Raizing cities

[Roland Johansen]

We all probably like it that we can remove small cities that are stupidly placed by the AI, but we don't like it that it is possible for the AI to raise our fase 20 city with 3 Great Wonders.

What if the rule was changed so that you could destroy 5 population points and 5 buildings per turn that you owned the city. That would still make it possible to destroy cities in the ancient age one turn after capture, but large modern age cities will take a few turns to destroy. It would also be realistic as the most destructive device we have invented, the nuclear weapon, will not completely obliterate a huge modern age city like New York (in reality and in the game), so it is rather strange that we can destroy the city upon capture in the game (at 15 million inhabitants it would be the equivalent of 2.5 holocausts, do you really want that to be possible?).

We don't need the city razing to prevent culture flips anymore as they are out of the game (and replaced by some sort of culture pressure that makes it unattractive to retain culturally backward cities along the border of some culturale powerhouse civilization).

 

[purger30]

I hope there will be an option to turn on or turn off raizing city capability.

When city is nuked it loose 1/2 population and some buildings (health is severe reduced), and if captured player and AI will have option to reduce population by 3-5 points and nothing else. I think its realistic.

 

[SJSerio]

Thinking back in history, specifically to the war of 1812, Britain invaded and subsequently razed Washington, D.C. Of course, it did not leave the city in total ruins, but it set the city back and decreased the morale of the nation. With this in mind, I believe that razing should completely destroy cities of a certain value, but after a certain benchmark in technology, along with the population factor, the city is not completey ruined just set back. (It would also be good if their was a morale factor in the game as well, though I have not heard of any indication of this.) The raiding unit would then be automatically returned to the nearest point of origin (i.e. city, ship, etc), along with any supporting units, in order to prevent abuse.

While some may point out that the player could just capture the city instead, well, that's true, however, it would be an issue of strategy. Anyway, it's just some off the head thoughts and could use some fleshing out. Maybe others could expand or improve upon it.

Along similar lines, I feel that settlers should have different levels. At level one, they are the standard settler as in any civ game. Level two, however, unlocked after a specific technology, would build cities with a select number of improvements already available. So on up the levels. The reason for this... One thing I hate is later in the game, around the level of modern age, I have all of these ancient age improvements that realisticly would be automatic with more settlements at later periods.

Relating this idea to razing, perhaps the razed city would be set back to the original level that it was created at, or even one back causing the civilization to have to rebuild the improvements that were lost. For that matter, captured cities could also revert back to the original level.

 

[Commander Bello]

As it was being part of the rules, I destroyed quite some cities in Civ3, but it always felt wrong.
You should be able to do so only if you have the majority of the population (at least after it is above 2 pop) and it should take 1 turn per pop when starting to do so.
Starving a city down just come along with major international disliking, at least after the area of enlightenment.

 

[Tee Kay]

The razing options should still be available (but like many said razing large cities and esp when UN's built should receive international embargo) as it leaves your army free to conquer and kill and kill instead of having to guard the city. BUT razed cities should be marked and future settlers could began a new city there using the same name as the razed city (if possible) and also the city was founded with SOME of the improvements the earlier city may have and extra (but foreign) population. Of course all this may not be entirely possible with the people at Firaxis.

 

[Gato Loco]

What we really need is a better reputation system, with real consequences (dogpiling) if you get too out of hand. Plus razing cities should increase your own WW as the citizens become less convinced of the righteousness of your cause.

 

[The End Is Nigh]

I agree with everything that has been said (almost). Raising cities should be allowed during the ancient and medieval eras (which was after all the common practice, historically speaking), but certainly not during the industrial or modern time eras.

On the other hand, I do accept that the AI sometimes places cities where one would not want them to be (i.e. next to that all important tile that separates two seas and would allow you to cut the distance of naval travel), but I think it is a price worth paying.

 

[Tigerclaw]

Even if there is a method of making it "fairer" or more appropriate (ie: a rarer occurance) in the Vanilla game, I personally think that unless it's made drastically different from the way it operated in Civ3, there NEEDS to be an option to turn in off completely for scenarios. Nothing is more inappropriate than the Civ3 razing major cities in any historical scenario, in my opinion, and it spoils the game...

