What's a little Genocide between allies...

[red_jon]

I had a good idea for destroying cities. When you order a city to be destroyed, one population point should be destroyed per turn. This means that small cities can be easily eradicated, but large cities will take ages to destroy and so the enemy may have a chance to reclaim the city before it is wiped out.

There should be no limit on the city size that can be eradicated - New York could be destroyed, but it would take a very long time.

For example, the Aztecs conquer Paris, which is size 23. It takes the French 12 turns ro recapture the city, by which time it has been rediced to 11. Whilst a city is being 'genocided', it should not grow, nor build things, produce taxes or science.

With this feature, if you knew you could not hold on to an enemy city for a long time, you could at least damage it.

What do you lot think?

[dainbramaged13]

supposedly, once you take over a city, you can either destroy it or take it over, (see news item) i like your idea better, where it actualy takes a certain number of turns to eradicate it. Not so slowly though.. maybe 3-5 pop points per turn

[red_jon]

Maybe the more units in a city the faster they can destroy it? One unit per pop point.

[DonJoel]

I think red johns idea sounds good. perhaps 2 sizes a turn.

[faded glory]

I dont like the idea jon.


But Genocide is optional. When I take over cities in CTP, I put all the workers as Merchants . Thus the city does not recieve any food and starves to death . But the gold they give me is usefull!!!

[Earthling7]

Sounds good Jon. Very realistic. I think it would also emphasise the gruesomness of genocide.

[isaac brock]

i agree with faded glorys ethnic-cleansing ways. i suppose red jon's idea is okay, but i like a fast solution to my problems, like nerve-stapling.

[red_jon]

Saddam/FG's method is what I usually do, but it takes a while.

Perhaps the improvement 'concentration camps' could speed the process up, say by having 2 population points die per unit.

It's sadistic, but it's life.

[DonJoel]

your desgusting.

[Col Bigspear]

Originally posted by DonJoel
your desgusting.

Don't try to forget the past. It HAPPENED and still goes on today (Serbia).

[red_jon]

Originally posted by DonJoel
your desgusting.

Oh, c'mon!

I doubt there is one civ player who has never tried to 'dispose of' a captured city. IT ISN'T REAL. The British used the camps during the Boer war and many nations have since.

[isaac brock]

Originally posted by Col Bigspear


Don't try to forget the past. It HAPPENED and still goes on today (Serbia).

Actually, NATO air strikes killed a considerably higher amount more than Milosevic did. The charges of ethnic cleansing were exaggerated.

[orange]

Wow, well thought out idea I like it

[Christantine The Great]

A turn is approx. a year, right? Would it take decades to wipe out a city with 1,000,000 citizens? I don't think so. If you really want to you can just line them out and kill them. Small groups of resistance fighters do not make a single population point. Maybe a one turn delay between a city being wiped off the map so the owners have a slim chance of getting it back at best.

[isaac brock]

I agree with everything i've heard you recently say. I think the one year a turn creates some realism problems, but luckily, realism isn't worth sh*t. I agree that you can kill off a city in a year, and I also agree that, if you think about, it, a lot of things don't make sense because of the one turn a year. If you don't think about it, and enjoy the game for what it is, you don't go complaining about whether there should be a picture of a missile truck under a nuke. or some other useless thing like that. I hereby applaud Christantine The Great's rapid succession of good calls.

[orange]

Yah, didn't think about that. Good call CtG

Are all turns one year...even in BC? Because if not, in the early stages of the game, it would be even longer to kill less people.

[Christantine The Great]

Thanks, guys. Those are going in my sig.

Orange, I just assumed that the most furious competition would be in the Modern era. You really don't need your enemies cities then so your choice would most likely be genocide. If I had to wait 20 turns for to kill a city then wiping out a city would be worthless. I'd probably lose 5 times over by then.

[Inverse Icarus]

bah. i proposed that exact same idea back in the "disbanding a city" thread, 2 pop per turn.

but i dont like the "more units faster raze" thing. if you take over a city and fill it with 20 marines it dies in one turn

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Christantine The Great
A turn is approx. a year, right? Would it take decades to wipe out a city with 1,000,000 citizens? I don't think so.

Most likely yes, even not decades then years. Before you get to kill 1/10 of the population the rest will turn against you. They have nothing to lose. They will die if they don't fight anyway.

[TechWins]

This is a good idea (regardless of who's it is) but 2 pop per turn would be better. This idea may have some faults but I'm too tired to find any.

Edit:With that post I just became a King.

[Lancer]

Genoside might be tough to do during fighting. A unit taking a city might have other things on its plate than killing farmer John, things like defending the city from counterattacks. In other words, no reducing or disbanding cities if there is still a unit of that cities nationality or an allied nationality adjacent.

However, the population might start fleeing, swelling nearby cities...and they might not be such happy citezens either. Call em 'refugee citizen points' or something. Takes a while to assimilate them and they are more prone to unrest, eat but don't work, that sort of thing.

[Dauphin]

I think that relocation is a better game idea than genocide.

If as the Germans you take a French size 20 city it would be very difficult to culturally assimilate all 20 Frenchman; and it would be equally difficult to kill all 20.. However if you could relocate a couple each turn to other cities the task would be made easier.

The benefit of this is that you retain the newly acquired population. It would also be easier to justify the destruction of a city in a couple of game turns when you are a democracy (i.e anit genocide in theory).

[d_dudy]

i can't believe he came up with a serious and good idea but he did. i think he's completely right it should take many turns to destroy a large city and its improvements

[dexter4dxm]

i too am in favor of this idea, however, in early-midway through the game, a turn spans many years, and it's not unreasonable to imagine an entire city being killed off in that amount of time. the same holds true for the modern era of the game, because a turn would presumably last a whole year, and with modern technology a city could be killed off that quickly

[dainbramaged13]

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 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.

this was quoted form a post by donjoel in the 'city capture options' forum. Although he says it a bit harshly, I agree with him cmplete ly.

[jdd2007]

i think it is a good idea ... it must work because it lasted through testing. IMHO, 5pop per turn sounds best. anyway, would u really want to destroy a valuable 23pop city???

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by red_jon

Perhaps the improvement 'concentration camps' could speed the process up, say by having 2 population points die per unit.

Is there any way we can killfile members of this forum? Why do I have to subject myself to such stupidity?

[Inverse Icarus]

or go CTPesque and make a "Genocider" unit

[mactbone]

He would have a mustache and speak with a funny German accent...

[Inverse Icarus]

vhe are here keel you.