Does razing make the game too easy?

I am a fan of the idea that razing should take more time.

For example:

You capture a city and click on raze. The city will now lose 2 pop/turn until it is gone, or unless another civ captures it and can chose wether to keep it burning or not. Cities with only 1 or 2 population would still be destroyed instantly, small early game cities within 2-3 turns, but huge endgame cities may take up to 10 turns to get annihilated. This would be much better for gameplay, and also quite realistic, since a city with 6 million people will not disappear immediately.


It is not true that the described scenario would have played out differently on immortal, because the AI wont have much more units sitting around in every single city. If you can bomb and attack the city on the turn you declare war, it will basically be the same, only the retaliation will be much more severe. The fact that you instantkilled a huge city with 45000+ culture would not change.
 
Right, although I think that you should be able to stop razing (if something happened) and start razing not just immediately after capturing.

As stated before, I think the that military units should be able to 'pillage' a citizen (and buildings) per turn, which should probably net you some gold and unhappiness, ww, diplo. Maybe this should be limited to foreign ethnicities to provide for a kind of ethnic cleansing - a horrible concept but used throughout history.
 
I like the idea of razing as an active act. The more soilders you contribute the faster the act. Like each soilder contributes 0.5 population points a turn: 1 soilder would take 40 turns to raze a size 20 city. 10 soilders could raze a size 5 city in one turn. Be a bit more realistic.
 
Right, although I think that you should be able to stop razing (if something happened) and start razing not just immediately after capturing.

As stated before, I think the that military units should be able to 'pillage' a citizen (and buildings) per turn, which should probably net you some gold and unhappiness, ww, diplo. Maybe this should be limited to foreign ethnicities to provide for a kind of ethnic cleansing - a horrible concept but used throughout history.

ethnic cleansings still take place, in the last balkan war, in africa... maybe tibet should count too, if anyone knew what is going on down there...

well, maybe it's better that the game does not have them.

I like the idea of razing as an active act. The more soilders you contribute the faster the act. Like each soilder contributes 0.5 population points a turn: 1 soilder would take 40 turns to raze a size 20 city. 10 soilders could raze a size 5 city in one turn. Be a bit more realistic.

hmmm, i thought more like 3 population/turn/unit ... 40 turns is practically forever in game terms.
 
Turning city razing off causes some weird effects, though. For example, the mighty Roman praetorian becomes much, much weaker. In the early game razing is what allows you to take out opponents. Early UUs like the praet and immortal become much more difficult to use. Then again...that might not be a bad thing, we all know how 'imba' the praet is. This alone wouldn't stop me from playing without city razing. There is only one thing that makes me squirm when I consider playing the game without city razing, just one thing, and that is AI city placement. If you were my roommate you would hear me shout very loudly, at least a couple times per week "why there?? Why the hell did he build it there???"
 
Top Bottom