Do you want an increased penalty for razing cities?

[Naokaukodem]

Berlin 1945?

It was not liberating, it was conquering. In the case of Civ5: Puppet.

 

[Camikaze]

I was meaning improvements, and I think they should be. Having a PoW / slave camp comes at a cost (the tile where the camp is)... it also becomes harder/additional spot to defend.

That makes sense, I guess.

Armies will always plunder any city which they have fought for, to a degree. Also, there are very few places where an army is liberating a city (and the populace see it that way as well). Besides that, you could chalk up the loss as collateral damage, or internal pillaging by an oppressed populace.

I suppose so, although it would be nice to have some differentiation between a friendly takeover and straight out plundering of an enemy.

 

[Namaspamus]

In ancient times, leaders didn't regularly have the tools to commit genocide. most people would scatter into the wilderness when confronted with a burning army.

There could be refugees moving to the other cities of the same civ. We could accept them in the cities or turn them into settlers.

Also some partisans/rebels/guerilla could spread out of razed cities.

 

[Camikaze]

How about- a partisan spawns out of a razed city that has strength equal to the population of the city times some era dependent modifier?

 

[Cywil]

I would propose razing cities carry diplomatic consequences with the city's owner in all eras, and a happiness hit to your empire per razed city in post-Medieval eras (to represent a more "enlightened" populace and the increased flow of information with the invention of the printing press).

I would prefer to increase diplomatic consequences in post-Medieval eras "(to represent a more "enlightened" populace and the increased flow of information with the invention of the printing press)", and to introduce a happiness hit per razed city in post-Industrial eras (to represent a more "anti-genocide" public opinion and the increased flow of mass media).

 

[Namaspamus]

How about- a partisan spawns out of a razed city that has strength equal to the population of the city times some era dependent modifier?

It would be good. They could also be upgradable at low price (like furnishing rifles to a resistance)

 

[Vordeo]

I'd have there be a penalty for razing medium-sized (say, size 6 and above?) cities. Anything smaller you could classify as settlements, and given the AI's tendency to send settlers halfway across the continent to settle next to your capital, I'd be hesitant to penalize razing all cities.

An alternative would be basing the razing penalty on how many turns ago that city was settled.

 

[Camikaze]

It would be good. They could also be upgradable at low price (like furnishing rifles to a resistance)

That would seem a good addition.

I'd have there be a penalty for razing medium-sized (say, size 6 and above?) cities. Anything smaller you could classify as settlements, and given the AI's tendency to send settlers halfway across the continent to settle next to your capital, I'd be hesitant to penalize razing all cities.

An alternative would be basing the razing penalty on how many turns ago that city was settled.

That's a good point; penalising city razing effectively encourages city spamming. Maybe the penalties could just be ever increasing. It would make sense for them to be proportional.

 

[basta]

I voted no because most of the cities I raze--and I do so rarely and almost always go the puppet/courthouse/annex route, even though I play on immortal--are the result of ICS.

If there wasn't this ridiculous settler spam going on, like cockroaches infesting every free tile, I might be more sympathetic. As it is, I already put myself at a large disadvantage on immortal by going the full annex route whenever possible.

But trying to demonize the razing of ICS-generated city spam in human turns (genocide, lol) doesn't cut it for me.