The Razing of CITIES

[Darwin420]

RE: Pollution from Burning:

I've been thinking about it, and yeah, the nutrient idea doesn't make sense. I still think it should cause pollution in adjacent squares, per the same ratio in one of my previous posts. And I like the traveling downstream idea!

RE: Razing vs. Occupying @Admiral8Q

I'd like to modify my initial proposal. Under my aforementioned city-raze turn timetable, I think you should have an equivalent amount of troops enter the city on that turn (i.e., 4 units to raze a level 12 city), but those troops can leave the next turn and the city will completely burn in 4 turns (without continued military presence).

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

I think this would be an awesome idea. Here are my two bits. I think the size of the city should determine the number of turns needed to raze a city, like a size 7 city should take 2 or 3 turns, also I think that there should be refugees fleeing the city (they could be workers or something) also depending on the size of the city. Like before it could be a size 7 city could have 2 or 3 refugees fleeing. Anyone else like this ideology?

 

[Darwin420]

@TankGuy:

This is the ratio I proposed:

Maybe the razing could work like this...

Level 1-3 = 1 turn
Level 4-6 = 2 turns
Level 7-12 = 3 turns
Level 12+ = 4 turns

What are your thoughts for this ratio?

EDIT: spelling. Man, I'm on a roll today.

 

[Comrade Pedro]

the fleein refugies are a good ideia, but not soo much refugies, i think...Only in big cities the armies wouldn't have the complete control over it and therebefore, there'll be refugies.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

The pollution thing is a good idea, but it shouldn't be the kind of pollution you get during the industrial age, it should be a more cumulative kind of pollution, such as thermal pollution or global warming and depending on the number of cities you burn, the time it takes for global warming should be shortened.

 

[Darwin420]

@TankGuy:

If they implement that idea, then Global Warming better actually mean something in cIV!!!

 

[Comrade Pedro]

pollution by burning building? why?

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

Like having the polar ice caps melt like they did in civ 2 (when you nuked a lot of cities and didn't clean up the pollution), it changes some of the terrain around coastal areas to swamps or something. Also, you would need to burn almost every city you capture to shorten the time until this happens if they were to implement it.

 

[Darwin420]

@Comrade_Pedro:

Smoke, ash, dead people. That does create pollution. Especially in the later ages, when more chemicals are used. That can make land completely toxic to all but the most extreme life.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

Also, if you have troops passing through the area they could either be weakened or die when going near the bured city, like when you station troops too close to or in jungles for too long or have something similar to the dieing of citizens in cities built on flood plains.

Another note about the global warming thing, it should become more prevalent in the later ages, while the disease thing more prevalent in the earlier ages. It was harder to fight disease back then, Black Plague and such.

 

[Darwin420]

Not sure I like the idea of troops weakening or dying when going near a burning city.

I do think that plagues and disease should be, as you say, more prevalent before the discovery of sanitation; and global warming more prevalent as society becomes more industrialized.

 

[sir_schwick]

In ancient era armies often took weeks or months to completely raze cities so no one could rebuilt over the old foundations. Having to keep troops would also make 'one turn conquests' a lot harder.

On refugees, once your troops starting knocking at the gates of the city, lots of refugees would appear if roads were secure out of the city. A few would escape afterward, but most during or before the fighting.

 

[brinko]

We all know that when refugees flee a city, they take camp up somewhere. these camps should be specifically cited near rivers and food resources. This should also be a nusiance, so depending on the goverment that is empowered specific measures must be taken...for example
democratic - must leave camps alone, even if they invade on precious city food squares. workers can pre designate camp sites by building them outside cities on food squares or if this dosent happen refugees build them any where themselves. unlike a city they can only hold so many refugees until another camp is created. plus refugees from other countries having wars can join these camps. a possible maintenance penalty for camp cost.
communism - refugee camps, can be converted to slaves, or partisans but only a military unit can do this, sometimes the refugees revolt killing the military unit, or if for example a tank...they could capture it and turn it into a rebel unit.
facism - camps are easily converted to slaves or liquidated into shields for neighbouring cities by military units.
monarchy- camps usually are migritory (nomads) and if infringed on camps or nomads can turn into slaves or partisans

partisans as being rebel warriors, almost like internal barbarians.