 

[sweeneygov]

Haha razing cities does feel 'wrong' as a builder it feels a waste of someones effort it took to create that city, especially if its big. but if its got to be done its got to be done.

I like the idea of having automatic temples, granaries, marketplaces and courthouses when you build a new city in the modern age. There is nothing more annoying than having to build these old structures when your older cities are constructing research labs.

 

[Savage Discipil]

Haha razing cities does feel 'wrong' as a builder it feels a waste of someones effort it took to create that city, especially if its big. but if its got to be done its got to be done.

I like the idea of having automatic temples, granaries, marketplaces and courthouses when you build a new city in the modern age. There is nothing more annoying than having to build these old structures when your older cities are constructing research labs.

They could also give you improvements that are realated to your Civ's Characteristics like Militiristic=Barracks and walls ect.

 

[Leprechaune]

Haha razing cities does feel 'wrong' as a builder it feels a waste of someones effort it took to create that city, especially if its big. but if its got to be done its got to be done.

I like the idea of having automatic temples, granaries, marketplaces and courthouses when you build a new city in the modern age. There is nothing more annoying than having to build these old structures when your older cities are constructing research labs.

Or at the very least, reduce the time needed to build them... Arguably some people wouldn't want them built at all and therefor would have to pay the upkeep for them. Simply make them a single turn build instead, so new cities could catch up quicker.

 

[Milan's Warrior]

In CIV 3 AI was raizing your big cities (10 and more) especialy in modern times. That is unrelistic.

Let's hope that it remains unrealistic because the future of the real world might prove you wrong.
After all, what is nuking a city (in the real world) if not razing it?

 

[apatheist]

Razing a city should cost more than reputation. Reputation is a hack. It only has meaning in games with AI players. If you're playing against only human players, game mechanisms that rely on reputation are neutered. You should have reasons to avoid razing a city beyond reputation so it doesn't become an automatic thing you do every time you conquer a city. So far, I have three preferences for how that should work:

1) Educating your citizens (thread here). More educated (and thus, more productive) citizens are a valuable commodity, but razing a conquered city kills half of them and turns the other half into slave workers, where their education is wasted.
2) Conquering a city shouldn't reset its culture to zero. You shouldn't be able to capture all of its culture, but you should be able to capture some (formula TBD).
3) City growth should be a function of things other than food. Getting a city to grow should be hard. You should be reluctant to starve/raze a conquered city for that reason, or to use bombardment to shrink a targeted city.

You should always have the option to raze a city, but it should be an option that you choose no more than 1 in 5 or 1 in 10 times. The way to make it worth your while to keep the city intact is not through a hack like reputation, but by making the city have value that you cannot easily recreate with a new city. Sometimes, a city isn't worth it, but usually, it should be. Even Genghis Khan didn't raze most cities he captured.

 

[dc82]

Let's hope that it remains unrealistic because the future of the real world might prove you wrong.
After all, what is nuking a city (in the real world) if not razing it?

razing a city is far diff. than nuking one- the way razing a city in civ is presented is that u choose this option AFTER u've already taken over the city. u're now consciously choosing to destroy the city and its population - nuking a city is still during battle (where like the us in wwii justified its use to help end the war quicker, make a show of force to japan, the ussr, and the rest of the world).

and even so, many of the surviving population of hiroshima and nagasaki still stayed and rebuilt the city (thus the continued existance of hiroshima and nagasaki). in addition, the bombings were done during war time, when the effects of nuclear weapons were not fully comprehended until after (at least not known to the rest of the world) not that this justifies the attacks - but my point is, if any city was to be nuked today, it wud still carry large international repucussions.

 

[Leprechaune]

Heh... Perhaps it could be turned into a combination of Razing with something someone else suggested here about refugees.

If a military power truely took control of a major city... Toronto for example... It would take a lot of effort to absolutely destroy the city... (A lot of explosives) but it could be renderred rubble in it's entirety if someone decided it needed to be done. (The turn that it takes to Raze a city does represent a span of more than one day after all) The people on the other hand would manage to escape in many ways I'm sure.

So you'd have a pile of rubble on the map and workers, or settlers, or a new refugee unit who are defenseless in the surrounding tiles.

These units could either be given AI control, or remain under the control of the former civ untill captured.

Hmmm?

