Raizing cities

[Civman2004]

There's actually a website somewhere that calculates the potential impact of various strength bombs and overlays it on cities - it's quite disturbing!

But the worst thing about razing cities in Civ 3 was when you did it by accident

 

[Commander Bello]

Most advocates for raizing express why THEY would like to be allowed to.
They seem to forget that as long as they are allowed to, the AI will be allowed to as well. And this is the can of worms.

In Civ3, AI raized cities in the craziest situations (from a human perspective), especially in history-based scenarios. This sometimes could complete spoil the fun of such a scenario.

Therefore an option to completely avoid this would for sure be a good thing.

 

[apatheist]

Which is why there should be a different cost benefit equation. In Civ3, it basically only made sense to keep a city if it had Wonders and maybe if it had a lot of expensive improvements. Otherwise, it made more sense to destroy it and take the slaves.

 

[Falcon02]

one thing I think some people have missed here..... Razing a city isn't as much about destroying the citizens as it is destroying the city.

While I like the ideas about just reducing the population of larger cities (though then the question is why do it?). I think it's more appropriate to have a sort of "Refugee" unit, Destroy the city itself, kill some portion of the population and turn the rest into non-combatant units. Preferably these people would autonomously look for a new place to live, however given the massive armies the player will no doubt have in the area of the razed city their quest would be doomed to failure. Unless somehow they were turned into a "invisible" unit and scattered around the area of the city's influence or killing these Refugees had additional negative conquences sanction wise to actually razing the city.

 

[Roland Johansen]

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).

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.

Exactly, according to this site, the effective blast radius of a 54 megaton bomb is about 7 times as large as the blast radius of the 0.150 megaton bomb (so about 7*0.4=2.8 miles).

So while this huge nuclear bomb would certainly be a major horrible disaster for New York, it wouldn't completely destroy it.

Of course, as was mentioned previously, razing is easier than trying to obliterate it with a bomb.

I think it is easier to destroy a city with nuclear weapons and bombers and artillery then by letting soldiers destroy the whole city by hand. What is easier: placing a bomb underneath a building and killing any resistance fighters present in that part of the city or firing one shell of a heavy artillery at the building.
So basically, we disagree at that point.

This is actually a horrible discussion: how to kill people and buildings as efficiently as possible.

 

[dc82]

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

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)

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.

couple of notes... well firstly, u say millions die everyday but that's not from city razing - in fact, at least in modern times, there hasn't been any real drastic city razings (at least of a large city) or at least anything successful - even at best, the closest i can think of was the abandonnment of phnom penh, where pol pot forced people to leave the city - i htink 1 out of 4 cambodians were killed - but even then, the city is still in existance albeit smaller in pop than before the regime took over.

also, u hafta wonder - when and why, especially in modern times would any one completely and fully destory a city - esp. post capture - remember, razing occurs AFTER u've taken over - ur nuclear example wud make more sense if the russians were attack the us - not after they've taken control already. and even then, i mean, chances r, after all the effort it took to fight a war and take over an enemy city, at least in real life, to then just completely kill of the population and destory everything including the infrastructure.... unless it's a madman in charge or someone w/ genocidal tendencies, a lot mroe is to be gained by taking over and making the city for urself. and i mean after that, u're still gonna hafta deal w/ the reaction from the rest of the world...

i think the way civ3 was set up, it made it so that yeah, to avoid culture flipping or the recapture of a city u know u can't hold, u'll raze it - but in real life, it doesn't work quite teh same.

 

[Leprechaune]

You'd illiminate the need for razing a city 90% of the time by simply making the cultural flip preventable. If you could guarantee that leaving 3units would quell the problem then I'd do that rather than raze a city.

So therefor, based on something someone said about the cultural flip being fixed or removed, Civ 4 razing is already fixed! No need! And if someone IS razing cities, they'll only be shooting themselves in the foot since cities will be of such higher value in this version of civ.

 

[apatheist]

couple of notes... well firstly, u say millions die everyday but that's not from city razing - in fact, at least in modern times, there hasn't been any real drastic city razings (at least of a large city) or at least anything successful - even at best, the closest i can think of was the abandonnment of phnom penh, where pol pot forced people to leave the city - i htink 1 out of 4 cambodians were killed - but even then, the city is still in existance albeit smaller in pop than before the regime took over.

Not completely true. The Syrians destroyed their own city of Hamah in 1982 because of the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood group of rebels. They shelled the city, then soldiers went in killing. They used poison gas when people were holed up in buildings. Then they used bulldozers and construction equipment to flatten the buildings in about 1/3 of the city. This was a city of 350,000, of whom between 20,000 and 40,000 are estimated to have been killed. That's not as large a city as you may have meant, nor was it complete destruction, so it doesn't invalidate your point.

People don't raze cities in the modern world because it doesn't make sense to. It costs far too much and there is little benefit to it. At most, they will drive out or kill the residents for "ethnic cleansing," and cities will suffer damage from battles, but almost never does anyone try to destroy a city outright. It's too much work and you gain nothing from it. It would be nice if Civilization reflected that better.

