Please let me raze cities!

[alj]

Pretty please. I don't care if someone might want to come along and liberate the fair people of Bucharest, or that the city I just conquered happened to be built at the start of the game. It's deep in the middle of a tundra wasteland with no useful resources and I would be so so happy if I could just see it reduced to a smouldering ruin.

 

[Scramble]

You can raze cities. Just not city states or capitals.

 

[alj]

You can raze cities. Just not city states or capitals.

That's exactly my point. I want to be able to raze ANY city I want. I don't want there to be any cities considered so 'special' that I can never get rid of them.

Note I hope this doesn't sound like I'm whining because I do LOVE this game, this is just one little thing that really bugs me.

 

[The Leviathan]

The game usually spawns capitals and city states in great spots surrounding by strategic resouces or luxuries. Plus the game simply requires you to not to be able to raze them, for gameplay reasons.

It's really not that big of a deal

 

[alj]

The game usually spawns capitals and city states in great spots surrounding by strategic resouces or luxuries. Plus the game simply requires you to not to be able to raze them, for gameplay reasons.

It's really not that big of a deal

Aye, but it's a choice I appreciate having, usually when I want to wipe out/cripple a particular civ but don't want to overexpand in doing so.

I realise the domination victory depends on capital cities being unrazeable, which is one reason why I prefer Civ IV-style domination/conquest.

 

[Scramble]

Raze every city except the capital. Why would you want to raze the capital anyway, the start locations are almost always amazing.

 

[dannythefool]

I suppose not being able to raze city states makes the decision harder whether you should attack them. Because if some other civ comes along and liberates it, you just gave them an ally, a bunch of resources and other benefits, and an automatic UN vote.

That said, I'd prefer being able to raze every city, too.

 

[NZV]

If you don't want it, you can just give it to other civs. They'll generally give you a fair bit for a city. Even if they don't give you anything, you can still gift it to them. Which I did extensively my last game, gifting unwanted cities to civs that were very far from said city just so that they would piss off neighboring nations. Makes them happy, and keeps the rest of the world angry at each other instead of you. Askia liked me so much that he voted for me in the UN election rather than himself.

 

[gunter]

One of my favorite plasure into past series was to annihilate an enemy capitol city just to show them my power.

I hope a modder will fix that but I am pretty sure it will I know modders are talented indeed.

 

[poncratias]

You guys don't get it:

We should be able to raze any city if we want to!

It doesnt matter if its a super spot or anything!!

What is this bullshijt???

 

[Seanirl]

Ya, I hate this kind of artificial restriction in a game.

 

[The Leviathan]

You guys don't get it:

We should be able to raze any city if we want to!

It doesnt matter if its a super spot or anything!!

What is this bullshijt???

so you just want to raze simply because you want the freedom instead of having an awesome gameplay mechanic... okay sure why not?

 

[keisukekun]

well some area arent very good Ive found some city states on islands with absolutely no production tiles. only good thing they had was pearls lol

 

[hardcore_gamer]

Has anyone tried to enable the "complete kills" option that requires the player to take EVERY AI city in order to win a domination victory (thus eliminating the need to keep capitals for game balance purposes) and then see if he can raze capitals?

I know it sounds like a longshot but its worth checking out to see if it works or not.

 

[The Leviathan]

Has anyone tried to enable the "complete kills" option that requires the player to take EVERY AI city in order to win a domination victory (thus eliminating the need to keep capitals for game balance purposes) and then see if he can raze capitals?

I know it sounds like a longshot but its worth checking out to see if it works or not.

Complete kills only makes it so you have to kill every single unit in addition to every single city of a civ's in order to take them out of the game.

it doesn't' change domination victories

 

[mjdgoldeneye]

Ya, I hate this kind of artificial restriction in a game.

It's not an artificial restriction, it's a fundamental aspect of one of the victory conditions.

The domination victory requires all the capital cities to be captured, including your own.

Preventing someone from winning via domination by destroying their capital is far more of a silly restriction than not being able to destroy a city in an amazingly beneficial location.

Also, if a civ that's reliant on city-states (like Greece) is in play, it doesn't seem fair to be allowed to just wipe every city-state off the map.

 

[Vanadium]

the city states are definately not always in good spots ...i currently own a tundra city now with no production and no river ...but i have WHALES! lol (i also have whales in another city )

 

[Baleog]

Hi,
While it is ussually not clever to raze a city I completely agree that you should be allowed to.

Firstly because we should be able to do as we like as a civ leader.

Secondly because this is historically accurate. Alexander the Great razed Persepolis. Apparently he regretted his decision and the city was later rebuilt but the fact is that it was razed at the time.

 

[Rexflex]

It is part of the game mechanic as mentioned before, but it doesn't necessarily have to be so. I prefer having an option for total conquest victory as a game option instead of being limited to domination for my war mongering all the time. I'm sure that there will be a mod sooner or later, but pending that this is one of my outstanding peeves.

 

[cccv]

Raze every city except the capital. Why would you want to raze the capital anyway, the start locations are almost always amazing.

Because he doesn't want to have to divert half his military to defend a city halfway across the map? Just a guess.