 

[sir_schwick]

I do like the idea of massive displacement. Now wars in your neighbors land could spill over refugees into your land. This could also be a function of the UN and its dues, refugee aid.

 

[rhialto]

How many turns did it take to raze Dresden or Hiroshima in ww2? Granted, they weren't entirely destroyed, but in both cases the city that was rebuilt had little to do with what came before beyond geograhical location.

Let's ignore the 'years' label, and instead look at relative movement. On a large world map, a tank could get halfway across Arabia in one turn. If a hypothetical tank had started its engine at the same time as the Enola Gay, it might have travelled about 600 km by the time Hiroshima was razed.

Perhaps multiturn razing makes sense in early warfare, but you guys are really underestimating man's inhumanity to man when seeking this feature in modern times. And given the much smaller city sizes in pre-industrial times, I suspect it wouldn't have taken particularly long to raze a city in ancient times either (Carthago delenda est).

 

[wakiki]

I don't see how multi-turn burning to keep your military occupied would make the game any more fun.

What WOULD be cool is if the ruins of certain buildings remained, and if you settled the land, it would create a "ruins" building in your city. It would be like a building with no upkeep. After, say, 1000 turns, it would turn into "Ancient Ruins" and start generating small amounts of culture. The culture would increase more and more as time went on. In the Industrial Age, the ruined site could even become a tourist attriction! It would represent something like Stonehenge (although Stonehenge wasn't burned to the ground - but you get the point), and would be like a mini-wonder.

I also think the idea of clearing up rubble would be good, although I think that over time it would probably be swallowed by the terrain and clear itself up.

Here's another idea: could add an Archaeologist's Lab during the Industrial or Modern Ages, but only if there have been some sort of Ancient Ruins within the city radius for 1000 years. The building could randomly unearth artifacts, giving you sporadic culture or gold boosts. It would be fun

I certainly think that they should, at the very least, add a burning graphic when you raze a city.

 

[sir_schwick]

Depending on how 'thuroughly' the city was razed, you could also rebuild portions of it for less shields than normal. This would only apply to the original builder or a descendant of the original builder.

 

[thescaryworker]

The pollution thing is a good idea, but it shouldn't be the kind of pollution you get during the industrial age, it should be a more cumulative kind of pollution, such as thermal pollution or global warming and depending on the number of cities you burn, the time it takes for global warming should be shortened.

Three problems:
1. Global warming is a naturally occuring event.
2. Without global warming, we'd still be in an ice age.
3. The global tempurature was MUCH higher when dinosaurs roamed the earth than it is now.

So, our pollution has very little effect on global warming.

 

[Admiral8Q]

How many turns did it take to raze Dresden or Hiroshima in ww2?

Well, that's why in the ancient ages it takes hundreds of years to accomplish a simple task, and in modern times it only taks a couple of years.

 

[brinko]

So, our pollution has very little effect on global warming.

volcanoes had assisted the dinosaurs climate warming, but now since we have very few active volcanoes, our factories and suvs contribute quite a bit of polution significantly contributing to global warming. its like the movie envy...where does the Sh** go? it has to go somewhere...

i dont really like the idea that soldiers have to monitor a burning city, I think onces the fire the begins, it can monitor themselves.

i like the fact that in the picture of hiroshima, some buildings remained, but they would be demolished anyways unless a historical shrine was established.

plus they didnt nesessarily raze hiroshirma or negasaki, they bombed it. for dresden they bombed it so many times that before the bombs hit the ground the heat from the fires detonated them(fire bombing). i guess it should be emphasized that not only should "raze city" be a command, but maybe it should also be accomplished by fire bombing cities. It dosent make sence that when i level a city with 50 bombing units and destroy all the citie improvements and kill all there civilians except for one, that it should still stand. There should be nothing but rubble in the end after sending 100 bombers over 3 turns, making the city inhabitable. when the germans were advancing on the eastern front, they intentionally wiped cities off the map, by burning them to the ground...thats good ol fashion razing.
dresden