Firaxis - Listen Please!!!

whosurdaddy · May 8, 2002, 22:59

I know i've brought this up for, but i just cant help it, it is still pissing me off, and i've never really gotten an answer. Firaxis, please include an ability to turn off the razing of cities in the next patch, or expansion, or something. I might leave a size 21 city which has been a part of my empire since 2000 BC undefended, an enemy cavalry will sneak into it and raze it to the ground in only 1 turn, despite the fact that I might have 20 tanks nearby which would be ready to retake it immediately.

This is sooooooo extremely unrealistic, and what is going to happen in scenarios, when cities captured by the AI are wiped from the earth. How are we going to do that Crusades scenario when the Crusaders erase Jerusalem from the map immediately after capturing it?

Please, wars in Civ3 quickly turn into who can try and raze the most of each others cities, and not into anything having to do with capturing, occupying, and holding land like in real life. Well, thats all i have to say about that, for now.

Tuberski · May 8, 2002, 23:05

Why leave a Size 21 city undefended? If that happens to me and the Civ I am at war with razes it, I deserve it.

notyoueither · May 8, 2002, 23:12

I have to agree with Tube about strategy. Leaving cities undefended within 3 MPs of the border, or of any enemy Cavalry in a war, is not the fault of the designers.

OTOH, he makes a good point about a Crusader scenario. Having the AI raze cities would certainly effect to flavour. Same goes for WWII.

Jon Shafer · May 8, 2002, 23:14

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
OTOH, he makes a good point about a Crusader scenario. Having the AI raze cities would certainly effect to flavour. Same goes for WWII.

Or, for that matter, any realistic historical scenario.

Capt Dizle · May 8, 2002, 23:21

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
I have to agree with Tube about strategy. Leaving cities undefended within 3 MPs of the border, or of any enemy Cavalry in a war, is not the fault of the designers.

OTOH, he makes a good point about a Crusader scenario. Having the AI raze cities would certainly effect to flavour. Same goes for WWII.

The total lack of logic here makes it impossible to respond. When I read stuff like this I understand why Firaxis felt that it was necessary to, hmm, adjust the content of the game to the intellectual level of its fans.

Tuberski · May 8, 2002, 23:35

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick

The total lack of logic here makes it impossible to respond. When I read stuff like this I understand why Firaxis felt that it was necessary to, hmm, adjust the content of the game to the intellectual level of its fans.

What exactly is illogical about what he said?

asleepathewheel · May 8, 2002, 23:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Tuberski

What exactly is illogical about what he said?

is it a suprise, Tuberski, that jimmytrick is not making sense? I've come to expect that from him.

OT

I agree that the should be a raze toggle as far as scenarios are concerned. I like the razings in regular games. easier to slash and burn sometimes, plus there is the revenge factor.

Cyclotron · May 9, 2002, 00:17

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
The total lack of logic here makes it impossible to respond. When I read stuff like this I understand why Firaxis felt that it was necessary to, hmm, adjust the content of the game to the intellectual level of its fans.

You may be surprised, but everybody who reads your posts also wonders at the lack of logic. So, jt, humor me... what exactly was illogical about his post?

jt, you're cool when you insult people's "intellectual levels" for no reason, and especially with no argument to back it up. You know that, don't you?

Grrr · May 9, 2002, 00:19

I agree, for the sake of good scenario creation, this needs to be switch offable.

Skanky Burns · May 9, 2002, 00:23

Well said, Cyclo

ALPHA WOLF 64 · May 9, 2002, 02:01

I like the raze the way it is with the possible except that cities over 8 would simply have 1/2 their population turned into workers but the city would remain. However, with the new abandon city option, the human would have another exploit unavailable to the AI. To me this is just another example of people with bad game strategies complaining for the game to save them from themselves. Just because it hasnt been done in recent history, doesnt mean its not a valid strategy. Civ3 is a game of "what could be" not a straight replay of history

OTOH, i agree that scenarios will need something to this effect.

notyoueither · May 9, 2002, 02:57

Ahhh. jt's just got a hate on for me. I guess he has his reasons. We've crossed 'paths' a few times. I guess he's reduced to jumping on grammatical errors now, of which there was quite the large one in my post.

