i hate haveing to be forced to raze level 1 citys,it gives me a rep hit, wich is unfiar since im fored to raze! and leves gaps between the biger cities, plz fix this
A size 1 city is razed if it has not yet accumulated sufficient culture to stay. (The amount of culture necessary has varied over the patches - from "any culture at all", to "enough to expand the borders".)
While it is somewhat disconcerting, and often frustrating, I see it simply as a gameplay issue. I know that if I attack a size 1, (relatively) cultureless city, it will be razed. Depending on the situation, I bring along a settler, wait for it to grow to size2/expand the borders, or don't worry about it.
Originally posted by Padma A size 1 city is razed if it has not yet accumulated sufficient culture to stay. (The amount of culture necessary has varied over the patches - from "any culture at all", to "enough to expand the borders".)
I don't have a problem with this issue. I know ahead of time that if I raze a city before its culture has expanded, it's going to be razed. It's up to me to decide whether the rep hit is worth it or not. Civ3 is full of these decisions - options to be weighed by the player. It's part of the challenge. Removing all the negative options would make the game a lot less interesting IMO.
It could be technology-triggered. For example, in ancient times, a small town was of no value, so raiders often pillaged it. For example, the auto-1-size-raze can be removed by feudalism, or something.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.