Thread Tools
Old September 22, 2001, 01:12   #1
BeBro
Emperor
 
BeBro's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:41
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,278
City Capture Options
Ok, we can now take a city, or destroy it.

I like the idea, but I think there should be a loss in the "culture" score if you destroy cities. Also I think this loss should be lower in ancient times, and higher in more modern ages.
__________________
Banana
BeBro is offline  
Old September 22, 2001, 01:50   #2
Earthling7
Mac
Prince
 
Earthling7's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:41
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: of pop
Posts: 735
Sounds like a reasonable idea. It's hard to make friends when all you do is raze cities.

Am I right in that conquered cities stay pissed for a while, as in real life? That would be cool...
__________________
To be one with the Universe is to be very lonely - John Doe - Datalinks
Earthling7 is offline  
Old September 22, 2001, 02:05   #3
Urban Ranger
NationStatesApolyton Storywriters' GuildNever Ending Stories
Deity
 
Urban Ranger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:41
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: The City State of Noosphere, CPA special envoy
Posts: 14,606
What happens to the destroyed cities? Or maybe I should go look on the site
__________________
(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."
Urban Ranger is offline  
Old September 22, 2001, 02:20   #4
UKScud
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 13:41
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 57
The news item mentions that cities can be razed in ANY age??

If so, OMG!

Can you imagine it, near the end of game, 2001. A hostile force sends marines into a big, big city...say pop.15+ and they raze it!

What happens to the population? Slaughtered? Some become partisans? Refugees perhaps?

Is this something that would cause an international incident in the same way that the Civ2 spy planting a nuke in a city was?

I can understand the "realism" of having a medieval city razed to the ground, you might even expect it in an early industrial age, but modern age???

Does that sort of thing happen without international consequences? Should it?
UKScud is offline  
Old September 22, 2001, 02:24   #5
Lordfluffers
Settler
 
Local Time: 13:41
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 22
I think this idea of razing any size city is a little inaccurate and will probably unbalance the game. It is logistically unlikely anyway not to mention the resistance that it would receive from the inhabitants. Although many cities were effectively destroyed in ancient times, these cities had very small populations. Secondly nobody really has the power to level a city. Napoleon's Russian conquest led The Russians to raze Moscow, but it still survived. What about WW2??? Will it be possible for the Germans to destroy any city they capture???

Ultimately I think this will lead to an unbalanced game. Players can build huge armies, destroy a city, and go on and ravage another. The whole game will be based on surprise attacks on major cities to cripple the enemy. As a result players will have to build huge defenses to counter such a threat. In reality, civs have to occupy their captured prizes.

I agree with razing cities of a certain size or starving them out (although I think this should create resistance). I also think that shelling and bombing should damage city improvements and populations, but razing a city whatever its size is absurd!!!!!
Lordfluffers is offline  
Old September 22, 2001, 02:27   #6
Gramphos
staff
Civilization III MultiplayerC4WDG Team ApolytonCivilization IV: MultiplayerAge of Nations TeamC4BtSDG Realms BeyondCivilization IV Creators
Technical Director
 
Gramphos's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:41
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Chalmers, Sweden
Posts: 9,294
Quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
What happens to the destroyed cities? Or maybe I should go look on the site

It will be burned to dust.
__________________
ACS - Technical Director
Gramphos is offline  
Old September 22, 2001, 02:32   #7
Rince
Chieftain
 
Rince's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:41
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 59
There has to be a hard penalty for destroying cities. If you conquer a city, you should have to deal with the consequences. Just loosing your reputation isn't enough IMHO. I remember from previous civ sessions that i never cared about my diplomatic contacts anyway. Maybe this will get impossible in Civ 3, but still, destroying cities really isn't realistic.

Rince
Rince is offline  
Old September 22, 2001, 02:46   #8
Asmodean
Civilization III Democracy GameThe Courts of Candle'Bre
Emperor
 
Asmodean's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:41
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Aarhus, Denmark
Posts: 3,618
OK...razing a city with a size of 1, 2 or even 3....that sound fine to me. But bigger cities, come on...Where's the realism in that. Just imagine razing a city the size of New York, or Berlin. In realistic terms, it can't be done without the use of nukes.

In Civ I or Civ II, I missed this feature so bad , because the AI would sometimes place cities within the city radius of one of your own cities. But now...with the border system, I don't even care that it's in. Firaxis: please tell us what prompted you to include this.

