Razing Cities and Other Leaders Opinions of You?

RX2000

Prince
Joined
Nov 7, 2001
Messages
551
Location
USA
Lets say that you have good trade going with the Germans and things look well. Next thing ya know, BAM Bismarck stabs you in the back and starts rolling over your cities. (He seems to like to do that a lot to me.) So you mobilize and start cranking out the units like there's no tomorrow. You invade his territory and raze city after city of his.

My question is this: Does razing cities have any noticable effect on other leaders opinions of you, as opposed to if you capture and hold them? That happened to me in the last game I played, and after I rolled over Germany most civs went from polite to annoyed. The only thing I can think of is that they were upset that I ethnically cleansed all the Germans. Anyone else have similar experiences like this? Also, I think it cost me the diplomatic victory, because I had been kissing everyone's ass the whole game, and they were all polite, but then when I built the UN and held the vote, I was outvoted and lost.
 
I haven't noticed any change. Ironic - in a game that overemphasizes culture it seems OK to act as a barbarian slaughtering populations. :p

BTW, I have noticed that fewer cities flip as long as there are never any unhappy citizens (not even one) in it no matter how many happy there are.

If I forget to be sure there are no unhappy citizens and there is a flip (despite my garrison which of course disappears into thin air) I just go to Autosave and go back a turn and correct the mistake. I will either add some military, or take some out to reconquer if there is a flip (depends on the situation).

I have no problem with this kind of "cheat" because culture flipping is stupid, and the AI cheats anyway.
 
Originally posted by Zouave
I haven't noticed any change. Ironic - in a game that overemphasizes culture it seems OK to act as a barbarian slaughtering populations. :p

BTW, I have noticed that fewer cities flip as long as there are never any unhappy citizens (not even one) in it no matter how many happy there are.

If I forget to be sure there are no unhappy citizens and there is a flip (despite my garrison which of course disappears into thin air) I just go to Autosave and go back a turn and correct the mistake. I will either add some military, or take some out to reconquer if there is a flip (depends on the situation).

I have no problem with this kind of "cheat" because culture flipping is stupid, and the AI cheats anyway.

I think culture flipping is cool... It just adds another element to the game, another ball to juggle in the air... You can't just build military+science, you have to build culture as well, which is fine by me (I'm almost always the beneficiary of the culture flips, anyway :))

- Windwalker
 
I always raze the captured city unless it has some great wonder, because those aliens in the city are always unhappy, and the city flips too easily. I don't other civs have any problem with me doing that.

However, I do observe that after I destroy one civ, other civs significantly lower their opinions toward me. Maybe because they lose one trade partner, or one fighting opponent, or maybe AIs just have too many bugs in them.

I always wonder whether starving people affects my score and reduces my citizens' happiness? Intuitively starving is cruel, bad, stupid, and shows the ruler's incompetency.
 
Originally posted by praestare
I always wonder whether starving people affects my score and reduces my citizens' happiness? Intuitively starving is cruel, bad, stupid, and shows the ruler's incompetency.

So does razing.
 
Originally posted by Zouave
I have no problem with this kind of "cheat" because culture flipping is stupid, and the AI cheats anyway.

Cheat all you want, but . . .

the challenge of Civ3 involves culture. Keep trying: you'll figure it out eventually. It's worth the effort. :)
 
Originally posted by praestare
However, I do observe that after I destroy one civ, other civs significantly lower their opinions toward me.

Yes, I have noticed that, too. For example, "sweet Elisabeth" attacked me without any warning and I have decided to destroy them. I traded most of civs on my continent to declare war (it helped me a lot at the beginning of the war) and then I launched an offensive, razing and re-building some cities. Other civs were polite or even gracious but just after I had destroyed the English most of them have got annoyed.


Regards,

Slawomir Stachniewicz
 
Originally posted by praestare

However, I do observe that after I destroy one civ, other civs significantly lower their opinions toward me. Maybe because they lose one trade partner, or one fighting opponent, or maybe AIs just have too many bugs in them.

Why would this be a bug? If you notice a civ has wiped out another civ, does this make you happy? That civ now has far more cities, and one less other civ to keep it in check. In my experience, civs get more dangerous the larger they get (in general).

So it should be a factor in the AI's behaviour, in my view. The AI, just like any player in, for instance, MP, should get annoyed when you get too big.

Also, it means that there's one less civ for them to steal from/plunder/take over.
 
Top Bottom