 

[dc82]

Not completely true. The Syrians destroyed their own city of Hamah in 1982 because of the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood group of rebels. They shelled the city, then soldiers went in killing. They used poison gas when people were holed up in buildings. Then they used bulldozers and construction equipment to flatten the buildings in about 1/3 of the city. This was a city of 350,000, of whom between 20,000 and 40,000 are estimated to have been killed. That's not as large a city as you may have meant, nor was it complete destruction, so it doesn't invalidate your point.

People don't raze cities in the modern world because it doesn't make sense to. It costs far too much and there is little benefit to it. At most, they will drive out or kill the residents for "ethnic cleansing," and cities will suffer damage from battles, but almost never does anyone try to destroy a city outright. It's too much work and you gain nothing from it. It would be nice if Civilization reflected that better.

heh, hama was just a bit before my time... well, actually it happened rite when i was born. but even then it seems that only 1/4 of the city was destroyed (not to say that isn't a lot or that the human cost isn't immeasurable nonetheless). but yeah i agree w/ u - it doesn't make sense to completely raze a city - est. w/ any large establishments - there isn't really any modern examples of city razing. even when rome was sacked or when jerusalem was burnt down or when hiroshima was bombed - all these cities still rose, populated by the remaining population.

at most i can say maybe we can dispand size 1 cities that haven't built too many improvements, or perhaps only a few turns after it's built - like early american colonies that shifted over when they found better areas to establish themselves - perhaps u can turn a size 1 city within a few turns of establishment back into a settler. but other than that, i can't really see razing being a historically accurate element in the game.

 

[Volstag]

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

You're going to need to elaborate your stance on this. Personally, I don't see a problem with it.

 

[Volstag]

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.

You know... I've heard this complaint before and, quite honestly, I don't get it. In all the games of Civ III I've played, I've had, maybe, five or six cities revert back to their erstwhile masters. As long as your culture rating is high enough, and you have a decent garrison, the likelyhood of "culture flips" is pretty low. It's for this reason, that I wouldn't even bother capturing cities that had a good probability of switching back -- it's not worth the effort if you can't hold it.

Edit: as an aside, it's far easier now to completely raze a city than in the past. With incendiaries, high explosives, and, of course, nukes, you could level a town within days. Dresden, for example, was effectively destroyed over the course of a handful of bombing sorties.

-V

 

[Superkrest]

would over bombardment count as razing the city??? i point to german citys in 1945..in piticular dresden...the city was rebuilt i believe...but was it not renderd near useless and destroyed during firebombing....or even during exsesive combat, like stalingrad. could that be implemented past a certain point as an alternative to actually razing the city???

 

[dc82]

would over bombardment count as razing the city??? i point to german citys in 1945..in piticular dresden...the city was rebuilt i believe...but was it not renderd near useless and destroyed during firebombing....or even during exsesive combat, like stalingrad. could that be implemented past a certain point as an alternative to actually razing the city???

bombardment is different - that's before u capture a city, when at times all bets can be off - the issue is, after u have "control" of the city, the conscious choice to eliminate the entire population and infrastructure (in real life and in the game)

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I think the problem with this is the significance of cities, ideally one could have a population and buildings in each tile, destroying almost all of the buildings and most of the pop should be easy, but there would always be those hiding out in the hills that would be difficult to root out (especially if they were backed by a still existing empire and could target supply lines)

 

[Superkrest]

very true and i understand...but many have come to the consensus that in the late game,conventional razing just wont do.. so why not allow a city to be "wiped" off the face of the earth ..not conquered..but in such disrepair to cause a total abandonment

 

[dc82]

very true and i understand...but many have come to the consensus that in the late game,conventional razing just wont do.. so why not allow a city to be "wiped" off the face of the earth ..not conquered..but in such disrepair to cause a total abandonment

people r stubbon and one of the hardest things is to convince someone to leave a place they call home - i mean even today, u have people living in war zones, nuclear sites, in potential terrorist targets or hurricane/tornado/earthquake zones. just flip thru the mid-east section of the nytimes and u'll see that once it's home for someone, even the threat of death can still not be enuf for people to abandon their homes.

however, looking at history it seems like more often than not, cities that truly have been fully abandoned or destroyed occured not by any human threat or action but eventually by natural forces - desertification (ur), disease, volcanos (pompeii, herculaneum), ancient maya (now believed to be caused by famine from severe droughts) - the myth of atlantis shows that while their pride was a cause, the natural forces of the earth (earthquake, tidal wave, etc.) ultimately did them in.

 

[Superkrest]

your right. its always been bad kharma to make your home in a graveyard but as you pointed out they do. maybe ruining a city in such terms as i have said should be the best you can do past a certain stage or city cize...razing a city post ww2 would cause a worldly fury no one would tollorate, especially a large city.