 

[jwijn]

It would also be realistic as the most destructive device we have invented, the nuclear weapon, will not completely obliterate a huge modern age city like New York (in reality and in the game),

Half of that is true. Yes, a 150 kiloton bomb would have a tremendous impact but not obliterate the city.

However, the biggest yield fissile weapon was the Soviet Little Tsar, which had a yield of roughly 54 megatons, or 360 times the explosive power of the example above. Now, a 150 kiloton bomb would initially have a blast of 20 psi (powerful enough to completely obliterate anything within the ring, this case includes the Empire State Building, Madison Square Gardens, Penn Central Railroad Station and the New York Public Library) with a radius of .4 miles. 360 times .4 is a 144 mile radius, which WOULD obliterate all of New York City (and set fire to most of the Tri-State area)

Scary, huh?

Of course, as was mentioned previously, razing is easier than trying to obliterate it with a bomb. If enemy forces occupied New York and decided to destroy it completely, they could do a number of things:

1) Set charges in major subways and tunnels - this alone would make New York virtually worthless, as people would be unable to move about and water would flood the destroyed subways from the East and Hudson rivers

2) Mini-nukes or TNT placed in the foundations of the major buildings would cause them to topple over and destroy the surrounding buildings in the process

3) Napalm and/or incendiary bombs would be sufficient for the older and less reinforced buildings north of 60th, in Greenwich Village, and particularly in the other, less developed buroughs (Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, Staten Island)

so it is rather strange that we can destroy the city upon capture in the game (at 15 million inhabitants it would be the equivalent of 2.5 holocausts, do you really want that to be possible?)

Yes, I want it to be possible because it is possible in history. Millions die every day, and, morally reprehensible in real life or not, I want that to be possible in Civ.

 

[MusicLaunch]

Yes, I want it to be possible because it is possible in history. Millions die every day, and, morally reprehensible in real life or not, I want that to be possible in Civ.

That's just freaky =P... Nevertheless, I would want that in Civ as well.

One small point tho, when you 'raze' a city, should you be able to make all the inhabitants slaves? Or must you kill all of them and destory the city? Also, when you raze a city, shouldn't you be able to loot something from the city besides the gold upon capture?

 

[doronron]

Play the Amish. Only "raise" barns. :-D

Once the concept of nationalism became widespread in the late 19th century (a national loyatly that could simply be undone through treaties and edicts), razing cities should either have been disabled or incurred some kind of massive penalty. If anything, the only units in the modern world that should have been capable of razing cities should have been Bombers and Nukes (both have historical precedence -- the firebombing of Dresden and the atomic strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively). Even then, the cities were eventually rebuilt and the survivors returned. Still, your nation should receive some kind of penalty unless engaged in Total War.

Unfortunately, the agressive culture flipping of Civ3 made it a necessity to raize cities. Anything to keep your beachheads from being in direct contact with the more culturally established enemy.

 

[Fredric Drum]

In Civ3, razing cities was a cure for culture flipping after conquering. I'd often just raze a city, even big, good cities (or especially them) just to avoid putting 20 units in it and having it flip the next turn anyway. The alternative was starving the city down in size as fast as possible (ethnic cleansing? genocide?) to avoid flipping.

With Civ4 it looks like this won't be a problem, thus reducing the razing.

 

[apatheist]

However, the biggest yield fissile weapon was the Soviet Little Tsar, which had a yield of roughly 54 megatons, or 360 times the explosive power of the example above. Now, a 150 kiloton bomb would initially have a blast of 20 psi (powerful enough to completely obliterate anything within the ring, this case includes the Empire State Building, Madison Square Gardens, Penn Central Railroad Station and the New York Public Library) with a radius of .4 miles. 360 times .4 is a 144 mile radius, which WOULD obliterate all of New York City (and set fire to most of the Tri-State area)

Be even more scared to know that they reduced the power of that bomb shortly before they detonated it because they feared 100 megatons would have devastating effects.

You cannot just multiply 360 by 0.4 miles to get the blast radius. Remember that the explosion is spherical. With a bomb that large, most of the explosion would be into the air and into space, not in a radius from ground zero. That's why most nuclear weapons are in the hundreds of kiloton to megaton or so range. Bigger bombs aren't effective weapons; you're better off using two smaller ones.