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

[kevj42]

well how about if a civilization is fully defeated as in they are out of the game. Give the owner of the capital then the option to raze it if he/she so desires. Since that civilization is out of the game it shouldnt matter anymore at that point and it would give us warmongers a nice way to clean up any presence of that vile, disgusting race we so hate

 

[black_kitten]

Your solution would still remove the option for other players to revive an extinct civilization (no matter if it was once one of the large ones or a city state), which can be an interesting option if this other player (either in multi, or, hypothetically, an AI civ) aims at a diplomacy victory and wants to secure votes this way.

This wouldn't be a problem with a mod that only allows nokmirt's conquest victory, so maybe this would be the ideal solution to satisfy players who want to raze everything without messing with the mechanics of 'normal' gameplay.

 

[Dunduks]

Capitals and City states can be razed - just look to OCC option. So there is only need for another chech-box in advanced options (ok, little bit more because at OCC city is razed at same turn), but gameplay is same as in current version with OCC checked.

So those who are opponents for allowing to raze c/cs have to also ask for removing OCC

(I can't imagine need for razing capitals and I almost never ever conquer city states)

 

[jhaat]

I was just playing a game where I got bad and small starting location. I noticed city state near me got a better spot, and excellent spot if I raze city and build a new one few tiles up. So I tried that and noticed its not possible to raze capitals (or city states) after 920 hours of gameplay.

I was surprised that there wasnt an option or a mod for that and then google told to come here.

Looks like I just have to start a new game.

 

[nokmirt]

Then isn't the fact that you can raze ANY city until it no longer exists 100% unrealistic?

Perhaps, but not impossible. Here is an example...

We know that B-25s were launched off the USS Hornet once in history. We also know Carthage was completely destroyed and the fields sown with salt. If it happened once in history it should be possible in the game. Even if it is an option you can choose to turn off/on if you wish. Therefore IMO, we should be able to raze cities as well.

I really do not see why it is so hard to fathom razing cities. After all, in the game we can even launch Great War bombers from carriers. Which is ridiculous.

Can you imagine a Handley Page, actually launching off the old Langley? A giant slow monster of a plane like that, could never do it. That would be rather amusing to watch though.

 

[Peng Qi]

We also know Carthage was completely destroyed and the fields sown with salt.

That just prevented it from quickly becoming a major city again. People still lived in the area, but the fields weren't fertile enough for a short time to support a large population. It would be the civ equivalent of pillaging. I mean think about it; we salt our roads every winter, and this has not decimated our cities.

 

[nokmirt]

That just prevented it from quickly becoming a major city again. People still lived in the area, but the fields weren't fertile enough for a short time to support a large population. It would be the civ equivalent of pillaging. I mean think about it; we salt our roads every winter, and this has not decimated our cities.

Just because a city is destroyed, does not mean a new one cannot built in the same place. How many levels of Troy were there? Nine, if I am not mistaken.

A city can be raised to the ground already in CiV. Why can't a capital? It does not make sense that we cannot do this. Just because the capital is the seat of power, does not mean it cannot be destroyed like any other city. What does it have a force field around it or something?

On top of that Peng Qi, do you not realize that salting the earth is a symbolic gesture to curse or prevent re-inhabitation of a conquered city. The Romans did not have the technology to initiate herbicidal warfare. The amount of salt they would need to concentrate into one area, to damage crops, was beyond their ability. When someone says, salting the earth or sowing the fields with salt, means we've utterly finished them. They are no more. This is a harsh statement, which means they have been completely dominated and are no longer a threat. It does not mean genocide, to the point those people do not exist anymore.

So, that is why us salting our roads in the winter has no chance of decimating our cities.

 

[bcaiko]

A city can be raised to the ground already in CiV. Why can't a capital?

This is an instance of the game doing something for gameplay, not realism. If CityStates or Capitals could be raised, Domination (already the easiest Victory type on most maps) would become even easier, and anyone going for Diplomatic could be easily screwed. For balance purposes, this rule was set.

I'm not personally opposed to a button being added to advanced options, but I would never play a multiplayer game allowing it. It's just too cheesy. And among the things to whine about in this game, I'm surprised this is the thread that gets ressurected.

 

[woodshadows]

I hate 'victory conditions', in a lot of ways. this is one area where the victory condition trumps gameplay. i used to really enjoy being able to build a palace in another city to move my capital, that had flavour. say my capital was some barren wasteland but i managed to build an army and took out some amazing Thebes city full of wonders, it was great to then transfer my capital over to that city. The same for razing cities and citystates.