Asmodean
__________________
Im not sure what Baruk Khazad is , but if they speak Judeo-Dwarvish, that would be "blessed are the dwarves" - lord of the mark
Asmodean is offline  
Old September 22, 2001, 02:59   #9
BeBro
Emperor
 
BeBro's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:41
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,278
Quote:
Originally posted by Rince
Maybe this will get impossible in Civ 3, but still, destroying cities really isn't realistic.
Unfortunately it is absolutely realistic, at least in ancient or medieval times (e.g.Carthage). However, I agree with all here who say there should be a penalty for doing this in industrial/modern ages.
__________________
Banana
BeBro is offline  
Old September 22, 2001, 03:00   #10
Earthling7
Mac
Prince
 
Earthling7's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:41
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: of pop
Posts: 735
I think destroying a city up until 1750, Earth terms, should be fine. It should not be tolerated after the beginning of the industrial age. Also, Republics and Democracies should be punished for doing it. The people would go bananas.

If it happens in the above case, it should be treated as an atrocity. Maybe the UN Council couls vote on if it is an atrocity. Maybe the victim has been terrorising the whole world with their militaristic madness...

If it's in, it should be implemented properly.
__________________
To be one with the Universe is to be very lonely - John Doe - Datalinks
Earthling7 is offline  
Old September 22, 2001, 03:31   #11
Asmodean
Civilization III Democracy GameThe Courts of Candle'Bre
Emperor
 
Asmodean's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:41
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Aarhus, Denmark
Posts: 3,618
Quote:
Originally posted by Earthling7
If it's in, it should be implemented properly.
IMHO a proper implementation of this would be to limit this to the early ages - not later that middle ages to be sure. And to implement a limit of, say, city size 6 or 7. I can see cities of those sizes getting razed. Imaging however, razing a metropolis of 8 or 9 million people. Buildings can be destroyed or burned, but killing that many people - wiping out an entire city. Even Hitler couldn't bring himself to do that, and God knows he had the chances.

I know Firaxis are balancing fun and gameplay over realism, but come on...

Asmodean
__________________
Im not sure what Baruk Khazad is , but if they speak Judeo-Dwarvish, that would be "blessed are the dwarves" - lord of the mark
Asmodean is offline  
Old September 22, 2001, 03:32   #12
Lordfluffers
Settler
 
Local Time: 13:41
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Quote:
If it's in, it should be implemented properly.
Good point!!!

You should really only be able to raze a city with nukes. Or there should be a very, very heavy penalty for it in the later stages of the game. It is very hard to destroy a large city with conventional weapons, even today. Stalingrad survived, just, after 10 months hard fighting, bombing, shelling. So did Berlin, so did Warsaw. It is so difficult and expensive to destroy a huge city. London and its suburbs is hundreds of square kilometres in area and has millions of inhabitants. The ordinance required to level it would be vast and the army to maintain order while it did so would also have to be huge. If it is done, especially in the industrial/modern era, then there should be harsh penalties. I personally think this is massively unrealistic and should be kept to the smaller cities.
Lordfluffers is offline  
Old September 22, 2001, 03:52   #13
Tventano
Warlord
 
Tventano's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:41
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Enschede, The Netherlands
Posts: 177
In SMAC it counted as an atrocity. So although military it could have an advantage it had very severe diplomatic consequences.
Tventano is offline  
Old September 22, 2001, 05:40   #14
Jason Beaudoin
Prince
 
Local Time: 08:41
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 478
The question that comes to my mind when I hear that you can raze a city is the following:

In terms of gameplay, would it be better to raze a city? You wouldn't have to occupy that city. You wouldn't have to worry about uprizings. I wonder what it will be like to actually occupy a foreign city with potentially hostile citizens.

Firaxis... you can give us away some secrets, after all, EBWorld is reporting that the release date is on 30 October 2001... about one month away! Woo hoo!
__________________
Of the Holy Roman Empire, this was once said:
"It is neither holy or roman, nor is it an empire."
Jason Beaudoin is offline  
Old September 22, 2001, 06:37   #15
BeBro
Emperor
 
BeBro's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:41
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,278
Well, often you may need the captured city as a base for further operations...
__________________
Banana
BeBro is offline  
Old September 22, 2001, 06:41   #16
Jason Beaudoin
Prince
 
Local Time: 08:41
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 478
True enough!

