New Ability - Sacking Cities

[lovett]

Ok but if the city has a stockpile of cash which is slowly built up, and you did not receive exp for sacking the city, or capturing it, then there would be no benefit to keep sacking it turn after turn, unless you wanted to keep knocking back their production, which is possibly a good reason to.

I think meece was suggesting that one would first sack a city -for the gold- and then capture it, since the sacking wouldn't have adversely affected said city more then capturing does. Thus, one would have both a big lump of gold, and a city.

 

[Scilly_guy]

Ok but what I am suggesting is that each city has a big wad of cash and you can either take it and leave the city in tact, take the gold and raise the city, or take the city along with the gold, either way you would get the same amount of gold. The other option when sacking it would be to destroy buildings or progress on buildings, maybe all the things spies can do.

 

[Badhron]

Perhaps after invading a city a sack option could be added to the keep and raze options. Sack would give the same amount of gold as with the other options, but destroy all buildings, the current production, and possibly some population depending on the city size. As lovett said there could be a large unhappiness penalty if you capture the city soon after.

 

[Scilly_guy]

probably possible as a mod, you could just add the spys abilities, of course it would just require u to be at was with the civ. That way each unit that u sack the city with would get an option, destroy a building, steal treasury, poison water, spread culture (not so sure, or steal technology). However there should be an almost certain chance of success for destroying and poisoning

 

[Endure]

What if you want to sack the city and/or ransom it but the original owner doesn't want it back?

 

[Badhron]

What if you want to sack the city and/or ransom it but the original owner doesn't want it back?

The idea of sacking is that an army would invade the city, take all valuable resources and then leave without taking control of the city. Technically this means that the owner never loses control. I guess when your city is sacked there could be a prompt asking if you want to keep the city or disband it.

 

[Endure]

The idea of sacking is that an army would invade the city, take all valuable resources and then leave without taking control of the city. Technically this means that the owner never loses control. I guess when your city is sacked there could be a prompt asking if you want to keep the city or disband it.

I guess I just don't see how it could be implemented much differently then razing the city.

Who wants a city back that has been stripped of everything and has nothing but a bunch of pissed off citizens because they've been sacked?

Edit: Not to mention it'd be pretty easy to abuse the sacking of cities I would think.

 

[Badhron]

If it has a valuable resource they would want it back.

 

[Scilly_guy]

The could be an option to disown a city perhaps and turn it into a barbarian state, or maybe as with overseas colonies you could put another leader incharge of it. Chances are though that you would want any city you have, but it is true that occasionally you want to amputate.

 

[Endure]

If it has a valuable resource they would want it back.

Maybe.

But why take back what you obviously can't defend if you lost it in the first place? Your just ripe to lose it again. (Either to the same civ or another civ)

 

[buffalo6542]

The could be an option to disown a city perhaps and turn it into a barbarian state, or maybe as with overseas colonies you could put another leader incharge of it. Chances are though that you would want any city you have, but it is true that occasionally you want to amputate.

but wouldnt u just take it if it wer barb state?

 

[Scilly_guy]

Like I say, there might be a case when you want to amputate a city, perhaps you have grown too fast and your economy is struggling, or perhaps you have the Great Wall and you want to encourage the barbarians to cause problems for other civs.

 

[rysmiel]

Like I say, there might be a case when you want to amputate a city, perhaps you have grown too fast and your economy is struggling, or perhaps you have the Great Wall and you want to encourage the barbarians to cause problems for other civs.

The solution to this, IMO, is to re-enable city trading from vanilla Civ 3.