sense. One example of an accidental razing, the chicago fire. that provided the room for great improvements for the city. but in general, you just can't get some artwork or buildings back. but you are right in that just because it's destroyed it doesnt mean it's memory is gone.

The trouble is that, though everyone still has the memory of the city, a Legendary city should be a symbol of something. Namely, it would be viewed in particular as a symbol of the greatness of the owning civ and more broadly as a symbol of human achievement in general. There's nothing in the real world that compares, but we do have things that are worth far less. Imagine in New York City or Paris got completely annihilated: Every building razed, every citizens slaughtered. The world's reaction to such an atrocity would be far less than the world's reaction to the razing of a Legendary city. It would be almost blasphemous, I think. Picture the reactions of Muslims to the destruction of Mecca, or the reactions of Catholics to the razing of the Vatican, and then picture that everywhere.

That being said, I'm opposed to something that only affects the AI. The real reaction should be among your citizens, in the form of a "the world considers you a villian" penalty (and possibly lessened WW among anyone attacking you, though it may be just as likely that your enemies would get demoralized).

 

[Huxley Hobbes]

Yes, but there is no city on Earth that would be considered a Legendary city. A Legendary city has been focused on culture since the stone age. It is the center of the arts for as long as history records. Seriously, think of what would happen if somebody burned Rome to the ground. Now try to extrapolate that to what would happen if Rome had never fallen, had mantained its importance all the way into the modern day, and then somebody burned it to the ground.

I think you're placing too much emphasis on the game mechanics here. I think cities like Rome, Paris, London, and New York could easily qualify as "Legendary", despite them having all been heavily damaged at one time or another (Often multiple times), sometimes changing hands, and the latter existing for only a few centuries. Same in your later post - I think you underestimate the reaction to something like that taking place.