no raze city option bug

bamboothief

Chieftain
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
9
I just conquered a city-state city, but there were only annex and puppet option, there is no raze option.
 
you can't destroy city-state or capitols per the manual.

working as intended.
 
This game rule is very stupid tbh... There is no reason for no raze for city-state city. I don't mind if if these cities are placed at good location, but most of these cities are placed at very bad location.
 
The reason you can't raze them is to preserve their importance for the Diplomatic Victory conditions. So no, it's not entirely arbitrary.
 
The reason you can't raze them is to preserve their importance for the Diplomatic Victory conditions. So no, it's not entirely arbitrary.

I think you are missing the point of the complaints. People don't like it when control is taken away from them just for the sake of preserving some game rules, doing that is just bad design.

What if I don't want to go through the effort of dealing with that city state and risk being thrown into a war with other Civs who seek to liberate it and just want to destroy it thus solving my problem once and for all?

Forbidding the player to destroy city states simply because it doesn't fit into the designers vision of how the game is suppose to play out is just fake difficulty more then anything else.

See this link for information on fake difficulty: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FakeDifficulty

Disabling the city states doesn't solve the problem either, since players would like to play with them just without the stupid limitations.
 
Even stones know this rule is the most idiot rule ever made in a pc game story, period.

They want to discourage the wild conquer of enemies cities doing this way but Firaxians have just done the worst error they may have in the earth story.

That's sad, unfair and uncoordinated with the civ philosophy, that's just a really f+++++ way of massaging their poor and weak ego.
 
There was never any reason to forbid players from razing city states for gameplay reasons. For the victory conditions they could have simply allowed players to rebuild razed city states with a special settler mission. You would have to clear the land first of any cities built after the razing, or capture any nearby city controlling the territory. The people of the rebuilt city state would of course be very greatful for having a homeland again. There's even historical precedent for something like this.

France razes Oslo, and builds Lyons 2 tiles away from it. If I want to bring Oslo back, I'll need to build a settler, bring it to Oslo's old location, and clear the hex of foreign control. I can either raze Lyons to make room for the city state, or capture Lyons and give some of my newly conquered territory for the city state's use.
 
There was never any reason to forbid players from razing city states for gameplay reasons. For the victory conditions they could have simply allowed players to rebuild razed city states with a special settler mission.

Yes, that's one of the possible solutions, for capitals as well. Could be modded quite soon.
 
There was never any reason to forbid players from razing city states for gameplay reasons. For the victory conditions they could have simply allowed players to rebuild razed city states with a special settler mission. You would have to clear the land first of any cities built after the razing, or capture any nearby city controlling the territory. The people of the rebuilt city state would of course be very greatful for having a homeland again. There's even historical precedent for something like this.

perfect
 
so is there any way to fix this? a mod or something? or can i change it myself?
 
Top Bottom