In one of the new screen shots that was just released, you'll notice that the player who was attacking the unfortunate Civ of Germany razed most of the cities. I wonder why he didn't capture them. Was it because it wasn't worth the trouble, or did he need to satisfy some sick feeling of vengence?
__________________
Of the Holy Roman Empire, this was once said:
"It is neither holy or roman, nor is it an empire."
Jason Beaudoin is offline  
Old September 22, 2001, 08:04   #17
Urban Ranger
NationStatesApolyton Storywriters' GuildNever Ending Stories
Deity
 
Urban Ranger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:41
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: The City State of Noosphere, CPA special envoy
Posts: 14,606
Real life example
I don't think razing a large city is possible. If you have heard of the Nanjing Massacre, it's the proof. After the IJA (Imperial Japanese Army) captured Nanjing, a large city in China, they went berserk and started mass murdering the people. In a number of days 340,000 were killed However the city survived.
__________________
(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."
Urban Ranger is offline  
Old September 22, 2001, 08:16   #18
Earthling7
Mac
Prince
 
Earthling7's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:41
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: of pop
Posts: 735
Re: Real life example
Quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
In a number of days 340,000 were killed
People are so nice
__________________
To be one with the Universe is to be very lonely - John Doe - Datalinks
Earthling7 is offline  
Old September 22, 2001, 08:56   #19
crmeyer
Settler
 
crmeyer's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:41
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Snellville, GA, USA
Posts: 13
Literal vs. Strategic Interpretation
First we must all admit that we neither know how this is implemented nor what consequences are incurred upon the razing of a city.

Secondly consider the razing not in a literal sense but in a strategic sense. Yes Berlin "survived" but it wasn't worth much for the decade following WW2 and even then it required a huge amount of investment from both the West and the Soviet Union.

So, perhaps, the question should be: "Can a city be razed to the point that its population and infrastructure no longer provide value to a civilization?"

I think the answer to this is clearly: "Yes"

Also, on a related note ... I can still recall the "Partisan" explosion that I have experienced in Civ2 for just "taking" an enemy city ... I expect that Firaxis will suffer even greater pains upon those that raze a city.

Even without "penalties," the razing of a city is usually detrimental to the conquering force in wasted resources alone.

Finally, it is difficult to analyze specific elements without having a clear understaind of the system in which it operates. Remember that there are significant changes to the actual "system" under which the civs conduct themselves ... trade, diplomacy, etc.
crmeyer is offline  
Old September 22, 2001, 09:05   #20
isaac brock
Warlord
 
isaac brock's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:41
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Amherstburg, Ontario
Posts: 240
Quote:
Originally posted by Earthling7
If it's in, it should be implemented properly.
Wow, what a bold statement. Of course it should be implemented properly. Are there other parts of civ 3 that should only be implemented improperly? tsk tsk.
__________________
Retired, and it feels so good!
isaac brock is offline  
Old September 22, 2001, 09:09   #21
The Andy-Man
Prince
 
The Andy-Man's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:41
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tory Party of 'Poly
Posts: 523
they have probably put the option in so that when a civ declares war on your lil republic, you can take a few of there cities (and because units now cost money and not production points) and to save the cost of an extensive feild army protecting new aquisitions on enemy teretory, you just destroy it.
__________________
eimi men anthropos pollon logon, mikras de sophias
The Andy-Man is offline  
Old September 22, 2001, 09:14   #22
crmeyer
Settler
 
crmeyer's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:41
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Snellville, GA, USA
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally posted by isaac brock


Wow, what a bold statement. Of course it should be implemented properly. Are there other parts of civ 3 that should only be implemented improperly? tsk tsk.
Yes a bold statement indeed.

Clearly much more bold than statements about gameplay elements without regard for or understanding of the systems in which the gameplay elements operate.
crmeyer is offline  
Old September 22, 2001, 09:20   #23
Inverse Icarus
Emperor
 
Inverse Icarus's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:41
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: flying too low to the ground
Posts: 4,625
juding by the animation it might actually take TIME to raze a city, depending on it's size.

if you try to raze a large city, maybe 2 pop would die each turn, thereby making it important to hold the city while you are razing it.

it's just flat out stupid to be able to take over a city and destroy it that same turn, thats worse than nukes for christs sake.
__________________
"I've lived too long with pain. I won't know who I am without it. We have to leave this place, I am almost happy here."
- Ender, from Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card
Inverse Icarus is offline  
Old September 22, 2001, 10:55   #24
BeBro
Emperor
 
