Please just let us raze city states and capitals......

[hardcore_gamer]

WHY doesn't Firaxis let us destory capitals and city states?

I understand that they effect victory conditions, but it should still be an option at the game setup. Civ 4 had no problems with letting you destroy every city.

Its extremely annoying when there is a city state for example that you want to remove so that you can create your own city near its location but you can't because the game mechanics don't allow you to raze city states.

I think an option to raze city states should be added at the game setup. And some kind of a new victory condition is also needed that makes it so that you can raze enemy capitals as well.

Thoughts?

 

[civnoob13]

I definitely prefer the AI not being able to raze CSs because I like liberating them - as for capitals, being able to raze them would in my opinion make domination too easy (as the AI won't be able to take back their capital, and it's already seemingly the go-to victory for most players).

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I do not play CiV even though I plan on doing so but you are right. And from what I have learned so far there are more ******ed restrictions like this...

 

[Adjuvant]

It's good the way it is.

 

[PhilBowles]

I think that there should be a general option, when you take a settler to a ruin in the landscape (which already defaults to restoring the existing city name), to rebuild the old city, which will restore some of its buildings. That way you can restore a capital or CS "to life", and it will go back to counting as a civ's original capital. There will then be no need to prevent them being razed.

In terms of CSes there's no longer a reason for the razing restriction to still exist, since they don't count as capitals for victory conditions and a CS's vote is now lost for good if the city is captured (and not liberated) anyway, so the razing restriction isn't relevant to diplomatic victory. The only trouble is the above 'fix' doesn't work with CSes, since they won't have any other settlers to rebuild the city and their abilities will be lost for good. However, this already happens if a CS is annexed by Austria through diplomatic marriage (losing abilities/votes for good, that is), so it doesn't appear to be sacrosanct.

I definitely prefer the AI not being able to raze CSs because I like liberating them - as for capitals, being able to raze them would in my opinion make domination too easy (as the AI won't be able to take back their capital, and it's already seemingly the go-to victory for most players).

Unless it's Attila or a city-state, the AI doesn't raze cities anyway. I'm not sure why people want a raze option for capitals for anything other than flavour and consistency with other cities, since there are no game advantages whatsoever to ever razing a city - any city you capture that you don't want you can just give to another civ to improve diplomatic relations. If you want a city in the location of an existing CS, as in the original poster's example, then in order to raze it you have to capture it anyway, and it's clearly more useful to keep a developed city than to found a new one on the same spot - usually this will be the case even if you want the new city in a slightly different position nearby, since the captured city will have a bigger city radius.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Well i think even after razing the city state there could be some chance that it could reappear or some new one in its place if the location is left unoccupied long enough.
Another thing could be perhaps that all civ could initially start as city states or say nomadic civ and only after achieving some status/fulfilling certain conditions they could become full fledged civ. Lets say that first ten or so to fulfill the prerequisite will move on and the rest remain as city states or such. But thats another topic - ciVI perhaps?

 

[hardcore_gamer]

You guys are not correct in that there are no reasons to raze cities. Sometimes cities are located in bad spots so you want to destory them and create a new city close by at a more ideal location.

 

[narmox]

I also would like an option to make my armies never lose battles, and to never have anything go wrong for my empire so that nothing can ruin my plans!

I'm sorry if I'm being overly sarcastic, but it's part of the game that not everything works out perfectly, and you gotta deal with it, with the good and with the setbacks... It's part of the fun

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I also would like an option to make my armies never lose battles, and to never have anything go wrong for my empire so that nothing can ruin my plans!

I'm sorry if I'm being overly sarcastic, but it's part of the game that not everything works out perfectly, and you gotta deal with it, with the good and with the setbacks... It's part of the fun

Sure we will deal with it - we can handle that. The question is different though...

 

[Adjuvant]

Come on, how can you be a "hardcore_gamer" and feel the need to change a "baseline" rule like this?

That's humor, not meant to be mean at all. Use problem-solving and work within the system. I do everyday.

 

[drakar8888]

Yep, razing city-states and capitals should definitely be an option. I like doing a total world domination and then burning down all the cities on the entire planet simultaneously. Having a few colored spots remain on the map breaks the pattern and ruins the fun

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Come on, how can you be a "hardcore_gamer" and feel the need to change a "baseline" rule like this?

That's humor, not meant to be mean at all. Use problem-solving and work within the system. I do everyday.

Right. Either work with the system. Or try to change the system. Or work with the system to change it. Or abandon the system. Have I forgotten something?

 

[Adjuvant]

You really can't "approach the game with the foundational understanding these are the rules"?

Come on, let me change tic tac toe where your x's count as my O's, or in chess where I get to keep captured pieces...

 

[HaiQ]

I would not to do it even if what you said is allowed.
Aha, i'm new! Hello everbody!

 

[PhilBowles]

You guys are not correct in that there are no reasons to raze cities. Sometimes cities are located in bad spots so you want to destory them and create a new city close by at a more ideal location.

Firstly, this is very rarely the case with either capitals or city-states, since capitals tend to automatically spawn in good locations. Secondly, it's at most a three-tile distance - which can be frustrating but is rarely critical.

 

[JanghanHong]

I would not to do it even if what you said is allowed.
Aha, i'm new! Hello everbody!

That's the Spirit!

 

[Adjuvant]

Aha, i'm new! Hello everbody!

Welcome.

 

[jjkrause84]

I also would like an option to make my armies never lose battles, and to never have anything go wrong for my empire so that nothing can ruin my plans!

I'm sorry if I'm being overly sarcastic, but it's part of the game that not everything works out perfectly, and you gotta deal with it, with the good and with the setbacks... It's part of the fun

Dude, he's not talking about something going wrong for him....he is talking about gamey limitations instituted because the dev team could not create a more resilient model (which would allow more freedom, and which should ALWAYS be the goal in wide-ranging strategy games).

 

[Bakspatel]

1 - The AI does burn down cities, and not just Attila.
2 - The capital is the most important city in a civilization; its only fair to give the player or the AI the opportunity to capture it back. If you hate it so much then rename it or let the population die out until its population is back at 1.
3 - Allowing CS to be burned down can be severely abused, if you tend to lose them then you can raze them to prevent others of liberating that civ.

 

[Callonia]

3 - Allowing CS to be burned down can be severely abused, if you tend to lose them then you can raze them to prevent others of liberating that civ.

Fair but, in my 700+ hours of playing civ 5, I have never seen AI liberate city states not even once.