You are able to do this already.
POLL: Should players be able to raze their own cities?
- Thread starter Recursive
- Start date
-
- Tags
- poll raze own city vox populi
You are able to do this already.
Barely. Why have you considered it in the first place?
People kept asking every now and then.
I may still add it as a feature, but it would have to be manually enabled.
I think it should be added, since it enables new gameplay options. For example, you can settle a city for the express purpose of helping you assault an enemy city, then raze that city once you're done. Like a siege camp IRL. Something Civ lacks as-is. It can also let you go all in on the on-growth yields. Build a new city, grow it fast, then raze it so you can do it again. Normally you will run out of space eventually. However this absolutely needs to have some kind of cost or restriction.
notaspambot
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2020
- Messages
- 195
Although I'm not too sold on the razing, I think that having some sort of pseudo-city that produce no yields, but can claim tiles and provide the benefit of friendly territory would be nice. Although citadels already do provide this purpose, somewhat.
Im not sure when I would want this ...
Maybe if I need to secure a spot and is close to pioneers, burn down and resettle.
There are times where I've settled slightly wrong position but another settler and rebuild everything ... is it really worth the trouble?
Maybe if I need to secure a spot and is close to pioneers, burn down and resettle.
There are times where I've settled slightly wrong position but another settler and rebuild everything ... is it really worth the trouble?
That depends on how many things you'd need to rebuild and how better the new location would be.
That gave me an idea. What if resettlement was just moving a city center to another city tile at cost of some production?
Cool idea but it really sounds like something to abuse.
Technically such cities do actually exist. Kiruna in Sweden is one such city that keeps moving, this is due to the extensive mining operation that is taking place in the area. It's still basically in the same area but certain buildings and such keep moving, or being moved I should say since they don't move on their own (more then the earth does in general).
So would the cultural borders move then to or would that be locked? Would it just be the center tile that is moving? Which isn't unheard of either as what is considered to be the center of a town or city sometimes move as the city grows. Still it would probably be a bit weird since the city-center would then probably in a time of war act as some kind of mobile artillery square that you moved into a good position for bombardment or into a bad (or better depending on perspective) position for defense. I guess if you could move it around then you could influence the cultural border growth since you are far more likely to grow to the tiles close to the center then to the ones in the outer rings. Would/Should it be possible to break the city-distance rules? Center-2-Center that is? As Anders note there would probably either way be ample room for abuse. Even if the idea is kind of novel and interesting.
Could be worth it eventually. What if you place a city and then it doesn't grow like you like or it turns out this is a really bad tile later on, or some of your land is stolen by Washington or a Citadel and it's really eating into your land. Then it might be worthwhile to relocate to a tile a few tiles back or in some direction. Or the old "turns out you placed the city 1 tile in the wrong direction for some later discovered strategic resource that is just now out of range".
It's probably always a short time loss but could be a long time plus.
I mean, it will likely take away development time from other things, so that can be a good reason not to implement. Nevertheless, I also think devs should just do whatever they feel passionate about, especially if it's optional.
Similar threads
