Does bombarding a city destroy buildings within it?

Greasy Dave

Prince
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
376
Quick question. Re title. On my last game I as playing Lizzie and had a large army of long bowmen which I used as artillery and pummel cities to 1 HP before sending in a melee unit. I got the impression - just a feeling, no statistics to back it up - that the conquered cities had far fewer buildings in them than when I conquered by throwing melee units at the walls.

I'm curious, I vaguely remember reading something about this having been introduced in some patch notes and am wondering if it's correct.

thanks
 
It's not the bombarding that destroys buildings, it's the taking of the city itself. According to the manual, when a city is captured all military and culture buildings are destroyed, and every other building has a 66% chance of surviving.
 
It's not the bombarding that destroys buildings, it's the taking of the city itself. According to the manual, when a city is captured all military and culture buildings are destroyed, and every other building has a 66% chance of surviving.

Well that explains why I always have to build monuments in AI cities. Hey, if you retake a city, do the destroyed buildings come back?
 
No, and the existing building in the city have a 34% chance of being destroyed. So a city that changes hands often ends up with very few, if any, buildings.
 
the manual oversimplifies it. there's a conquestprob defined in the buildings.xml
culture, defense and military buildings are all destroyed, as well as courthouse, stable, circus, forge, mint.

most things have 66% chance of survival,
gold buildings have 75% chance,
the other happiness buildings always survive.
 
I think there's a bug there. Even if you take a city by a peace deal (thus, no population loss) most buildings are destroyed.
 
Top Bottom