Pillaging???

Trifna · October 25, 2001, 14:21

I was woundering if there was any possibility to pillage and vandalize...

Goths did alot of it, Huns also, Alexander the Great maybe, Vikings, Romans did it in every conquered city, and a ton of other if not majority that went conquering. Bring all the nice goodies to our own natal cities, to our personal expanses. But not all pillaging meant that they destroyed all. Sometimes they "only" took the richness and let the rest, so that the rich people were giving all, and every citizen was still able to work and live in the city that was now yours.

Jason Beaudoin · October 25, 2001, 14:23

It could be that by razing a city, you actually get money. I'm not sure how razing works or whether you get anything for it.

Sabre2th · October 25, 2001, 15:06

I'm pretty sure that the 'raze city' option means the city is destroyed.

Christantine The Great · October 25, 2001, 15:34

Quote:

raze also rase (rz)
tr.v. razed, also rased raz·ing, ras·ing raz·es, ras·es
To level to the ground; demolish.

C'mon people! Of course it means "destroy".

Admiral PJ · October 25, 2001, 15:42

It should be made possible to be able to 'pillage' or remove your own infrastructure improvements, so when an enemy captures your city (if you know they will) you can try and leave them with less than they had wanted.
I always found it annoying when enemies used my roads to move about quickly to destroy my civ, so maybe we should be able to remove some non vital roads to prevent this. ( we can always rebuild once we havea big enough army to crush theirs

)

Earthling7 · October 25, 2001, 15:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Trifna
I was woundering if there was any possibility to pillage and vandalize...

Goths did alot of it, Huns also, Alexander the Great maybe, Vikings, Romans did it in every conquered city, and a ton of other if not majority that went conquering.

We did not!

I think the only ay to vandalise is to build Privateers and pirate the oceans and trade routes.

Hakkapeliitta · October 25, 2001, 16:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Admiral PJ
I always found it annoying when enemies used my roads to move about quickly to destroy my civ, so maybe we should be able to remove some non vital roads to prevent this. ( we can always rebuild once we havea big enough army to crush theirs

)

AFAIK enemies can't use your roads, or am I understood something wrong?

Lorizael · October 25, 2001, 16:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Admiral PJ
It should be made possible to be able to 'pillage' or remove your own infrastructure improvements, so when an enemy captures your city (if you know they will) you can try and leave them with less than they had wanted.
I always found it annoying when enemies used my roads to move about quickly to destroy my civ, so maybe we should be able to remove some non vital roads to prevent this. ( we can always rebuild once we havea big enough army to crush theirs

)

Ummm, couple of things to point out.
You could always sell buildings in Civ II.
And in Civ III enemies can't use your roads or rails.

Why would you want to pillage a city that you just took if you were still going to keep it?

You can raze it if you don't want it and pillage while the city is under siege, but make it good once you take it!

Sabre2th · October 25, 2001, 16:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Christantine The Great

C'mon people! Of course it means "destroy".

That's what I said.

Trifna · October 25, 2001, 18:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Lorizael

Ummm, couple of things to point out.
You could always sell buildings in Civ II.
And in Civ III enemies can't use your roads or rails.

Why would you want to pillage a city that you just took if you were still going to keep it?

You can raze it if you don't want it and pillage while the city is under siege, but make it good once you take it!

You would want to pillage a city that you just took for the same reasons than Romans, Vandals and other Goths, Vikings and many others did. To get the wealth from all what's worth something. No one can say that it isn't useful, or why so many civilisations did so?...

Faboba · October 25, 2001, 18:46

I'm sure there'll still be some kind of pillaging option for terrain improvements. Admittedly the enemy can't use your roads, however as soon as he captures a city he can start using those roads to ensure his back-up is never far behind his front line.

What I'm more curious about is whether pillaging takes your whole turn ( like civ II ) or just one movement point ( like it should ) Which would allow you to adopt both hit and run raid into enemy territory to destroy farmland and a scortched earth policy should, heaven forbid, you be forced to give up one of your cities to an enemy's onslaught.

Lorizael · October 25, 2001, 19:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Trifna

You would want to pillage a city that you just took for the same reasons than Romans, Vandals and other Goths, Vikings and many others did. To get the wealth from all what's worth something. No one can say that it isn't useful, or why so many civilisations did so?...

