Raze City? NO!!!

[sekong]

I have been happily played civ3 for days. I liked the new features like culture and resources, and the option to win the game in a peaceful way. I liked it, because I felt that civ3 is more civilized than ever. Then I know how "raze city" works. Disappointing! It's war crime! How could this exist in civ3, without any obvious punishment??!! You attack the civillians, and enslave the survivers... and this is even a suggested thing to do in the developer's Q&A section...for what? to prevent corruption?? Com'n, could it be more pathetic??? "Raze the enemy's city, so that your democratic citizen could be happier, because of the low corruption". I feel sad. Military conflict is one thing. Attacking civillian is another.
As a civ and sid advocator for 8 years, now I want to quit from civ3. Although firaxisian have advertised it to be light-hearted, but somehow I feel that the game is more military biased. I have been longing for the new great leader feature, but I have not get one. Because it can only be get from war. And I tried to play peacefully. After all, GL is only military leaders. For the six civ attributes, there should be Great Leaders for other civ attributes. And can be spawned through attivities other than military. And they can be used to rush build wonders of that civ attributes. Such as you need a great artist or religious leader to rush build
Sistine Chapel or JS Bach's Cathedral. I just feel rush buildingh them with military leaders like Ivan the mad or Sun Tze is odd.

Sigh, disapointed after half years' tracing,

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Razing Cities has only been a crime for less than 200 years, and bad form for about 500 years, out of the 5 millenia of warfare. Yhus during the large majority of the games duration, it is an accepted norm of warfare.

 

[The Ripper]

What about giving them away to the one of your allies you like the less?
What is the reaction of the ai?
You could create a sort of cushion state...
avoiding problems related to corruption,defence,cultural absorbing and perhaps earn some money...

 

[Bugg]

Razing a city affects your diplomatic relations with the other civs. By the way this is a GAME! A good game IMHO That's why we can laugh when we nuke other civs.

 

[Buecephalus]

Echoing the statements made above, it IS a game. And while it may affect your standing within that game it is an effective tool for widening the gap between your borders and theirs. I do this when I don't have enough materiel to quell the riots that would ensue from taking it over. It also works wonders with getting other civs to make peace immediately, although they do have a tendency to attack you later.
If it makes you feel better then let the workers created by razing loose. Send them back to your enemy and let him/her reabsorb "the innocent".








Nobody ever won a war by giving his life for his country, you win it by making the other poor dumb bastard lose his for his country.
(paraphrased w/ apologies to Patton)

 

[Jay H]

Sometimes the enemy requests one (or more) of the workers in the peacy treaty negotiations! I'm usually quite happy to oblige as I usually request technology or stuff.

I notice the computer AI likes to after helpless and defenseless friendly workers, perhaps we should bring that up at the next UN council!!!

Jay

 

[ACM]

Sekong: the great leaders aren't all military. The romans get maximus (military), but they also get poltical leaders like trajan. If you want that kind of detail (military leaders can't rush non-military improvements), then maybe Civ3 is not a game for you.
And if you never got a GL you shouldn't be flaming them.

 

[lnin0]

Im pissed that I can't have my warriors kill the innocent workers and settlers from the another civs. Why do I want them enslaved ? They have poor work ethics so I would just assume kill those darn settlers that try and squat near your civ.

 

[Suvorov]

Perhaps what is required is a "hug bunny" unit that hops to the enemy and huggles them until all their aggressive vibes are gone. Hell, make your own civ, the Teletubbies.

 

[Johnny_Vegas]

You are a big time wuss, with your peace loving, anti-city razing nature.

Shouldn't you be off saving ants from the mean kids with the magnifying glass?

 

[sekong]

ACM: the point is you have to get the GL through WAR, even the name is actually from a political leader.

And it's not that I care about detail, I was calling to a GL system less military biased and making better sense.

Originally posted by ACM
Sekong: the great leaders aren't all military. The romans get maximus (military), but they also get poltical leaders like trajan. If you want that kind of detail (military leaders can't rush non-military improvements), then maybe Civ3 is not a game for you.
And if you never got a GL you shouldn't be flaming them.

 

[Zannhart]

aaaaa

 

[aiya]

Bump.

I think one really good point is being made from this thread:

You should be able to get Great Leaders from something else other than being victorious by an elite.

This makes the game more balanced for the non-militaristic civs.

 

[ACM]

Sekong, now I understand your point. The problem is that a cultural, peace-driven policy already gets you up the tech tree pretty faster than a military policy. So the GLs that military civs get kind of compensate for the advantage cultural civs get when discovering wonder-allowing techs first.
If you could have the technological edge made possible by a culture policy AND the GLs possible from heavy military campaigns it would unbalance the game in favor of cultural, defensive civs.

 

[Malys Faisent]

I got lucky as the Babylonians over the weekend. Got my first GL while at war with the Romans, made the Epic and got another one at war with the Iroquois.

On the one hand I think that it would be nice to see GLs outside warfare.

