Thread Tools
Old September 24, 2001, 09:19   #1
Trifna
King
 
Trifna's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:44
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: of anchovies
Posts: 1,478
Destroyng a city should take armies and time
Pristina, Kosovo's capital, was burnt and destroyed by Milosevic. But it wasn't automatic, it took Milosevic's armies to do so, and it was gradual.

So in Civ III, destroying a city after conquest shouldn't be done instantaneously. It should simply be done at your will on a city which you have control on. So if an enemy is coming to take back the city you took to him, you still can bring army in and terrorise, as it is soemtimes done in reality I guess

Destroying a city as Los Angeles, Bombay or Paris would take some time, I'm sure. Enough to make so that it could be conquered back before you destroyed it all. Of course, the pace of destruction of a city is reliated to the army you involve in the destruction. And, I guess, population will about necessarily revolt.
Trifna is offline  
Old September 24, 2001, 11:46   #2
Cookie Monster
King
 
Cookie Monster's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:44
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 1,310
Interesting thoughts. I agree it should take time to destroy a major city. I wonder if the minimum time scale for the game is 1year = 1 turn?

In the beginning of any civ game a game turn is usually about 20 years. Then it is entirely plausible that a city could be destroyed in one game turn. The question is, does it take a year to destroy a major metropolis using conventional military weapons?
Cookie Monster is offline  
Old September 24, 2001, 11:56   #3
Steve Clark
King
 
Steve Clark's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:44
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,555
That would be the correct reply. It is truly a scale issue. Each and every action represents a minimum of 1 year's time to 50 years (in the regular game). Remember, everything is abstracted to a global scale covering years of time. It's not like a tactical RTS game laying siege to a castle in sped-up real time. When you think about forming a 10,000 unit army or moving a unit one tile covering 200 sq miles or building a city, keep the turn length in mind. It is hard to do, but this is the best method for a game that covers 6000+ years over a world that can be as large as 3500 miles x 3500 miles.
Steve Clark is offline  
Old September 24, 2001, 12:08   #4
player1
Emperor
 
player1's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:44
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Belgrade, Serbia
Posts: 3,218
"Pristina, Kosovo's capital, was burnt and destroyed by Milosevic. But it wasn't automatic, it took Milosevic's armies to do so, and it was gradual."

It's untrue, Pistina was quite intact.
player1 is offline  
Old September 24, 2001, 13:02   #5
Trifna
King
 
Trifna's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:44
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: of anchovies
Posts: 1,478
?
Was it??

Then, if it's not Pristina, these images I saw were of annother Kosovar city I guess.
Trifna is offline  
Old September 24, 2001, 13:15   #6
Trifna
King
 
Trifna's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:44
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: of anchovies
Posts: 1,478
resistance
There also could exist the resistance from population from population as a factor. Some populations only flee away while some others will try to resist and will cause problems, defending their cities themselves with the weapons they found.
Trifna is offline  
Old September 24, 2001, 13:53   #7
saracen31
Warlord
 
saracen31's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:44
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Dallas
Posts: 152
Just to keep it in the abstract, it should take at most 3 turns. 3 turns would allow the enemy civ a chance to try to take back the city before you burn it to the ground.

Anything longer than that, and it would be about as much of a pain as the old starve & build settler strategy for cities under size 3.
saracen31 is offline  
Old September 24, 2001, 16:41   #8
GaryGuanine
Warlord
 
Local Time: 13:44
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 118
Also, I think that as the game time passes, the ability to rapidly destroy a city increases. While conceivably you could be extremely backwards technologically, a group of phalanx could destroy an ancient city in 20 years, but an armor division probably could destroy a modern city in one year. Not amazing cities like LA or New York, which would be represented in the game by populations of 20+, but something like Cincinnati or Utrecht could probably be pretty well leveled in 365 days.