BeBro's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:41
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,278
Quote:
Originally posted by UberKruX
it's just flat out stupid to be able to take over a city and destroy it that same turn, thats worse than nukes for christs sake.
Hm, but if one turn is one year? Enough to destroy a city completely. The reason why cities in modern wars survived is not that they are so hard to destroy - with or without nukes. IMO the reason is that normally one side WILL capture the city, but not destroy it.
__________________
Banana
BeBro is offline  
Old September 22, 2001, 11:03   #25
DonJoel
Warlord
 
DonJoel's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:41
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 123
Quote:
Hm, but if one turn is one year? Enough to destroy a city completely.
Everybody who says that you should be able to do this and that in a turn because its a year is plain stupid and doesnt know **** about civ.
Is it realistic that armor moves 3 squares in a year?
Is it realistic that it takes 20 years for a modern ship to move around the world?
No, but its ****ing fun.

Btw, i dont think you should be able to destroy cities in a turn. the gameplay in especially multiplayer but also singleplayer would suffer.
DonJoel is offline  
Old September 22, 2001, 11:05   #26
Dida
Prince
 
Dida's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:41
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 604
Can we give the city back to the orginal Civ, but only with some tough conditions? for example,
: you stop building nukes, sign peace treaty with me, and give me 50 golds per turn, I will give Berlin back to you.
Dida is offline  
Old September 22, 2001, 11:39   #27
jsw363
Prince
 
Local Time: 05:41
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 319
Quote:
Originally posted by Dida
Can we give the city back to the orginal Civ, but only with some tough conditions? for example,
: you stop building nukes, sign peace treaty with me, and give me 50 golds per turn, I will give Berlin back to you.
This sounds quite plausible to me. A great way to enforce tough treaty conditions that the civ otherwise wouldn't agree to.

I think that the raze city option is especially helpful when AI cities are badly placed. But at least I won't find random cities appearing in the middle of my empire because of the borders feature. I always hated that the most. Razing a city would only be useful with blitzkreig tactics. In most other situations, you'd probably want to be able to "harvest" the settlers from the city.
jsw363 is offline  
Old September 22, 2001, 11:45   #28
BeBro
Emperor
 
BeBro's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:41
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,278
Quote:
Originally posted by DonJoel


Everybody who says that you should be able to do this and that in a turn because its a year is plain stupid and doesnt know **** about civ.
Is it realistic that armor moves 3 squares in a year?
Is it realistic that it takes 20 years for a modern ship to move around the world?
No, but its ****ing fun.

Btw, i dont think you should be able to destroy cities in a turn. the gameplay in especially multiplayer but also singleplayer would suffer.
Oh, I wasn´t aware that this topic is hot enough for a flame war. However, feel free to go on, since your opinion is obviously always right...
__________________
Banana
BeBro is offline  
Old September 22, 2001, 11:47   #29
Daoloth
Settler
 
Local Time: 07:41
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 23
My Two Cents
Well I posted the original thread at CivFanatics, and I would like to mention something about the screenshot I linked: The cities were destroyed in the 13th and 14th centuries...We do not know yet whether they can be destroyed in modern age. And yes, modern cities have been destroyed: Stalingrad, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, that small city the Nazis destroyed, etc. But those have really been rebuilt. Dan's reply was just one paragraph, so there's undoutedly something more with such a large feature. Personally, I think it's great.
Daoloth is offline  
Old September 22, 2001, 12:05   #30
PGM
Prince
 
PGM's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:41
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 334
Quote:
Originally posted by Dida
Can we give the city back to the orginal Civ, but only with some tough conditions? for example,
: you stop building nukes, sign peace treaty with me, and give me 50 golds per turn, I will give Berlin back to you.
I don't see why not. It is now your city, you can trade any of them, just offer the city in the diplomatic negotiations screen and see what they give you for it. If the city still has a high inherent value (though city value after conquest might decrease substantially - loss of all accumulated culture points, loss of population, unhappiness, ...), I believe they will be interested. Besides, you have the upper-hand now.

Razing a city: I like the concept very much, but I think there should be a size limit to do that (5, 8, whatever). It's hard to accept a city size 20 being razed to the ground.

Daoloth: modern cities have been destroyed, but not razed to the ground (taken out of the world map) as if they never existed.

We've been told that Great Wonders can't be destroyed. What if you raze a city that has one of these???
PGM is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:41.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team