Stability

[LAF1994]

Some general issues regarding the stability system:
-The stability penalty for razing cities should be removed- it's arbitrary and unrealistic.
-Negative relations with other civs should only impact your stability if you are not more powerful than they are.

 

[Tigranes]

But why? Razing creates a lot of outrage. I mean Americans razed one village in Vietnam and look what it did to stability back home. Also bad relations Mexico after we elect Trump will not improve American stability. Bad is always bad and adds up. So I don't see any valid issues so far.

 

[The Green One]

Should razing not be linked to era/tech maybe though? Razing cities was more commonplace in era of the Greeks, Romans and Persians, but obviously it was a bigger outrage during the Vietnam war. Maybe double it with Nationalism? I had -8 for razing a, very new (although pop 5) Indonesian City as the Tamils as I didn't want two cities on Java, but it absolutely ruined my stability.

 

[Nyayr]

The sack of Troyes and its destruction was written epos about. Might be tweaked though making it different depending on if the city shares your religion or not and make it heavier depending on your government and era. Harder to do with a republic and emancipation then for example an authoritarian rule.

 

[ngazi]

Thing is the AI likes to settle on iron and other bad places. I usually raze everything unless I plan to give it back.

 

[citis]

Human player razing has been penalised after posts of some extraordinary games where there are only two-three cities in the world. AI is sometimes terrible defender.

 

[Malchar]

I dislike the razing penalty, but it is necessary for game balance.

 

[Makudomi]

The sack of Troyes and its destruction was written epos about. Might be tweaked though making it different depending on if the city shares your religion or not and make it heavier depending on your government and era. Harder to do with a republic and emancipation then for example an authoritarian rule.

I agree with this. I wouldn't really complain if the razing penalty (already nerfed from Rhye's old system IIRC, which had a permanent negative effect) didn't change at all, but IMO there should be some divergence between modern democracies razing a city and classical empires doing so.

 

[need my speed]

I can't stand the silly cities AI's place, and often find myself razing whole nations as a result (even, sometimes, very valuable ones, unless I really need them). A radical solution would be to allow one to move a city to anywhere within the eight tiles surrounding it upon acquiring it.

 

[Nyayr]

I usually conquer big cities that I don't want after conquest pass them to the neutrals and just let them wither as my culture starves them out, keeping their units in the city low works to so they use slavery to diminish population, then when they 2 or 1 crush them and raze for -2 for 5 turns . usually look what city is reasonable in the area and build that up. Helps if other nations conquer those cities and weaken them more works well for english in india, though takes time...

An idea might be that you can force migrate a population? Which has negatives but maybe not so much as killing them all. Or the ability to make them into forced labourers? That can used to build 1 mine, farm or hamlet and destroys the unit in the process? Like a one shot worker, similar to slaves. Just running my thought here... Might be good linked to slavery and/or agrarianism.

 

[Force44]

@ Nyaryr

A bonus for razing cities.

Personally I like it.

It Always strikes me as a bit odd that whenever a city is razed so little of all the labour that went into building the city gets converted (you might receive a higher sum of gold when razing a city compared to conquering it, but even that is a guess on my part).

(afaik) The general consensus seems to be that razing cities should be penalized. So giving additional bonuses to razing (parts) of the city might be a hard sell.

 

[Nyayr]

In old times razing a city gave wealth and also captives. This been happening since ages and even the infamous national socialist in ww2 did these things... Captive labour many momuments were build with it, check the mongols.

 

[citis]

Razing stability affects only human player and decays. If you want to raise a city so badly make sure to starve to 1 pop and you will be fine.

 

[Force44]

Razing stability affects only human player and decays. If you want to raise a city so badly make sure to starve to 1 pop and you will be fine.

That is besides the point.

The point being that the implementation of razing cities could (arguably) be improved. Not that there is no way around the penalty of razing cities to get rid of cities in undesired spots (/undesired cities).

I do appreciate your tip on avoiding unnecessary instability untill a more satisfactory implementation of razing cities is implemented though.

 

[Leoreth]

I am not sure what the issue is actually. If you want city razing to be less penalised, you have to make a modmod for it. If you want the penalty to be different (but with the same degree of severity) you need to elaborate why the current implementation is problematic and what should replace it.

 

[Force44]

I am not sure what the issue is actually. If you want city razing to be less penalised, you have to make a module for it. If you want the penalty to be different (but with the same degree of severity) you need to elaborate why the current implementation is problematic and what should replace it.

It Always strikes me as a bit odd that whenever a city is razed so little of all the labour that went into building the city gets converted (you might receive a higher sum of gold when razing a city compared to conquering it, but even that is a guess on my part).

^
|
this part of the (lack of) penalty I would like to be different

a possible replacement
|
v​

populace

A certain percentage of the population that disappears from razed cities (perhaps 80%) should reappear as temporarily unhappy citizens " The evil [civname] destroyed our homes".

The recipients could be the players with the most similar populace (so if a city with pop 10 and 75% Greeks and 25% Romans gets razed by the Persians a The Greek cities will receive a total of 6 citizens and the Romans a total of 2 citizens)

diplomacy

The acquisition of unhappy citizens could be accompanied by a temporarily diplomacy malus. (-1 per citizen received, "You commited grave atrocities against our loyal subjects")

great persons

(some of) The settled great persons in the city that gets razed should be resettled similar to populace (treat each settled great person as one additonal pop) and some should be resettled into a city of the conqueror (with accompanying temporarily unhappiness)

buildings

Every building in the city that gets destroyed after capture(/razing) should yield a percentage of its in .

culture

A small percentage of accumulated should be spread to your cities (eg. 10% of total 5% of gets added to your capitol, the other 5% of gets spread around your other cities)

Some of the remaining "disappearing" could be spread along with the redistributed citizens.

A significan part of the "disappearing" should be transformed into (a formula should be used to calculate the amount because a distribution based on proportion alone will probably be a little too good for razing cities with high culture)

unfinished production

Accumulated (and perhaps also ) gets used to heal units (both friendly and enemy)/spawn partisanlike units (in a (eg. nine tile) radius centered on the razed city).

stability

Some of the razing instability could be transferred to the civilizations receiving citizens to incentivize protecting cities that contain a percentage of your populace.

severity/intermediate option between capturing (and releasing) and razing a city

An additional option to sack the city upon conquest (only raze part of the city, eg half) to force the effects of razing a city, but to a milder degree (less and perhaps milder penalties to happyness and diplomacy)