How to encourage razing of cities?

[Dawnpromise]

In the current state of things, when capturing an enemy city the only options players seem to consider are to either annex or puppet the city. In a majority of cases razing a city is only reserved for extreme cases (Such as a poorly settled city or one that's blocking your own settlers).

I feel what we need is some manner of incentive to making razing cities more appealing. Perhaps some manner of empire wide bonus yields per turn spent razing? Thoughts?

 

[vuko]

Something like enslaving with a few options.

Every turn one population from the city is moved to one of your cities and increasing your pop.

Or "slave workers" that boost your production for an amount of time.

 

[Moi Magnus]

For me, just reduce the diplomatic penalty for razing cities and I will raze most cities I capture in my non-warmongering games. Forward settled cities usually annoy me more than they interest me.
However, I feel like it is intended that we should not raze cities, and that's why it is not interesting.
Maybe that's a decision too difficult to understand for the AI, so making it 'bad' does not penalize the AI for not razing cities.

 

[ElliotS]

I personally always liked the Whoward's mod that would spawn Refugees as a city burns, and think it would be even better with our current partisan system. (That's what the rebels are called, right?)

It's not every turn, but you can choose where they go.

Even if that's added, puppeting will be better 90% of the time. I mean, it's free science and culture at a small happiness cost.

 

[Gazebo]

I personally always liked the Whoward's mod that would spawn Refugees as a city burns, and think it would be even better with our current partisan system. (That's what the rebels are called, right?)

It's not every turn, but you can choose where they go.

Even if that's added, puppeting will be better 90% of the time. I mean, it's free science and culture at a small happiness cost.

Razing already creates hostile forces.

 

[Psikus]

I think something like a permanent happiness penalty to the original owner when you finish razing a city could be interesting. Razing would be a thing you do to hurt your enemies, rather than to get any particular benefit.

By the way, does the AI ever choose to raze a city? Off the top of my head, I don't remember ever getting one of my cities razed.

 

[SuperNoobCamper]

I think something like a permanent happiness penalty to the original owner when you finish razing a city could be interesting. Razing would be a thing you do to hurt your enemies, rather than to get any particular benefit.

By the way, does the AI ever choose to raze a city? Off the top of my head, I don't remember ever getting one of my cities razed.

once I have stumbled upon a runaway Assyria leading with +20 techs that nuked, captured and razed almost every single city it captured.
the poor Bismark and Ghandi did not stand a chance against his nukes....

 

[Gazebo]

I think something like a permanent happiness penalty to the original owner when you finish razing a city could be interesting. Razing would be a thing you do to hurt your enemies, rather than to get any particular benefit.

By the way, does the AI ever choose to raze a city? Off the top of my head, I don't remember ever getting one of my cities razed.

Yes they do.

G

 

[De_Genius]

I usually raze all cities unless they are extremely well placed or contain wonders, just to avoid the unhappiness from people other than mine. I can almost always quickly grow a city the same size and with advanced settlers I can get all the basic buildings for free and rush buy the rest.
So any kind of incentive would spur my razing even more... especially the annoying diplomatic penalty

 

[RAuer2]

I have seen the AI raze, can confirm.

For me, razing is not a bad option depending on my policy choices. What I mean is that if I choose Progress then I get food and culture from constructing buildings and gold for citizens being born. I want as much of that as I can get, so I don't mind growing cities from scratch. If I follow up with Industry, then constructing buildings gets me gold and the deal gets more efficient. Throw in Banks and money invested into buildings becomes science and the deal gets more efficient, and so on.

I don't mind razing at all depending on my policy choices and, of course, if I am willing to risk the diplomatic effects of the warmonger penalties.

 

[ElliotS]

Razing already creates hostile forces.

No, refugees are worker-type units that spawn and can be used on a city like a missionary to provide +1 pop. They don't spawn each turn of burning (more like ~ every 2 population burned), and can only be used once.

I know it already creates hostile forces, but having friendly ones spawn as well to resettle makes sense and would be cool.

 

[Tekamthi]

No, refugees are worker-type units that spawn and can be used on a city like a missionary to provide +1 pop. They don't spawn each turn of burning (more like ~ every 2 population burned), and can only be used once.

I know it already creates hostile forces, but having friendly ones spawn as well to resettle makes sense and would be cool.

I have this on a list to try someday, and can at least confirm having understood whoward's description this way, too. Can you confirm whether its working w/ VP currently as an add-in?

 

[ElliotS]

I have this on a list to try someday, and can at least confirm having understood whoward's description this way, too. Can you confirm whether its working w/ VP currently as an add-in?

Haven't tried it lol. ^.^ You wanna test it?

 

[lunker]

If we're going to make razing more appealing, we can add some kind of bonus if the player selects razing directly after city capture. As it stands you can just annex a city and then raze it for the same results but with an invested courthouse in case you change your mind.

 

[tu_79]

Razing could be appealing if the population spreads. You get extra pop in cities you like, then you settle with a coloner in a better place. With a big happiness penalty so the player avoids wars during the process. It should not be worthy when said city has more infrastructure than a new settled city.

 

[Gazebo]

Razing should not be appealing. It is a means of punishing a player you are at war with by destroying their city they invested in, in the event you don't want/or need the additional upkeep.

G

 

[Enginseer]

Razing should not be appealing. It is a means of punishing a player you are at war with by destroying their city they invested in, in the event you don't want/or need the additional upkeep.

G

If we're going to make razing more appealing, we can add some kind of bonus if the player selects razing directly after city capture. As it stands you can just annex a city and then raze it for the same results but with an invested courthouse in case you change your mind.

This however should be looked at. There's no downfall to immediately annexing the city since you can just raze it if you feel like the invested courthouse just isn't worth it.

 

[Blue Ghost]

This however should be looked at. There's no downfall to immediately annexing the city since you can just raze it if you feel like the invested courthouse just isn't worth it.

There’s no upside either. If you intend to raze a city, why not start immediately? Would give the original owner less time to save it.

 

[tu_79]

Hmm, a no man's land strategy. I wonder if it's something worth trying.

 

[ElliotS]

Razing should not be appealing. It is a means of punishing a player you are at war with by destroying their city they invested in, in the event you don't want/or need the additional upkeep.

G

I don't know if we shouldn't question that idea. Razing in it's current situation is super-unlikely because puppet cities give benefits to you and deny and enemy that land. It's extremely rare that razing is a good idea imo. (Only when the city is so bad it's not worth puppeting and is actually detrimental to any owner of it.)

I think it might be worth it to make Razing a good idea a little more often, depending on the opinion of the general community.

I think having a burning city give a "Slaves/Refugees" unit for every 2 pop burnt that can be used on a city to grant +1 pop would be a good idea.