Raizing cities

[Che Guava]

...Then you could move in your own settlers to repopulate the city...

heh heh, maybe then you could mod in a 'salt the earth' option when razing/abondonning cities, just to make sure no-one can resettle there....

 

[dc82]

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



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

the point though i that while extreme damage was done to these cities, they still were not fully abandoned/razed. nanjing, phenom penh, warsaw, etc. r still large cities today - even kyoto, which was burned down stands today, built over its ruins - which brings back to the point, to in one turn turn a large 10+ city with wonders and improvements to rubble seems a bit unrealistic and inconsistant w/ history

 

[vbraun]

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

The AI doesn't raze randomly, It will only raze a city if is one square away from another city and it doesn't have a Great Wonder in it.

 

[bochi]

Actually kyoto was never bombed.

But for the main point I think you need to keep in mind that a city in Civ3 is a bit of an abstract representation of what would be serveral communities in the real world-
razing - while in game the city is completely destroyed - i think razing represents such wide spread & intentional destruction of infrastructure etc. as to destroy the economic & social order in the REGION.

 

[Superkrest]

posted wrong information...sorry

 

[jwijn]

the point though i that while extreme damage was done to these cities, they still were not fully abandoned/razed. nanjing, phenom penh, warsaw, etc. r still large cities today - even kyoto, which was burned down stands today, built over its ruins - which brings back to the point, to in one turn turn a large 10+ city with wonders and improvements to rubble seems a bit unrealistic and inconsistant w/ history

Well, they are large cities today, but they are not still large cities. The point being that they were reduced to the point where more than half of the population left altogether and the city itself was uninhabitable. You are still able to build a city over the rubble (IIRC) and give the city its old name, and if you recapture those workers then you can even return some of the 'refugees' to their homeland. I personally like the aforementioned idea of destroying x population points and x buildings in 1 turn much better, but you should still, ultimately, be able to destroy an entire city.

 

[dc82]

Well, they are large cities today, but they are not still large cities. The point being that they were reduced to the point where more than half of the population left altogether and the city itself was uninhabitable. You are still able to build a city over the rubble (IIRC) and give the city its old name, and if you recapture those workers then you can even return some of the 'refugees' to their homeland. I personally like the aforementioned idea of destroying x population points and x buildings in 1 turn much better, but you should still, ultimately, be able to destroy an entire city.

but u're missing the point - these cities weren't ENTIRELY abandoned - if u're city goes from size anything to just gone - that implies the entire city with its full population has gone entirely - by ur example it wud make more sense for a size 10 city to turn into a size 5, a size 7 to turn into a size 3, or something along those lines - even the way a nuclear weapon works in the game, at most takes half the population points.

the problem more is that the ai wudn't obviously rename the city over its rubble and that again, to completely raze a city, esp. after capture seems to be inaccurately portrayed as, 1, it costs A LOT to do such a task, in both funding and time, 2, has far reaching implications, esp. in the modern age, and 3, isn't really done that often in history - shud be reworked.

 

[jwijn]

but u're missing the point - these cities weren't ENTIRELY abandoned - if u're city goes from size anything to just gone - that implies the entire city with its full population has gone entirely - by ur example it wud make more sense for a size 10 city to turn into a size 5, a size 7 to turn into a size 3, or something along those lines - even the way a nuclear weapon works in the game, at most takes half the population points.

the problem more is that the ai wudn't obviously rename the city over its rubble and that again, to completely raze a city, esp. after capture seems to be inaccurately portrayed as, 1, it costs A LOT to do such a task, in both funding and time, 2, has far reaching implications, esp. in the modern age, and 3, isn't really done that often in history - shud be reworked.

I suppose you're right, but it still is always fun to go on a little war o' retribution and raze every single city.

 

[joethreeblah]

but u're missing the point - these cities weren't ENTIRELY abandoned - if u're city goes from size anything to just gone - that implies the entire city with its full population has gone entirely - by ur example it wud make more sense for a size 10 city to turn into a size 5, a size 7 to turn into a size 3, or something along those lines - even the way a nuclear weapon works in the game, at most takes half the population points.

the problem more is that the ai wudn't obviously rename the city over its rubble and that again, to completely raze a city, esp. after capture seems to be inaccurately portrayed as, 1, it costs A LOT to do such a task, in both funding and time, 2, has far reaching implications, esp. in the modern age, and 3, isn't really done that often in history - shud be reworked.

Isn't it a necessary game mechanic to be able to abandon your own city?

Seems like it would be a real pain in the ass to to not have that option.

 

[dc82]

Isn't it a necessary game mechanic to be able to abandon your own city?

Seems like it would be a real pain in the ass to to not have that option.

perhaps there is a way to abandon a city, but to just flip it like a switch seems to be an off way to do it - almost like a cheat.

 

[Volstag]

which brings back to the point, to in one turn turn a large 10+ city with wonders and improvements to rubble seems a bit unrealistic and inconsistant w/ history

But keep in mind that a single turn, at minimum, represents one year. In one year it would be possible to effectively destroy any city regardless of the initial size.

As mentioned by another poster, there are strategic/operational advantages to razing a city -- you deny it to the enemy, and you don't have to garrison it yourself.

 

[dc82]

that may be true - there are def. costs to that - i mean in wwii, bridges, pipes, and other forms of infrastructure were sabotaged when the enemy was advancing -- but again, for any serious damage, there usually is some cost involved. esp. in the way it's portrayed rite now, ur choice to raze occurs rite after u conquer a city. the system def. needs to be reworked.