On the other hand the opportunity for a GL (historically) to arise is because of some great conflict or struggle...generally you don't see what is considered a great leader during times of peace and pleanty...its much more difficult to get a population to strive and complete a great work without some sort of pressure. Civ's only real pressure is war, though there are hints of population pressure, social pressure, and environmental pressure in the game...they just are not as direct as warfare.

If the game was even more detailed outside the warfare aspect then we might be able to see great leaders that didn't arise from warfare...perhaps chances of getting one when you made a great trade with the AI for luxuries that kept people happy, when you successfully keep your cities from rioting during a government switch, when you clean up the last bit of pollution and keep the threat of global warming from occuring. The problem is that all of these things are almost sure things...you can almost always trade for the luxuries you need (if you want to pay the cost that is), you can keep your cities secure by making entertainers, you can clean pollution by automating your workers to do so!

It seems to me that the only aspect of Civ 3 developed enough to warrant the chance of a GL arising is the warfare aspect..its nice to see that they are improving the other aspects of the game, but they lack the level of strategy warfare does...perhaps these will be further expanded in the future of the series.

 

[The Ripper]

It's the only happening so frequent in the game
It guarentees a certain possibility to get a gl with a relatively probability..
And a won battle is not important in the game,so U can get an advantage in any situation,not only when you are very powerful

There could be a certain probability
based on the number of libraries-universities in your country to get a great scientist who could rush a research(with a bonus for sci civs)

based on the nuber of courthouses to get a sceriff who lowers corruption(with a bonus for com civs)

based on temples and so on to get a greatpriest who lowers unhappiness(with a bonus for rel civs)

based on your culture to get a great artist who could rush a cultural building,or improve the range of normal and forbidden palace or increase the culture production of a city for a certain time...

Also governments should change the situation:desp,mon,com more militaristic
rep,dem more probs to get a scientist or an artist
comm could not achieve a greatpriest...
What do U think about that?

 

[shirleyrocks]

Originally posted by Malys Faisent


It seems to me that the only aspect of Civ 3 developed enough to warrant the chance of a GL arising is the warfare aspect..its nice to see that they are improving the other aspects of the game, but they lack the level of strategy warfare does...perhaps these will be further expanded in the future of the series.

I remember Sid talking about just this aspect in an interview. They wanted to include great artists, scientists, etc, but they just couldn't find a way to make it work.

 

[Wuf]

I used to be a peace loving civ, but in Civ3, it's too much fun to fight...because it actually requires skill.

So, I'll gladly build up my culture and build wonders, but not on my front line!!!

The comment about the bunnies was great

It's a game....and not going to war and just building the spaceship means you don't get to build the killer navy and have the most amount of fun

 

[sekong]

I think it's good. At least I will be happy to see them in the game. Also some thoughts:
1. For the civ first discover certain tech, you get a Great Leader. Like First discover philosophy or physics, or Theory of gravity, you have to chance to get a great scientist. Or first to discover free art, chance of a Great artist.

Originally posted by The Ripper
It's the only happening so frequent in the game
It guarentees a certain possibility to get a gl with a relatively probability..
And a won battle is not important in the game,so U can get an advantage in any situation,not only when you are very powerful

There could be a certain probability
based on the number of libraries-universities in your country to get a great scientist who could rush a research(with a bonus for sci civs)

based on the nuber of courthouses to get a sceriff who lowers corruption(with a bonus for com civs)

based on temples and so on to get a greatpriest who lowers unhappiness(with a bonus for rel civs)

based on your culture to get a great artist who could rush a cultural building,or improve the range of normal and forbidden palace or increase the culture production of a city for a certain time...

Also governments should change the situation:desp,mon,com more militaristic
rep,dem more probs to get a scientist or an artist
comm could not achieve a greatpriest...
What do U think about that?

 

[sekong]

Zannhart: Yes, I played civ, civ2, and smac. And I used to be proud that I can beat the AI at the hardest level with large tech leading. In civ1, one most enjoyable thing is to discover armor or having RR at BC age. So I never bother to use poisoning water or using nuke. For good players, you don't have to do that. It's not mainframe strategy. Plus using nuke would cause global warm, etc. The punishment is obvious.

But raze city in civ3, it's different. It's recommanded thing to do, for corruption control..(I still can't believe it's in. ) It has obvious advantage like free slave workers, etc.; but has no obvious punishment, which I think is wrong.

Originally posted by Zannhart
OK, from the sounds of your post you have played the previous Civ games.

You didn't mind in Civ2 that players had the option of poisoning the water supply, nuking entire cities ("Innocents" and military), when attacking another city most of the time the city lost a population point (I'm assuming because they were killed), filling an entire enemy city's radius with your troops thus starving the city...and numerous other atrocities that were available to the player.

And all of the above are the realities of war and mankind (Human race for all the PC people out there.)

If I had a choice I think I'd prefer someone to raze my city rather than nuking me, or poisoning my water supply without my knowledge and I have to experience a horrible slow death.

Maybe that's just me though...

Zannhart

PS whoever said just because it's in the game you had to do it?