new idea?

sercer88

Emperor
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
1,450
Location
MO, USA
Hey guys, I know I said you probably wouldn't see me again, but...well, here I am. And I have an idea for RFC. Sorry if it's been requested before, but I really think it could be a good thing.

See the attached document details, but for a quick overview, I'll say this:

I may view "cities" in civ 4 differently than you, but I think of cities representing a city on the tile, and then also somewhat the surrounding area's cities. Now, when an army comes and razes a city in civ 4, I understand that the city itself can be obliterated. However, what about the surrounding area's citizens? Technically, I guess, they're 'part of' the city that was razed, but I think that's too drastic. So, I propose a new event where a new city can pop up in the BFC of a razed city.

There's a bunch more to it, so...please, read the document (I thought of it earlier when I couldn't connect to the Internet, so typed it onto a document sheet to show you guys later...)
 
I think of cities representing a city on the tile, and then also somewhat the surrounding area's cities

I think so too. I always throught it funny that it takes 3 turns to pillage a town, yet you can raze a metropolis in 1 turn.
 
I thought the mod that forced troops to stay in the city being razed a turn for each population point had it right. It also gave the player a chance to take their city back, which is always important.
 
I just think cities should be razed in the same way towns are pillaged. Just have some kind of "raze" command for all military units, and give them the ability to raze one population point per turn (in addition to buildings, I don't know how that would work though). That way it would follow a more "traditional" method, but still have close to the same effect.
 
I like your suggestion musicfreak, but if you had to occupy, at least temporarily, every city you intended to raise, what impact would that have on stability? Would it have the same stability effect of losing a city?

Imagine conquering the Khmer as China, they always have twice as many cities as they ought to and the only way it is feasible is to raze a few. However China would easily collapse if it had to endure the city loss penalty several times at that stage.
 
I like your suggestion musicfreak, but if you had to occupy, at least temporarily, every city you intended to raise, what impact would that have on stability? Would it have the same stability effect of losing a city?

Imagine conquering the Khmer as China, they always have twice as many cities as they ought to and the only way it is feasible is to raze a few. However China would easily collapse if it had to endure the city loss penalty several times at that stage.
Well, if my suggestion was to actually be implemented, it would be treated the same as when you normally raze a city (in terms of stability). So the stability system would have to be adapted slightly. As-is, you're right, there would be a huge negative effect from it for those civs that raze a lot of cities (Mongolia comes to mind).
 
Ok, well, I see there has been a similar idea floated out before...
but at least maybe someone with experience in python and/or xml could help me write out the possible code so that at least I could play-test it...

maybe?

anyone?
 
- er... I wouldn't even know how to do that!
 
That is a very good idea (although I did stop reading at the technicalities). But when a city spawns, is it automatically building a building as infrastructure or does the Human/AI get control of the city right away?
 
That is a very good idea (although I did stop reading at the technicalities). But when a city spawns, is it automatically building a building as infrastructure or does the Human/AI get control of the city right away?

Thank you zachscape!

If a city spawns, it would be just as if a city was built with a settler, ie: you would have control over it immediately.
 
Top Bottom