The AI compulsion to burn down cities

Kyle · November 9, 2001, 13:45

Or maybe it's just an Aztec thing? A war was started between myself and the Aztecs, they attacked Chicago, a size 21 city, took it, then burned it down. Seems to me, the AI (or any rational player) would want a city of that size. They did the same thing with five Zulu (smaller though) cities.

Anyone noticed this behavior in the Aztecs?

Wulfram · November 9, 2001, 13:53

Was it far from the Aztec Capital? If it was the opposite side of the world then it might be the practical thing to do. It does seem like an appropriate thing for the aztecs to do as well

Provost Harrison · November 9, 2001, 13:54

Well sometimes managing cities with huge numbers of protestors with massive corruption seems to be more trouble than it's worth. If it was half way around the world, I would do the same...

Pembleton · November 9, 2001, 13:59

What's the point of having that much pop when all you're going to get is 1 shield unless you manage We Love the King Day?

Ironwolf · November 9, 2001, 14:09

Burn down anything above size 8 and start over with your own people. It is less hassel that way.

Garth Vader · November 9, 2001, 15:01

That's what I would do, unless the city had a wonder. Workers are easy enough to produce if you want more population.

In my experience you very seldom get any buildings when you take a city and there is a huge change the city will revert taking all military units in it. So there is little harm in founding your own city after razing the old.

Pembleton · November 9, 2001, 15:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Garth Vader
That's what I would do, unless the city had a wonder. Workers are easy enough to produce if you want more population.

Do you get the benefits of a conquered wonder? I ask this because the culture gets reduced to 0, and thinking that they may have changed the conqured wonder's effect as well.

Lee Johnson · November 9, 2001, 15:42

... that an invading army can totally obliterate a large, thriving city in one turn, but that nuclear weapons can't?

I think I would be happier if the razing process didn't produce instantaneous results, but instead reduced a city by some reasonable number of population points and a few improvements a turn, until all of the citizens were gone. Being able to snuff out a pop 21 city as easily as blowing out a candle seems somewhat unbalancing to me.

Kyle · November 9, 2001, 16:30

BTW, myself, the Aztecs, and Iroquois share the same continent; with the Aztecs in between the Americans and Iroquois.

So, no, it wasn't far from their capital (it was a border city) and it probably would've expanded their territory a good deal.

But, this is still my first game of Civ3 and I haven't actually conquered any other cities at this point. So I was unaware of the drawbacks of it.

dexters · November 9, 2001, 16:37

Kyle, that is creepy.

I'm playing a game right now where Aztecs, americans, and the Iroquois share the same content and the Aztecs are in between the Iroquios and the Americans.... :P

It's probably a pre-programmed routine, especially with the new culture grouping thing, but it makes you wonder or not whether the game is infact connecting with its brethen civ3.exe files all over the globe and communicating with each other and formulating strategy in many diffirent games on a massive scale :P where 1 game = 1 battle. The war is against all the games being played!

mwahahah!

Leonid · November 9, 2001, 16:56

The civs are grouped together by culture, In the same way every game. That is why you have aztecs besides iroquois, by US.

It is same way with Europeon civs and asian civs. Japan is right by India and China. French is by England and Germany then russia. Same way Every game.

I don't really like that..find it annoying.