Raze City?

[Seeker]

I remember in the old SSG game Warlords II when you captured a city you had the option of occupying, sacking, or razing (totally destroying) the city.

Can you destroy a civ III city (without building tons of settlers)?

[Earthling7]

Why would you want to do that? Why not use it to further your cause?

[Haphazard]

Yes, you can raze them to the ground on capture (screenshots of this exist)

[Wexu]

Originally posted by Earthling7
Why would you want to do that? Why not use it to further your cause?

This is one of the best things in Civ3! In earlier Civs you many times captured a city that you didn't really want to own, it was just burden to you (like it was in very bad place). Sometimes you couldn't get defending units early enough and enemy easily captured city back and stole a tech from you. No these problems anymore, this is so coooool!

[Jason Beaudoin]

Yep... as people mention here, it's definately in. I wonder, however, if you would get money from razing the city, because a poster from this forum pointed out an interesting strategy: he indicated that it made more sense to capture the city, sell all of the structures, and if possible, force all of the citizens into labour. According to Firaxis, newly captured citizens will not produce anything for a few rounds, but there is no word on them being forced into labour.

If you can force them to work, that is something I'd do.

[Faboba]

Originally posted by Seeker
I remember in the old SSG game Warlords II when you captured a city you had the option of occupying, sacking, or razing (totally destroying) the city.

Can you destroy a civ III city (without building tons of settlers)?

On every screenshot of city capture, regardless of age ( acient and modern have been shown ) and seemingly regardless of size, upon capture of a city you are able to raze that city to the ground.

What we're not sure yet is if that will merely have the effect of removing that civ's presence from the land, or you can make money for the buildings and people you destroy in the process.......

[Haphazard]

Originally posted by Jason Beaudoin

If you can force them to work, that is something I'd do.

Cunning tactic. Maybe with Nationalism you could conscipt the ones who won't work for you.

Ie:
Player captures city
AI civilians: "We wont work for you while you're at war with our friends"
Player: "Okay, want to join my conscript army then?"
AI civilians "All right"


Lets hope this doesn't happen...

[Faboba]

Or you could work them to death building more units for your campaign like Uber wants to do.

I mean think about it, you capture a city with population of about 4 or 5 ( after bombarding ) during an invasion which overlaps several other cities anyway. It's completely useless to you.

But NOW you can make TANKS OUT IT!!!!!! YAAAAAAY!

By my hands the Panzer tanks will cover the globe!

[Inverse Icarus]

yes. kill off the city and pull out 5 or more tanks for the war effort.

or even, if you need money, set the city to capitialization and work them to death while sellign all improvements.

tons of money.

[Lonestar]

A pity you couldn't raze one city as an example to other more rebellious ones...

[Asesino_Virtual]

Kill Them. All Of Them.

[Akron]

You shouldn't be able to immediately raze a huge city, especially in the modern age. It wouldn't be right if someone sneek attacked you, got lucky, captured your size 30 city with 5 wonders and razed it to the ground that very turn.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Haphazard


Cunning tactic. Maybe with Nationalism you could conscipt the ones who won't work for you.

Ie:
Player captures city
AI civilians: "We wont work for you while you're at war with our friends"
Player: "Okay, want to join my conscript army then?"
AI civilians "All right"


Lets hope this doesn't happen...

It's more like this...

Mean army with guns: "We're giving you three choices, yes we're that nice. You can work in the fields and die from exhaustion, fight in the army and die like cannon fodder, or die now by our guns. What do you choose?"

AI Civilians: "Ummmm, I don't wanna die yet! I guess I'll do one of those two things that doesn't involve me dying now!"

[Lawrence of Arabia]

I see that im going to use the Raze strategy in conjunction with my Panzers.

*sales person voice*

Are you having trouble with the populace of a civilization with a higher culture? Are you tired of dealing with the civil disorder which will accompany your glorious conquests? Then, the Panzer and the Raze are for you. Just capture a city, and Raze it all with your Panzers. The Panzer and Raze are not sold in stores. For a free trial, call 1 800 Raze a Town.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
I see that im going to use the Raze strategy in conjunction with my Panzers.

