Randomly puppeted a city?

[Triceranuke]

So, I'm playing my first game of BNW when suddenly one of Russia's cities came up with the option to raze or puppet it. We were friendly and not at war. I just randomly got one of their cities? Is this a bug?

 

[Aztecopi]

City flipping from ideologies probably.

 

[quantum42]

That happened to me three times in a game yesterday playing as Venice. Once I had the option of liberating it. The other two, the only options were raze or create puppet. I did have the highest culture and happiness when this happened, but I was never at war in this game.

 

[simonthesinner]

You'll have to be the nearest civ with the preferred ideology, So if you followed freedom and Russia was autocratic but their people followed freedom.

Kinda weird that an option to raze comes up there. I might disable razing in my games.

 

[Lira]

Kinda weird that an option to raze comes up there

I gave a heartily chuckle when I saw it because of how random and irrational that would be.

"Oh, would you like to join my empire? THEN YOU SHALL BURN!!!"

 

[simonthesinner]

I gave a heartily chuckle when I saw it because of how random and irrational that would be.

"Oh, would you like to join my empire? THEN YOU SHALL BURN!!!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xb0h9JcBPlo

Which made me Think of this. If you Think about it, the game mechanic of "razing" a city, means murdering thousands, if not millions of people and creating refugees, bulldozing over homes in front of crying children you just made orphans, etc. An extremely psychopatic move that should come with extreme diplomatic consequenzes, at least in the moderna age, and freddom oriented civs should not have it as an option, even.

 

[Lochlann]

If you Think about it, the game mechanic of "razing" a city, means murdering thousands, if not millions of people and creating refugees, bulldozing over homes in front of crying children you just made orphans, etc. An extremely psychopatic move that should come with extreme diplomatic consequenzes, at least in the moderna age, and freddom oriented civs should not have it as an option, even.

Yeah, I agree. Severe diplomatic penalties should be the result, as well as permanent Happiness penalties (if under Freedom). The only problem is, where would that leave all those trigger-happy warmongerers who don't feel like taking on a new cities every time they go off marching?

Perhaps there's nothing wrong with that. The Civ series has always had a fairly relaxed depiction of razing cities, but perhaps that should be changed so that it is a Really Big Deal. Wanna stomp on an enemy's face? Fine, but leave the civvies out of it and don't go destroying entire cities. But this would also alter the impact of settling far-flung colony cities and the like; that would also become a Really Big Deal, as you would no longer be able to just flick away (with relative impunity) that pesky little 1-pop city settled by Hiawatha from across the entire world.

Or maybe preservation of the current balance is the best thing, in which case an alternative option would have to be added. Perhaps you could choose to de-militarize the city, leaving it under the owner's control but disabling the ability to station a military unit there and disabling the city's ability to fire on enemies. Or perhaps the conquering/freeing could result in a shrinking of its cultural spread and a moratorium on re-spreading, if your beef with the city is territorial. In both cases, re-militarization and/or re-spread options could be included as part of the peace negotiations.

I dunno, just thinking aloud. It'd also be fun to have a "Create City-state" option, with the freed city becoming its own little side, minus the various political and other bonuses of true city-states.

 

[VainoValkea]

Severe diplomatic penalties from razing cities wouldn't work well. It puts too much contrast on "what it actually does" vs "what the AI would think it does". As long as the AI keeps founding cities in really poor places and more cities is not necessary a good thing, cities can be downright harmful and there needs to be an option to raze them.

 

[Lochlann]

Yeah, I agree that it serves a necessary game function. It's just one of those (many...) areas where the "game function" is sorely out of step with the realism. It'd be nice to bring them a little closer together.

 

[VainoValkea]

I don't think it's that unrealistic either. Given how long the razing takes (decades, or even centuries in "in-universe" time) it probably isn't, despite the ugly name, a huge war crime anyway but some more diplomatic population relocation. People pack up their bags and leave during the course of the time.

 

[simonthesinner]

Yeah, I agree. Severe diplomatic penalties should be the result, as well as permanent Happiness penalties (if under Freedom). The only problem is, where would that leave all those trigger-happy warmongerers who don't feel like taking on a new cities every time they go off marching?

