Raizing cities

[purger30]

I hope that raize city option will not be in the game. That has ruined CIV 3.

 

[Savage Discipil]

I hope that raize city option will not be in the game. That has ruined CIV 3.

I love razing cities whats wrong with it?

 

[Leprechaune]

Yeah, I like razing... I don't want to take a city a lot of the time I just want to get rid of it.

Nothing worse than taking a city you didn't want only to have it revert to the original culture a few turns later.... Just burn them...

 

[Superkrest]

i love razing cities..but i think it would be cool to retain at least a small part of the border if you are invading that civ...if border isnt connected in x amount of turns..its up for grabs to anyone

 

[Justy]

There is nothing wrong with the option to raize a city. It was a part of history. Its also an effective military strategy. If you can't hold the city then deny its resources to your enemy. It was a great option in civ 3.

 

[dc82]

i think razing cities in modern times, or perhaps after construction of the UN or a certain tech (or gov't setting), shud create either internal dissention or international condemnation. it shudn't be that easy to raze a size 20 city w/ 3 historic wonders.

 

[Savage Discipil]

i think razing cities in modern times, or perhaps after construction of the UN or a certain tech (or gov't setting), shud create either internal dissention or international condemnation. it shudn't be that easy to raze a size 20 city w/ 3 historic wonders.

Who would raise such a good city?

 

[North King]

If it is in, the AI shouldn't raze them randomly.

 

[Justy]

i think razing cities in modern times, or perhaps after construction of the UN or a certain tech (or gov't setting), shud create either internal dissention or international condemnation. it shudn't be that easy to raze a size 20 city w/ 3 historic wonders.

I agree with this. I was speaking about warfare before modern times.

I think that warfare in general should be harder by the age of telecommunications and multimedia. If the world today were like civ games with wars afire across the globe people would be jumping out of buildings on a regular basis. In addition, the statement that "OUR WORDS ARE BACKED BY NUCLEAR WEAPONS!" should have a calming effect on the AI. I'm not eliminate them alltogether in the endgame, just make them more politically unpalatable.

 

[apatheist]

Um, people cared about atrocities before the 20th century. It might not have been so refined an ideal beforehand, and it was often mainly when it happened to people "just like us," but they cared. Actually, with that last, I'm not so sure much has changed.

 

[Justy]

Um, people cared about atrocities before the 20th century. It might not have been so refined an ideal beforehand, and it was often mainly when it happened to people "just like us," but they cared. Actually, with that last, I'm not so sure much has changed.

Not to the same extent of the modern day 24 hour news cycle. Sure people cared, but news traveled far slower. People lived their lives in relative isolation. Mass communication gave a way for dissenters to realize that others shared their thought and means to organize.

 

[playshogi]

I think razing cities beyond a certain size should be impossible. The only reason it was the right strategy in civ3 was because it was so hard to prevent the cultural flip back. Since this was an "unfun" aspect of the game, hopefully the designers have made it easier and more realistic to hold on to captured cities.

 

[Milan's Warrior]

Razing cities can be a good game strategy. It was a must in Civ3 when the AI would just settle whatever. I predict that I will use it less in Civ4 (if I buy Civ4 at all) because it does not seem the AI will settle so much

 

[HAND]

Razing cities was in SMAC aswell as civ3... there were major economic sanctions in for it in SMAC. The option should remain.

 

[frenchman]

I like too to raize cities especially when it's an agressive civ...

 

[slip79]

Raising cities is a very useful tool to have. Altho I agree that there should be some restrictions on them.

 

[MusicLaunch]

I like razing cities too - it's a good strategy (in the game, of course), and there is a 'downside' for razing cities in civ 3 already: you get a reputation hit. (Even though it didn't really matter...) I think in civ 4, other leaders should condemn you for razing cities and start getting more aggressive with you if you persist in razing.

 

[purger30]

In CIV 3 AI was raizing your big cities (10 and more) especialy in modern times. That is unrelistic. I think that raizing city beyond 4 must be forbidden.
And there must be some negative aspect in diplomacy and reputation. This will be prevent AI from raizing every conquered city.

Look for WW2 scenarios in CIV 3. AI constantly raizing every mayor city. That should be prevented.

 

[Huxley Hobbes]

As I understood it, razing a city does have a negative effect on your standing with other nations.

 

[Robi D]

Personally i don't like razing cities myself, but that are times where its strategic to do so, especially with some of the wierd places the ai builds cities. Having said that i think it should be in the game, it a perfectly valid strategy and historically accurate. I thought it was a small but excellent addition to the game play in civ3. And razing cities does have a negative impact on your relations with other civs, especially the civ whose city you razed.