 

[nokmirt]

This is an instance of the game doing something for gameplay, not realism. If CityStates or Capitals could be raised, Domination (already the easiest Victory type on most maps) would become even easier, and anyone going for Diplomatic could be easily screwed. For balance purposes, this rule was set.

I'm not personally opposed to a button being added to advanced options, but I would never play a multiplayer game allowing it. It's just too cheesy. And among the things to whine about in this game, I'm surprised this is the thread that gets ressurected.

That is not true if you add a new victory condition. The domination victory for this game never should have been added anyway. They should have domination victory, where you have to conquer a certain percentage of the map. NOT CAPITALS!

See the following...

Domination Victory

Domination victory is achieved when more than 66% of the landmass and culture are in your possesion.

Conquest Victory

Just like Space Race Victory it never changed since civ 1. As soon as you eliminate all other civilizations you will be named victor of the game.

This is how it should be. Capitals are just a hindrance, and they truly mean nothing. The way to win should be to destroy the enemy army, not the enemy capital.

Did taking Moscow do any good for Napoleon when he captured it in 1812? No!

Did Alexander have to march into Babylon to defeat Darius? No, he destroyed the Persian Army at Arbela first. Gaugamela if you wish.

Did the burning of Washington lose the War of 1812 for the Americans? No, again, no.

In most cases when the capital is taken, the army of that nation is destroyed and therefore cannot defend the capital. But taking a capital should not knock a civ out of the game. You should have to break their military. How about the campaign of 1805. Napoleon marches into Vienna, yet the Austrian and russian armies remained undefeated. Taking Vienna did not win the war. The annihilation of the allied armies at the battle of Austerlitz did. right?


You do not need to keep capitals around for game balance. The rule was never set in any other civ game, it does not need to be set here.

Civ 3, as an example, has a diplomatic victory as well, but you can raze capitals. So what you said about diplomatic victory really makes no sense. I feel that some things in the game should be based on reality. Downplaying the importance of capitals should be one.

This is one thing they can do and should do to fix this game. Make a palace building available again. That you can pick and choose whee you want your capital to be. Not where the game says it has to be. Remember we should be in control of our empire not the game. This is the one huge misconception in the design of ciV. Not being able to move our capital if we wish. It would be easy to fix.

Then you say the domination would be too easy. Try having to conquer all civs completely to win. Then tell me what is hard to accomplish.

A poll for this would be interesting. I guarantee that traditional players would agree with me. Noobs, well, they would agree with you.

I hate 'victory conditions', in a lot of ways. this is one area where the victory condition trumps gameplay. i used to really enjoy being able to build a palace in another city to move my capital, that had flavour. say my capital was some barren wasteland but i managed to build an army and took out some amazing Thebes city full of wonders, it was great to then transfer my capital over to that city. The same for razing cities and citystates.

There, you have it. I completely agree. Things change during a game. Based on those changes, or even our own choice, we should be able to reorganize our empire, any way we decide. That includes moving our capital.

Think of how dynamic the game would become again. The AIs could move their capital as well. This would make the game tons more interesting. The more choices there are the more interesting the game becomes. You all can see that is why Gods and Kings really eclipses CiV vanilla. There is more involved in the game, which makes it not so boring. Can you imagine how great it could become? Think about it.

 

[woodshadows]

most of the time i dont even play for 'victory conditions', i just jump into a game and see where it takes me, more often than not it leads to a domination type scenario, but if i were really aiming for a domination 'victory' i would just aim for capitals and win the game, or do what some people do, wait for the ai to conquer a bunch of capitals, then take their capital. instead i enjoy more to actually try to build an empire, which means secure borders on the coast, etc, rather than drilling my way towards a capital to satisfy some 'victory conditions'. the whole idea of there being a 'goal' to human history, is kind of naive, weakens roleplaying elements of the game (including the whole concept of having ai's behave like players trying to satisfy victory conditions), and creates some rather dull experiences. it's like they tried to overlap a 'goal oriented' layer on top of what is essentially a sandbox type building game. the problem is, these 'goals' are pretty dull to achieve, sitting around with a couple cities all game building cultural buildings? building a spaceship? saving gold to buy city states for diplomatic victory? sooo boring. domination is kind of fun but the concept of having to be the last civ in possession of your capital makes it too easy and causes players to not bother to try to actually 'conquer the world', as it's easier to just skip most of the cities on the map and target capitals.

