Pillaging

[LouLong]

When units pillage terrain improvements, your civ should get a benefit.

I was thinking that pillaging troops would not need upkeep for their pillaging turn, kind of living off the land... or some gomd (like 1 or 2) for each pillaging action....

Maybe that should stop after nationalism ?....

 

[mrtn]

I like the idea lou, but I fear the AI wouldn't like it, or maybe like it too much.

 

[LBPB]

I've already think of this, that pillaging should get you some gold, but your idea is much better !

 

[TerraHero]

the entire idea behind pilaging is getting loot, money, cash.

 

[nalves]

that could work, and I don't think that it would need much worke in coding. In the pillage routine give one gold to the pillager civ to pay the upkeep of the unit.

 

[WillJ]

And another idea: When you pillage a square, if a citizen is working on it, the citizen is killed. Think of it as your units going out into the fields and the farmers, valiantly defending themselves with hoes and shovels, are killed.

Now, you might point out that a citizen can't work a square that has an enemy unit in it, but mutliple-movement-point units can move into a square that a citizen is working (ableit not that turn, but next turn, since it's currently the attacker's turn), and this unit should have a chance to pillage the square and kill the citizen. This is good, because it simulates the farmers being able to run away from the slow units but not the fast ones.

I seriously doubt this can be easily implemented, and that the game makers would even bother; I'm just making suggestions...

 

[cgannon64]

Ahh, living off the land...good idea!

 

[sealman]

you are not really pillaging, it is more like sabatoge. I don't like the idea.

Where does the gold come from, the pillage civ? What happens if they have no gold to give??

 

[nalves]

No the gold would come from the things you stell in the pillage. No civ will lose gold insted they lose a irrigation, a mine, a roas,. ...

 

[WillJ]

I don't like the ideas (except for mine )

About living off the land: Um, how exactly do you live off the land when you're burning and destroying it? It makes more sense to live off the land when you're not pillaging (which also doesn't make much sense) than when you are.

About getting gold: Where do you get the gold from? Destroying irrigation canals, roads, mines, etc. makes money? Never knew. Well, you might be able to take the stuff in mines, and railroad parts, and then sell them, but soldiers aren't equipped for carrying lots of stuff, so you'd have to go back to one of your cities. Not worth it. And you can't really get money from the farmers, considering they're usually dirt poor.

Am I missing something here?

 

[sealman]

you an me both, willj

 

[Ian Beale]

Originally posted by LouLong
When units pillage terrain improvements, your civ should get a benefit.

I was thinking that pillaging troops would not need upkeep for their pillaging turn, kind of living off the land... or some gomd (like 1 or 2) for each pillaging action....

Maybe that should stop after nationalism ?....

Like the idea- you shouldn't just destroy a tile you should exploit it. I think units should have different maintenance costs as it is stupid warriors have the sam upkeep costs as stealth bombers or mech infantry etc..?

 

[Metacomet]

Originally posted by WillJ

About getting gold: Where do you get the gold from? Destroying irrigation canals, roads, mines, etc. makes money? Never knew. Well, you might be able to take the stuff in mines, and railroad parts, and then sell them, but soldiers aren't equipped for carrying lots of stuff, so you'd have to go back to one of your cities. Not worth it. And you can't really get money from the farmers, considering they're usually dirt poor.



You usually can get the gold with pillagin, this was an usual salary for the soldiers until de XIX century. Then I supose that they made money...

 

[Dom Pedro II]

About living off the land: Um, how exactly do you live off the land when you're burning and destroying it? It makes more sense to live off the land when you're not pillaging (which also doesn't make much sense) than when you are.

About getting gold: Where do you get the gold from? Destroying irrigation canals, roads, mines, etc. makes money? Never knew. Well, you might be able to take the stuff in mines, and railroad parts, and then sell them, but soldiers aren't equipped for carrying lots of stuff, so you'd have to go back to one of your cities. Not worth it. And you can't really get money from the farmers, considering they're usually dirt poor.

Am I missing something here?

I think the pillaging can also be interpretted as using up the resources on that tile... pillaging could also mean stealing whatever the army needs to supply itself and then burning the rest.

And as for getting gold... these farms aren't just poor farmers, the lands are run by wealthy land owners... they have nice things, and so the soldiers help themselves . You also have to think of the rural and suburban populations of these squares as well...

But I do like your suggestion as well... don't know that it would be particularly easy to implement.

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by Metacomet
You usually can get the gold with pillagin, this was an usual salary for the soldiers until de XIX century. Then I supose that they made money...

Hmm, I guess you're right. Maybe each pillaging of a square would give that unit a small amount of money, which he keeps until he enters a friendly city, in which that money goes to your treasury. That'd be hard to implement, though, and the no maintenence idea is a good simplified version.

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
And as for getting gold... these farms aren't just poor farmers, the lands are run by wealthy land owners... they have nice things, and so the soldiers help themselves . You also have to think of the rural and suburban populations of these squares as well...

Yeah, I started thinking that too.... On second thought, the idea isn't so bad. But it's not like any of these ideas will affect the game too much; it's probably not worth anything more than an interesting discussion.

 

[LouLong]

Originally posted by WillJ
On second thought, the idea isn't so bad. But it's not like any of these ideas will affect the game too much; it's probably not worth anything more than an interesting discussion.

I disagree and not only because it is my idea :
- it gives another incentive to pillaging (not used so often by AI and human players (MP) alike)
- it is these small things that added together could make the game much more in-depth and give more ways of playing as well as make the game more accurate, historical...

Of course you can disagree.
And I agree there are few chances that it will be implemented (remains an interesting topic though).
BTW of course bombarding would not have that effect.

Actually I thought of different ways to represent that. As much as I like the booty idea, it is not possible until Civ incorporates a stocking feature (gold, resources) and events or actions of units that can have an effect on "administration".

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by LouLong
I disagree and not only because it is my idea :
- it gives another incentive to pillaging (not used so often by AI and human players (MP) alike)

Not much of an incentive. I'd rather move my troops an extra square than get one gold. Of course, maybe it would be more than one gold, but that'd probably be unrealistic.

Originally posted by LouLong
- it is these small things that added together could make the game much more in-depth and give more ways of playing as well as make the game more accurate, historical...

Maybe, but it also might add more complication than fun.

Another thing is, didn't soldiers that pillaged keep the stuff for themselves, instead of it going to the greater good of their civilization?

 

[Xen]

depends on the nation- most ancient med states for instance had pillkage devided up between the commander, troops, and when cities/major villages for tiles in this case, the governments/kings share

 

[Speaker]

If you think of unit upkeep being the cost of feeding the units, then part of pillaging a tile could be stealing food, so the Civ doesn't have to feed it that turn, hence the free maintenance.

 

[fitchn]

While the I do think the concept is good, I could see it being exploited in much the same way as the original forest-plant-and-cut-repeatedly-to-gain-more-sheilds exploit. e.g., get a bunch of settlers on your own land in a square that is not being used by a city, and irrigate-pillage-irrigate-pillage-irigate... well, you get the idea...