ideas of razing cities rule MOD

[bebear]

1. no razing large cities and great culture cities, maybe set no raze city >=8 people or culture>=500 when capture? raze large cities seems not realism...

2. when new conquester getting city control by the end of struggle, the new culture will set to less than 10, it could do a capture/razing check, if the city less than 8 people, it could have an opportunity for AI/player check to raze this city.

3. another idea of owned city razing, when a city sterve down to population 2, a capture/razing check will happen, to see if razing down this hopeless city by AI/player.

just an idea, please comment, and maybe someone with good MOD skill will realize this?

 

[jkp1187]

Dunno. The Khmer Rouge basically trashed Phnom Penh in '75, and it had two million people then. (Latest population figures put its population at around 800,000).

 

[Rabbit_Alex]

There are many cities around the world that have been sacked and rebuilt before. Rome, Constantinople (now Istanbul) and Jerusalem come to mind.

 

[bebear]

we are talking about gameplay, seems human player sudden strike AI huge old city and raize it is not fair, Rome, Constantinople still stand in the world right? maybe the conquester kill many people, but they still settle down in the city and not abandon it.

the rule effect is:

rule 1: when capture an old/big city, it could not be raze at all;

rule 2: when capture and old but small city, it could be raze when several round passed you get control of this city;

 

[bebear]

the effect of rule 3:
that mean if a city in very bad location that AI/player have chance to raze it, not very important rule and seems had to realize, or raize it tho sterve to pop 3? if a city streve from 4 to 3, it's could be consider abandon...


add an idea of rule 4:

4. when a city sterve down to population 1, it will auto destroy, it reflect the way of seige city: when occupy all the tile long enough (maybe need 40 more turn), the city go down but the army remain...

 

[Colonel Kraken]

What would be totally awesome is if someone could modify a python file to make refugees! These population would settle in the nearest cities of their homeland! Even better would be to reflect this when you capture a city. Instead of the people simply starving, they flee! You could have a pop-up that asks if you wish to slaughter the fleeing refugees. If yes, you get some really high "bad-boy" points (e.g. " -5 You slaughtered women and children!"). That would be awesome!

 

[Mylon]

City razing bugs me too. Often when playing against the computer the computer will often, when agressive, just take cities and burn them so even if he looses the war, I still take a _huge_ blow to my civilization. The loss of a city can mean loss of borders to a (different) civilization, a huge amount of "reinvestment" time before I get a decent city again (with a forge, factory, and decent population).

 

[brokguitar]

Love the idea.

1. no razing large cities and great culture cities, maybe set no raze city >=8 people or culture>=500 when capture? raze large cities seems not realism...

Good idea, maybe a step farther and implement with the keep city button with a abandon button instead of raze. This button means 1 pop will be lost every 2 turns. At 0 it would be razed unless recaptured by another civ and they get the option to keep it or abandon it also. This should give the original owner time to RETAKE the captured city without losing all of it

3. another idea of owned city razing, when a city sterve down to population 2, a capture/razing check will happen, to see if razing down this hopeless city by AI/player.

I miss the the good old CANCEL order you can give a settler when pressing the settler button. I hate accidently hitting the settle button instead of move and then being forced to keep the city. At size 1 & 2 pop, you should always have the option to abandon a city. It is a very stupid idea not to have this.