 

[bcaiko]

They should have domination victory, where you have to conquer a certain percentage of the map. NOT CAPITALS!

What you describe could potentially happen very early in the game, even faster than the current domination victory (which is the victory that can happen fastest ATM). Your proposal would have to be very carefully balanced. Peaceful players are already irked by how much power military might carries in the current game.

Nevertheless, your arguement doesn't hold weight, as no such victory condition has been added. And, in the current game, the reasons for disallowing raising of capitals and city states still holds.

I do agree with you, however, that the game itself could (and would have to) be changed and updated to allow raising of Capitals. As it is, though, the rules are fine as they are.

 

[nokmirt]

What you describe could potentially happen very early in the game, even faster than the current domination victory (which is the victory that can happen fastest ATM). Your proposal would have to be very carefully balanced. Peaceful players are already irked by how much power military might carries in the current game.

Nevertheless, your arguement doesn't hold weight, as no such victory condition has been added. And, in the current game, the reasons for disallowing raising of capitals and city states still holds.

I do agree with you, however, that the game itself could (and would have to) be changed and updated to allow raising of Capitals. As it is, though, the rules are fine as they are.

Certainly I agree.

The reason we post ideas like razing capitals or separate VCs is so the devs can read and see our ideas.

I think they perhaps should leave the standard game alone. However, they should consider adding an option for a conquest victory game. So, the game would have just the one VC which would be conquest. Taking over more than 66% of the map in order to win.

 

[rf900]

Done via DLL mod, notice it is not the last DLL with the latest hotfix as the SDK has not been updated.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=20447

 

[Socratatus]

I`ve not read the whole thread, so forgive me if I repeat someone else, but couldn`t they have had the reviving of dead Civs done in a similar way to the Total war games? have them pop up if an existing Civ has a rebellion and allow the rebel to re-establish the dead Civ? Rebel Greeks establish a new Greek city?

Or even have the dead Civ still live on as long as one unit remains alive and the Player can GIVE it a free settlers to help it re-establish itself?

In fact, there`s an option in the Civ 5 where Civs don`t die, even when you wipe out their capital unless you destroy every single unit. It`s like the Leader runs away and travels with his army. I had this option on once and it was hard to wipe him out because he had one carrier left and kept running away where i couldn`t find him.

 

[Dlistex]

Gotta LOVE people telling you what you should like or not.

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

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...

This applies to everyone else who thinks they are right to go around telling people what they should like or not.... in a GAME.

This argument as a dumb as say - You shouldn't put carrots and mushrooms in salmon pie because the original reciepe wasn't intended that way.

Look, if I want to play a game a certain way, add arbitrary rules or remove restrictions to make it more fun to ME, it's none of your damn business. It's not your business at any place, any time, any circumstance to tell people what they should like or not and what they should want or not.

You can argue the feasibility and how it would affect the game, but arguing about how one should (want to) interact and PLAY a GAME (you seem to forget that it's a game), no. Go home, you're drunk. It's none of your business.
Moderator Action:
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Seriously, if I like to burn all the things because I feel sadistic and/or just think it's fun, it's none of your damn business.

Did I say that it's not your business? Because it really is not.



That being said, it would not screw up the domination victory if it was made possible to raze capitals only when the "Complete kills" option is enabled, since there would not be anything left of that civilization to take back the capital anyway. Might as well allow razing them. Or just make it possible only when a civilization has been fully wiped, "Complete kills" enabled or not.

 

[RoundHouse]

Colossal necro, so I apologize for that, but the tenor of this debate was so dumb (shame on you!), and since it was unresolved I couldn't help but add my two cents upon seeing this.

The crux of the counterargument I've seen for this is that it doesn't work in the game mechanics. This is so unconscionably ridiculous that I do not know why anyone was able to propose it without a deep sense of shame.

I can enable one city challenge, I can put myself on a team of 11 and gangbang the 12th player, I can disable all sorts of victory options that break the game utterly and make warlike civilizations clearly superior, I can mess with the map sizes and put gandhi on a tiny little island while my Kamehameha romps around and becomes unstoppable, and I can do a whole number of things in the options that destroy the game.

And razing capitals is where you draw the line? Ok, so restrict achievements or whatever if that really means something. But the idea that an option like this cannot exist when there are a cavalcade of far zanier and more ridiculous boxes to check is foolishness of the highest order, and it is even more insulting to everyone's intelligence that this notion is accompanied by such a smug and condescending tone as it has been in this thread.