Gary
GaryGuanine is offline  
Old September 24, 2001, 16:46   #9
Oldenbarnevelt
Chieftain
 
Oldenbarnevelt's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:44
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: in the Dutch swamps
Posts: 46
Re: ?
Quote:
Originally posted by Trifna
Was it??

Then, if it's not Pristina, these images I saw were of annother Kosovar city I guess.
You probably mean Sarajevo, Bosnia's capital, which was beleaguered and shelled for three years by the Bosnian Serbs.
Oldenbarnevelt is offline  
Old September 24, 2001, 17:11   #10
Gangerolf
Prince
 
Gangerolf's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:44
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: KULTUR-TERROR
Posts: 958
Destroying a city could take less than a minute if you got enough bombs...
Gangerolf is offline  
Old September 24, 2001, 17:23   #11
WTE_OzWolf
Warlord
 
WTE_OzWolf's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:44
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 122
I find it impossible to try and imagine it: a city like Los Angeles, Sydney or London wiped off the map entirely. Nobody living there, no population.

It's one thing to destroy the infrastructure of a city, another to entirely wipe it and its population from the map. So, in my opinion, a one-turn destruction is more possible in modern-future ages due to the amount of firepower at hand, but I find it difficult to believe that a medieval army would be able to destroy a city such as medieval London completely, no matter what the time period given. The citizens would revolt. They're not just gonna sit around the table, hear a crash and simply comment:

"Those #@!% are at it again. They've just destroyed the Jones'. We're next, I suppose."

But I do it all the time in CTP2 Capture an enemy city thats in a shocking location, starve 'em, overwork 'em, then disband the city when its size reaches 3.
__________________
Oooh! Pretty flashing red button! * PUSH *
WTE_OzWolf is offline  
Old September 24, 2001, 17:30   #12
Christantine The Great
Prince
 
Local Time: 08:44
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 771
It would be extremely easy to destroy any city. I bet all of you have saw the films of the jetliners crashing into the Twin Towers. Now think what would happen if they crashed into the bottom of the towers. Now think what would happen if you did that to every building in a city. Now think what would happen if you packed all of the people into subways, large buildings, underwater tunnels, etc and blew them all up at the same time? I know this is a morbid subject but it is extremely easy to kill 6,000,000 people in the space of one year.

Now an ancient city could have its relitively small citizenry packed into wooden warehouses, large ships, etc and have them all burnt/sunk.

They aren't aiming at taking the city apart brick by brick like a Lego model. They are going to blow up EVERY building and EVERYONE inside of that city and they won't care how evil or how damaging it would be.
__________________
"I agree with everything i've heard you recently say-I hereby applaud Christantine The Great's rapid succession of good calls."-isaac brock
"This has to be one of the most impressive accomplishments in the history of Apolyton, well done Chris"-monkspider (Refering to my Megamix summary)
"You are redoing history by replaying the civs that made history."-Me
Christantine The Great is offline  
Old September 24, 2001, 17:57   #13
GaryGuanine
Warlord
 
Local Time: 13:44
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 118
You don't have to worry about the people revolting, since you're demolishing the city anyway. You're not trying to convert the population, you don't care what happens to it. You just kill them.

Gary
GaryGuanine is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 16:44   #14
Mihai
CTP2 Source Code Project
Warlord
 
Local Time: 15:44
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Posts: 174
It's easy
Quote:
Originally posted by Christantine The Great
They are going to blow up EVERY building and EVERYONE inside of that city and they won't care how evil or how damaging it would be.
In modern times you have more fire power and in ancient times you have fire
Nero burned Roma. Not to the ground, but an enemy army could easily distroy a city if that was that they want.
In 1812 russians burned Moscow and French army couldn't stop the fire.
Carpet bombing leveled Dresda and Tokyo (or distroyed most of them)
__________________
"Respect the gods, but have as little to do with them as possible." - Confucius
"Give nothing to gods and expect nothing from them." - my motto
Mihai 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 09:44.


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