Disbanding cities?

[zulu9812]

A feature of Civ3 was that you could voluntarily disband a city. you wouldn't get anything for it, like gold or workers, but it was useful to stop it falling into the hands of the enemy. I think that Civ4 could benefit from this feature. But first, some rules:

* Being able to disband a city a turn before you know the enemy is going to capture it is kind of unfair, particularly if said enemy has spent the last 10 turns besieging it. Implementing some sort of time-delay, akin to 12Monkey's RazeCity mod, would offset this.

* Disbanding cities with Great Wonders is not allowed.

* Disbanding cities could produce Immigrants (from TheLopez's mod). Whilst I'm against a player getting anything for disbanding a city, immigrants would actually be a liability in this case, since you would have to protect them. To increase this need to protect the Immigrants (or Emigrants?), the invading civ should be able to capture these Immigrants and turn them into Workers, like with RealSlavery in the SevoMod.

What do people think?

 

[Chamaedrys]

I think it's OK to disband/evacuate a city of 1-3 maybe4 but bigger cities shouldn't be disbandable. Imagin President Bush decides to disband New York

 

[ocedius]

Here are my $0.02 on the matter.

1) Disbanding any city yields a -ve 50%-75% culture in closest friendly city for a few turns.

2) A settler-like immigrant unit and multiple non-worker 'displaced' units that cannot settle.

3) Displaced units consume gold and can be upgraded via a resettlement building and integrated into the city, kinda using the onunitlost command.

4) settler-like unit creates a city with resettlement building that can absorb original population (less 1-2)

This should make disbanding a city very,very expensive and culture shocking.