 

[Greizer85]

Colossal necro, so I apologize for that, but the tenor of this debate was so dumb (shame on you!), and since it was unresolved I couldn't help but add my two cents upon seeing this.

The crux of the counterargument I've seen for this is that it doesn't work in the game mechanics. This is so unconscionably ridiculous that I do not know why anyone was able to propose it without a deep sense of shame.

I can enable one city challenge, I can put myself on a team of 11 and gangbang the 12th player, I can disable all sorts of victory options that break the game utterly and make warlike civilizations clearly superior, I can mess with the map sizes and put gandhi on a tiny little island while my Kamehameha romps around and becomes unstoppable, and I can do a whole number of things in the options that destroy the game.

And razing capitals is where you draw the line? Ok, so restrict achievements or whatever if that really means something. But the idea that an option like this cannot exist when there are a cavalcade of far zanier and more ridiculous boxes to check is foolishness of the highest order, and it is even more insulting to everyone's intelligence that this notion is accompanied by such a smug and condescending tone as it has been in this thread.

You have an apt username, sir (or ma'am as it may be)! The argument is solid; can't believe I didn't think of this myself.


(that's gameplay being RoundHouse-kicked by realism )

 

[Peng Qi]

Colossal necro, so I apologize for that, but the tenor of this debate was so dumb (shame on you!), and since it was unresolved I couldn't help but add my two cents upon seeing this.

The crux of the counterargument I've seen for this is that it doesn't work in the game mechanics. This is so unconscionably ridiculous that I do not know why anyone was able to propose it without a deep sense of shame.

I can enable one city challenge, I can put myself on a team of 11 and gangbang the 12th player, I can disable all sorts of victory options that break the game utterly and make warlike civilizations clearly superior, I can mess with the map sizes and put gandhi on a tiny little island while my Kamehameha romps around and becomes unstoppable, and I can do a whole number of things in the options that destroy the game.

And razing capitals is where you draw the line? Ok, so restrict achievements or whatever if that really means something. But the idea that an option like this cannot exist when there are a cavalcade of far zanier and more ridiculous boxes to check is foolishness of the highest order, and it is even more insulting to everyone's intelligence that this notion is accompanied by such a smug and condescending tone as it has been in this thread.

But the obvious logical counter-argument then is that if any zany condition someone wants should be added, where does it end? And what would razing capitols and city states ADD to the game? I can clearly delineate what would be added by every other thing you listed. I can't think of one way razing city states and capitols would actually add to the game other than to satisfy some peoples' obsession over perfection in city placement, and that's not part of the game.

 

[Greizer85]

But the obvious logical counter-argument then is that if any zany condition someone wants should be added, where does it end?

It doesn't. The more options the better. Of course resources should be directed to the most reasonable additions (ones that satisfy the most fans and aren't too hard to implement). This one's an easy switch, so should be done pronto.

And what would razing capitols and city states ADD to the game? I can clearly delineate what would be added by every other thing you listed. I can't think of one way razing city states and capitols would actually add to the game other than to satisfy some peoples' obsession over perfection in city placement, and that's not part of the game.

Says who? You? On what authority?

What would it add, you ask? Enemies driven before me; women's lament! My justification is as old as the human race: pure xenophobic blood-lust! Just because the game is called 'Civilization' doesn't mean I'm not entitled to indulge my inherent barbaric tendencies every now and then. Better that Sparta or Beijing burns than the local news stand or automarket, right? The capitals are the juiciest targets, so to deny them is just being prudish. There's nothing like the smell of a razed capital in the morning. Smells like... Victory!


The 'obsession' (which is true with me as well) about perfect city placement is perfectly valid as well. It's just another playstyle, as old as the series itself. I'm sure the real reason Rome razed Carthage was because it was one tile away from the ocean and not next to a mountain...

Last but not least (I'm not sure whether I've mentioned this before), stupid, arbitrary rules like this needlessly detract from the immersive experience that the game's meant to provide. The second I take over a capital and the 'raze' button is not there, I stop being Alexander and start being plain old me again, torn from my great kingdom back into the drab apartment I spend my days cooped up in. Let the lab-rat have its heroin I say! Spill the gas and let us get this party started!

"In my mind's eye my thoughts light fires in your cities capitals!"
- Charles Manson, after realizing that you cannot raze capitals in Civ V