Perhaps there's nothing wrong with that. The Civ series has always had a fairly relaxed depiction of razing cities, but perhaps that should be changed so that it is a Really Big Deal. Wanna stomp on an enemy's face? Fine, but leave the civvies out of it and don't go destroying entire cities. But this would also alter the impact of settling far-flung colony cities and the like; that would also become a Really Big Deal, as you would no longer be able to just flick away (with relative impunity) that pesky little 1-pop city settled by Hiawatha from across the entire world.

Or maybe preservation of the current balance is the best thing, in which case an alternative option would have to be added. Perhaps you could choose to de-militarize the city, leaving it under the owner's control but disabling the ability to station a military unit there and disabling the city's ability to fire on enemies. Or perhaps the conquering/freeing could result in a shrinking of its cultural spread and a moratorium on re-spreading, if your beef with the city is territorial. In both cases, re-militarization and/or re-spread options could be included as part of the peace negotiations.

I dunno, just thinking aloud. It'd also be fun to have a "Create City-state" option, with the freed city becoming its own little side, minus the various political and other bonuses of true city-states.

I think that until WC founding time, no one should care too much. People on all sides regularly razed cities to the ground and massacred defeated enemies. It was just one of those things.

Then the printing press, the importance of foreign relations and even more with radio and freedom ideology, those barbaric practices should be frowned upon. Autocrats and Orders should get away with it without internal unhappiness, though. Maybe a few partisan units could have chance to spawn each turn, and it should be something other civs could denounce you for.

Alternatively, Neighbouring civs with open borders to the razed cities' civ could get a bonus population growth from "refugees", possibly at a monetary/ happiness cost and/or more barbarian camps can spawn. If the razed population points would show up somewhere else and not just dissapear, it would feel less like genocide

 

[VainoValkea]

I don't think there's any point in adding any more penalties to razing. Just look at it already. It's a vital measure because not all cities are worth keeping but can't be left in enemy hands either. And it's already horrible happiness-wise if the city is large.

 

[simonthesinner]

I don't think there's any point in adding any more penalties to razing. Just look at it already. It's a vital measure because not all cities are worth keeping but can't be left in enemy hands either. And it's already horrible happiness-wise if the city is large.

From a point of a player playing a game, yes. From the point of that those population points represents millions of people of flesh and blood, and there are some things you just cannot do as, for example a modern, western style democracy. When Israel argueably "razes" "cities" that are "Not worth keeping" by forcing populations out of what was formerly their houses and bulldozing said houses, it does so at a severe diplomatic penalty and suffers what would in game be barbarian rocket attacks every now and then because of it.

 

[VainoValkea]

I only care about the gameplay perspective. Bad features simply because of realism makes bad games.

 

[Lochlann]

I think that until WC founding time, no one should care too much. People on all sides regularly razed cities to the ground and massacred defeated enemies. It was just one of those things.

Then the printing press, the importance of foreign relations and even more with radio and freedom ideology, those barbaric practices should be frowned upon. Autocrats and Orders should get away with it without internal unhappiness, though. Maybe a few partisan units could have chance to spawn each turn, and it should be something other civs could denounce you for.

That's a good point, yeah. I'm not sure I would place the "frowning point" as late as PP, but I agree with the idea.

Alternatively, Neighbouring civs with open borders to the razed cities' civ could get a bonus population growth from "refugees", possibly at a monetary/ happiness cost and/or more barbarian camps can spawn. If the razed population points would show up somewhere else and not just dissapear, it would feel less like genocide

I thought about this as well, and I agree, it'd be pretty cool.

I don't think it's that unrealistic either. Given how long the razing takes (decades, or even centuries in "in-universe" time) it probably isn't, despite the ugly name, a huge war crime anyway but some more diplomatic population relocation. People pack up their bags and leave during the course of the time.

Well, but the minute we start trying to hold the game to any consistent "in-universe" time, we run into problems across the board. I agree with the "packing up and leaving" idea, but like Simon I'd like to see it reflected in some sort of meaningful game terms. Maybe it could spawn a handful of civilian "refugee units" that could be joined to other cities...or that could be captured by the aggressor (with a diplo hit to reflect that).