They handled this in a way in Civ II, at least they way you're describing it. When you took a city, the city lost infrastructure and one population point, and you got money.

Pillage, rape, and burn!

Lawrence of Arabia · October 25, 2001, 20:55

Quote:

Pillage, rape, and burn!

Kill, loot, enslave, eat

,

Stuie · October 25, 2001, 21:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Lorizael

Why would you want to pillage a city that you just took if you were still going to keep it?

So I can re-build the buildings and have them start generating culture.

Pillage in the name of culture - cool!

Alex 14 · October 25, 2001, 23:24

Lorizael · October 26, 2001, 15:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Alex 14

What a post...

Anyway, selling enemy improvements is still a method of pillaging. So yah, you could do that then build your own temple, library, or whatever.

Fintilgin · October 26, 2001, 16:01

So... sounds like if you conquer a big city it'd be worth selling off some of the improvements like temples, working the population really hard (so some die and there's less to worry about) to build temples to YOUR god and using the money you got from selling their stuff to rush buy yours.

Hrmmm...

Conquest is going to be a very different game then it was in the Civ2...

Joe

Skanky Burns · October 26, 2001, 19:59

Selling a temple and then forcing your newly conquered subjects to work to death sounds like a sure-fire recipe for the city to revolt, even go back to their original owners... better make sure you have heaps of military police

If i conquered a city, the first building i sold wouldnt be a temple if i wanted to keep the city (and chances are i would). I wonder what other buildings produce culture though. They would be ripe for forced 'rebuilding'

Sandman · October 26, 2001, 20:21

Well, I'd like to see two options for pillaging terrain. One simply deactivates the terrain improvement, by blowing up bridges or burning crops. It only takes one movement point, or even one 1/3 of a movement point, and can be easily repaired by a worker.

The other completely destroys the terrain improvement, takes a full turn to accomplish, and the improvement has to be rebuilt from scratch.

Sabre2th · October 26, 2001, 20:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandman
Well, I'd like to see two options for pillaging terrain. One simply deactivates the terrain improvement, by blowing up bridges or burning crops. It only takes one movement point, or even one 1/3 of a movement point, and can be easily repaired by a worker.

The other completely destroys the terrain improvement, takes a full turn to accomplish, and the improvement has to be rebuilt from scratch.

I don't really see any point to this, it's just another level of complexity that we don't need.

dainbramaged13 · October 26, 2001, 23:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Sabre2th

I don't really see any point to this, it's just another level of complexity that we don't need.

i dunno, it could be cool, but since complexity = bad in sids mind..

Lorizael · October 27, 2001, 01:25

Quote:

Originally posted by dainbramaged13

i dunno, it could be cool, but since complexity = bad in sids mind..

When you're working on a global scale, I believe that it is time to institute the KISS princicple. Keep it simple, stupid.

Trifna · October 27, 2001, 01:29

Well... the big deal is too first look at if it had enough implications in History to be implemented (we don't want micro-micro management, we want macro).

After, gotta look at HOW to put it in in the best way, puting it in the renowned Sid-way, which is nice and easy.

Pseud0nym · October 27, 2001, 02:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Trifna
I was woundering if there was any possibility to pillage and vandalize...

Goths did alot of it, Huns also, Alexander the Great maybe, Vikings, Romans did it in every conquered city, and a ton of other if not majority that went conquering. Bring all the nice goodies to our own natal cities, to our personal expanses. But not all pillaging meant that they destroyed all. Sometimes they "only" took the richness and let the rest, so that the rich people were giving all, and every citizen was still able to work and live in the city that was now yours.

You forgot the Vandals! Gotta give props to the 'barbarians' that coined the word for destructive behaviour.

Pseud0nym · October 27, 2001, 02:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Trifna

You would want to pillage a city that you just took for the same reasons than Romans, Vandals and other Goths, Vikings and many others did. To get the wealth from all what's worth something. No one can say that it isn't useful, or why so many civilisations did so?...

Oh good! Somebody DID mention the Vandals.

I think I'm going to have to make a custom civ here.