 

[Volstag]

bombardment is different - that's before u capture a city, when at times all bets can be off - the issue is, after u have "control" of the city, the conscious choice to eliminate the entire population and infrastructure (in real life and in the game)

What difference does it make if the razing happens before or after you conquer the city? It's still a premeditated choice to... destroy the city. If it was, somehow, a deciding factor, what's to stop someone from perpetually bombarding a city even though they could easily take it over?

-V

 

[jwijn]

couple of notes... well firstly, u say millions die everyday but that's not from city razing - in fact, at least in modern times, there hasn't been any real drastic city razings (at least of a large city) or at least anything successful - even at best, the closest i can think of was the abandonnment of phnom penh, where pol pot forced people to leave the city - i htink 1 out of 4 cambodians were killed - but even then, the city is still in existance albeit smaller in pop than before the regime took over.

Here are two examples of modern conflicts with razings taking place

Angola: The Angolese civil war has been going on for three decades now, one of the longest periods of war in African history (my uncle was forced by the apartheid government to fight in Angola). Millions have been killed in the fighting, even more displaced, and regions once populous are now deserted.
Most recent razing: Huambo, Angola's second largest city.
CTC International offers the following information:"UNITA has claimed victory, but an estimated 15,000 people have died in the fighting and most of the city's 400,000 residents have fled. The city has been totally razed and refugees have described the battlefield as a "graveyard."

Chechnya The Second Chechen War, still lacking any sort of resolution, has been fought since 1999 between the Russian Federation which seeks to retain its borders and Chechen separatist groups that desire independence.
Most recent razing: Grozny, the Chechen capital, in February 2000. Wikipedia gave the following summary: Hoping to avoid the significant casualties which plagued the First Chechnen War, the Russians advanced slowly and in force. The Russian military made extensive use of artillery and bombs in an attempt to soften Chechen defenses. It was not until November that the Chechen capital of Grozny was surrounded, and more than two additional weeks of shelling and bombing were required before Russian troops were able to claim a foothold within any part of the heavily fortified city. By February 2000 much of Grozny had been reduced to rubble by nearly incessant artillery fire and bombing. Surviving Chechen rebels sought to escape into the hills surrounding the city. In March, the Russian army began to allow former residents back into the city to visit the wreckage.

Iraq: As Saddam Hussein tried to keep the various ethnic groups in Iraq under the firm control of his totalitarian regime, Kurdish groups,with funding from Iran, demanded more independence and started actively rebelling against the central government.
Most recent razing: In March of 1974 Saddam sent his Republican Guard to quell the uprising. Kurdish cities like Zakho and Qalaat Diza were razed to the ground, and hundreds of thousands of Kurds flee.

The following are cities that were either partially razed or were completely razed but i'm too lazy to get the full info on. However, enough damage was done such that the place was inhabitable and more than half the population was either killed or displaced (basically what it's like when a city is razed in civ)

Warsaw, Poland
Nanking, China
Hue, Vietnam
Kigali, Rwanda
Soweto, South Africa
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Dili, East Timor

also, u hafta wonder - when and why, especially in modern times would any one completely and fully destory a city - esp. post capture - remember, razing occurs AFTER u've taken over - ur nuclear example wud make more sense if the russians were attack the us - not after they've taken control already. and even then, i mean, chances r, after all the effort it took to fight a war and take over an enemy city, at least in real life, to then just completely kill of the population and destory everything including the infrastructure.... unless it's a madman in charge or someone w/ genocidal tendencies, a lot mroe is to be gained by taking over and making the city for urself. and i mean after that, u're still gonna hafta deal w/ the reaction from the rest of the world...

The nuclear example was in response to someone saying "even the most powerful nuke wouldn't obliterate nyc" so it's kind of a moot point.

As far as RL reasons for razing a city, there are two main reasons:

Ideologically driven: Normally some form of racial- religious- or political-cleansing. This is most notable in Nanking, Kigali, Phnom Penh and Huambo

Scorched Earth: Often, if forces make a rapid and unexpected move into enemy territory and seize a city, it is not feasible to keep the city, and razing is the best option militarily. Alternatively, if you have no desire to police that city or are on the retreat, then razing is also a good option. Examples include Warsaw, Soweto, Qalaat Dizha, Grozny, Hue

 

[labguy23]

Why not replace "razing" with "abandon" or ""enaslave"? Then you could leave all the infastructure, but still remove the problematic citizens. In essence, you would create an unowned city. Then you could move in your own settlers to repopulate the city.

If it was a city you truly didn't want repopulated, then all you would have to do is keep anyone else from repopulating it for 10 turns or so. Buildings could slowly decay and disappear after a couple turns. Large cities would take longer to decay, while small ones would disappear rather quickly.

I'm hopeful that with fewer cities being built by the AI, the option to raze cities won't be used so frequently. However, there will be glass ceiling so to speak on how many cities you can support as well. Which means if you are truly successful in you military conquests, you may have to deliberately destroy cities just to retain the economic and social balance of your civ. Nothing would be worse that being so successful in war that you drive your civ into total ruin.