Engineers and Building cities

Zulu Elephant · December 8, 2000, 08:37

Ok, i dont know if this has been mentioned but it would be helpful if you had flags in the rules.txt for each individual engineer ability (and spy for that matter), allowing engineers who can build improvements but not cities.
In historical scenerios it would be so much help if the AI civs didnt go off and build a load of cities that werent there in real life

Jer8m8 · December 8, 2000, 16:51

I agree-that is a problem. But sometimes it is helpful:
I was playing the 2941 days of war scenario. And the Japanese captured San Fran and LA. Both were destroyed as I retook them so I built cities on the same spot with the same name-the city grew out of its ruins. Should this be discontinued?

But I have a counter idea-Cities are never totally destroyed so a city could be reduced to size 0, and the picture would be ruins. Thus the above would not have to happen, and the integrity of scenarios would not be threatened

hHydro · December 8, 2000, 18:49

quote:

Originally posted by Jer8m8 on 12-08-2000 03:51 PM
I agree-that is a problem. But sometimes it is helpful:
I was playing the 2941 days of war scenario. And the Japanese captured San Fran and LA. Both were destroyed as I retook them so I built cities on the same spot with the same name-the city grew out of its ruins. Should this be discontinued?

But I have a counter idea-Cities are never totally destroyed so a city could be reduced to size 0, and the picture would be ruins. Thus the above would not have to happen, and the integrity of scenarios would not be threatened

That's a SWEET idea Jer!! It won't really complicate the game any, and at the same time, if someone nukes/missiles or otherwise blitzkreigs over your poor little city and obliterates it, it should be marked by a ruined city. This square could be cleaned up by engineers (or build directly upon by a new settler) but would not otherwise produce anything if another city were built beside it. It'd be funny after a particularly nasty battle to be staring at the smoking ruins of New York...

Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto · December 9, 2000, 18:50

Jer, I kinda like yer idea, but at the same time, I dont agree, for one thing, some cities were totally blown away, many cities in history were completely burned to the ground. But, i get what you are saying, and I agree.

Also, just because the population of a city is destroyed, the city itself is still standing, this has happened many times over throughout history. Just look at the fall of Berwick (scottish city) to the English in the war between Scotland and England from 1200 AD-1500 AD, Longshanks (English King that attacked Berwick) litterally slaughtered 3/4ths of the Scottish population in the city, but kept the buildings up, for usage for himself, and his armies.

Zulu, about the AI building cities in historical scenarios where they shouldn't, I have a solution, just dont let the AI build settlers/engineers, turn them off in the Units editor, then resave the scenario, get out of it, get back into it, and restart.
[This message has been edited by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto (edited December 09, 2000).]

Zulu Elephant · December 11, 2000, 11:27

quote:

...about the AI building cities in historical scenarios where they shouldn't, I have a solution, just dont let the AI build settlers/engineers, turn them off in the Units editor, then resave the scenario, get out of it, get back into it, and restart

Obviously I could do that - But I want to be allowed to improve the areas around cities in scenerios but not found new cities.
A good example would be a "History of Europe" Scenerio, starting about 500 years ago (not a COMPLETE history) - All the cities that we have now are there, but i dont want the civs building new cities (e.g. the Russians expanding to fill the entire East side of the map)

airdrik · December 11, 2000, 14:28

You could have an option when you take a city to raze it (remove it from the face of the land), kill all the inhabitants but keep the city, burn it (leaves a small amount of pop, and destroys most buildings), or just keep it.

Jer8m8 · December 11, 2000, 16:47

quote:

Originally posted by airdrik on 12-11-2000 01:28 PM
to raze it (remove it from the face of the land), kill all the inhabitants but keep the city, burn it (leaves a small amount of pop, and destroys most buildings), or just keep it.

That's a pretty good idea

shamrock · January 4, 2001, 21:34

Great idea, airdrik! Firaxis, please make this an option! On countless occasions, I've conquered a city I didn't want to keep, thus forcing me to wait twenty turns as I slowly starved the city and settled it out of existence. In a recent game in fact, I promised myself I wouldn't have more than 3 cities, then when the Carthaginians launched a spaceship before me, I had to break my oath and take their capital. I would have been completely content to just raze that damn city! Hey, and it gives me new OCC possibilities as well...

Ralf · January 5, 2001, 11:34

quote:

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant on 12-08-2000 07:37 AM
Ok, i dont know if this has been mentioned but it would be helpful if you had flags in the rules.txt for each individual engineer ability (and spy for that matter), allowing engineers who can build improvements but not cities.

Good idea!

I dont know about "each indevidual engineer" however. Im not sure what you mean by that? Anyway: some means of letting the scenario-creator determine...

1: if the AI and/or the player should be allowed to found new cities; alternatively only tile-improvements.
2: If so - determine any max number of cities for AI and/or the player.
3: If any less appropriate units, city-improvements, techs, wonders should be excluded for the AI-civs, in order to lead-guide/spoon-feed the AI-civs to only choose what the scenario-creator himself thinks is the best and most effective choices.

The more CONTROL the Scenario-creator has over any scenario AI-civ, the better it is. Other then above, i also like Jer8m8:s idea of ruins!

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 05, 2001).]

EnochF · January 5, 2001, 15:10

Yes, yes. Have the option to raze.

If you march into an undefended Size 1 city, you get the message. "The population has been decimated. Shall we level this city to the ground?" If no, you get size 0 ruins that retain the old city name and can be built upon. If yes, muahahahahaha...

Very cool idea. And I don't remember it being on The List, either...