*sales person voice*

Are you having trouble with the populace of a civilization with a higher culture? Are you tired of dealing with the civil disorder which will accompany your glorious conquests? Then, the Panzer and the Raze are for you. Just capture a city, and Raze it all with your Panzers. The Panzer and Raze are not sold in stores. For a free trial, call 1 800 Raze a Town.

But seriously, if you really want to get something done, you gotta use nukes. I challange you to name one problem that cannot be solved with a nuclear weapon.

With an extra move, Panzers will definetely be good at Blitzkrieg attacks

[vincentz]

challenge accepted: Pollution

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Its confirmed

Panzers are 16.8.3 meaning they dont have extra mouvement. Not sure whats special, but its not movement (ca has 3)

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by vincentz
challenge accepted: Pollution

Nuke the world enough it will speed up the geological processes, send it into an ice age faster, all that. Eventually, the Earth heals itself. All because we sped up the processes with wonderful nukes.

That's all IRL btw...

[ndnls]

.

AkronYou shouldn't be able to immediately raze a huge city, especially in the modern age. It wouldn't be right if someone sneek attacked you, got lucky, captured your size 30 city with 5 wonders and razed it to the ground that very turn

Have you ever seen the destructive powers of modern
weapons?!?

Many of the heavily populated industrial centers of Europe were
reduced to cratered moonscapes of twisted metal and chared
masonry fragments by the constant aerial and artillery
bombardment

And besides, if a bloodthirsty army bent on the total destruction
of your civilization and the annihilation of your citizens suddenly
decided to camp out on your doorstep, would you stay anyway?

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by Akron
You shouldn't be able to immediately raze a huge city, especially in the modern age. It wouldn't be right if someone sneek attacked you, got lucky, captured your size 30 city with 5 wonders and razed it to the ground that very turn.

Actually, I don't agree. If you made the mistake and left your size 30 city weakly defended, then you also take the risk of it being taken over and possibly "razed" to the ground.

Yes, it is a rather harsh lesson to be made...But I believe you would only make this mistake once!

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Yes, it is a rather harsh lesson to be made...But I believe you would only make this mistake once!

[Lorizael]

Taking any big city is apparently going to be very difficult given the modifiers seen in the editor and the limitations on agressive warfare.

But don't you think that if you managed to take some large city, you should get an equally large benefit?

Either you get a wonderful size 30 city that once again is a challenge to keep (what's a game without a challenge)

or

You deprive the entire world of that once wonderful city

[shum00]

There are diplomatic repercussions for razing a large city to the ground... aren't there?

[Lorizael]

Civs got mad in Civ II if you used nuked, so I'm sure razing large cities will have diplomatic reprocussions. All the more fun. I plan to nuke, occupy, and raze the city housing the UN if it's built by someone other than me.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Civs got mad in Civ II if you used nuked, so I'm sure razing large cities will have diplomatic reprocussions. All the more fun. I plan to nuke, occupy, and raze the city housing the UN if it's built by someone other than me.

Thats a great strat!

[Lonestar]

*sigh* a Pity we don't have Tricobalt and Antimatter bombs...

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by Akron
You shouldn't be able to immediately raze a huge city, especially in the modern age. It wouldn't be right if someone sneek attacked you, got lucky, captured your size 30 city with 5 wonders and razed it to the ground that very turn.

Rome may not have been built in a day, but it was torched in a day- just ask the Goths.

I like being able to raze cities, but I wonder what the diplomatic ramifications are...

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Lonestar
*sigh* a Pity we don't have Tricobalt and Antimatter bombs...

Yah, tricobalt was good stuff. You could take out a caretaker's spacestation with that stuff!!

We do have transporters, though. Just look at railroads.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

I like being able to raze cities, but I wonder what the diplomatic ramifications are...

SHould be none if you only have contact with the civ whose city your razing

[Lonestar]

Okay, then too bad we don't have, uh, orbital Phaser weapons that can burn the city into non-exsitance.