Primus40 · May 9, 2002, 04:15

I, personally, like the fact that you can raze cities, but agree that razing should be a feature that can be switched off if the player so desires. Yeah, it would definitly interfere with the "reality" factor of sscenarios for that reason also it should be an elective not a given. However, it was used in ancient times and besides being a "crush them under my feet" method of warfare might have been a pretty good psychological strategy as well. Raze a few cities and the powers that be are now faced with a decision... relinquish the kingdom or let even more of it become rubble. Even if you manage to repel the invader the people aren't real happy with you now.

I real hate to do theis but it is already started here;
Off topic: I don't think it is just you notyoueither. jt seems to indiscrimantly attack anyone who voices an opinion that favors CIV III. If you aint ranting about how crappy it is then you are an open target for his infantile, "left field" barbs. cyclotron7 hit the nail on the head:

Quote:

You may be surprised, but everybody who reads your posts also wonders at the lack of logic. So, jt, humor me... what exactly was illogical about his post?

jt, you're cool when you insult people's "intellectual levels" for no reason, and especially with no argument to back it up. You know that, don't you?

But I am afraid that he rarely returns to the scene of the crime, at least to rebut. I can see him lurking, hunched over, his hands quivering as he reads his post... thinking "boy I really told them." The sad thing is if he does read a response to his nonsense I don't believe he really understands when he has been shown to have made a foolish of himself. I am reminded of the old saying "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool then to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." But that advice only works on someone who understands it so it is rhetorical. Our best bet is to ignore him completely and let his posts fade into the thread as more usless fodder. (but I wouldn't want to see him banned - I am beginning to find his posts as more and more humorous, like this one)

'Nuff said.

I-iZ-1337 · May 9, 2002, 04:22

J00 shud defend big cit33z like that at rizk.

Atahualpa · May 9, 2002, 05:00

I disagree with disabling razing cities. With culture flipping being extremly annoying sometimes, I tend to conquer one city over my abilities and raze it to the ground so that the previous conquered and held cities do not flip!

But even in Scenarios it should be possible to raze certain cities. In history there were examples of cities razed to the ground. What if you want to do a Troja Scenario? The Goal for the Greek would be to Raze Troja and not capture it so that the Persians can capture it back.
Next example would be Carthago that was razed too in the third Punic War.

I am sure you find lots of other examples where in historical scenarios cities have been razed. Though I agree some cities should not be allowed to be razed. Maybe allowing raze only before a certain culture value has been reached. This would make up great scenarios as you cannot raze carthago when they got past xxxx Culture Points, but you must raze it in order to win. This would reflect that after the Carthagians gathered enough influence it was impossible for Rome to destroy them. Or maybe make it depend on the Roman Culture. So that RomanCulture/CarthagianCulture > 2.0 in order to raze Carthago.

Ata

Zachriel · May 9, 2002, 08:04

Quote:

Originally posted by whosurdaddy
This is sooooooo extremely unrealistic, and what is going to happen in scenarios, when cities captured by the AI are wiped from the earth. How are we going to do that Crusades scenario when the Crusaders erase Jerusalem from the map immediately after capturing it?

Maybe you were meant the Romans razing Jerusalem. Or the Germanic tribes wiping Rome itself off the map.

Better have some defenders on hand. Not everyone plays Civ nice. (By the way, I never raze cities.)

Zachriel · May 9, 2002, 08:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Zachriel
Better have some defenders on hand. Not everyone plays Civ nice. (By the way, I never raze cities.)

Just an additional note. I often encourage my brothers and sisters in the Civ community to avoid razing cities. It is inhumane to the little pixelated people living there, as well as unnecessary and unwise. But I have never questioned their power to do so.

Capt Dizle · May 9, 2002, 08:29

Hmm, I have to eat my cereal now, but I will try to revisit this "scene of my crime" later when I have more time.

jt

Hurricane · May 9, 2002, 08:29

Well, I definitely agree that the razing and "abandon city" options are much too easy. I never liked these features (like Zachriel, I very seldom - almost never - raze cities), but taking them out would be unrealistic, too. Making it impossible to raze cities with a certain number of culture would be silly, since it usually are particularly these cities you want to raze. Also, Carthage is a good example of a citiy with mucg culture being razed.

A better solution would be to only allow razing of cities under size 7. You could still raze a city within a few turns by starving it, but it would not be automatic and give some time for the enemy to get the city back.

Naturally, the abandon city option should be disabled too.

Moonsinger · May 9, 2002, 09:23

Quote:

Originally posted by whosurdaddy
I know i've brought this up for, but i just cant help it, it is still pissing me off, and i've never really gotten an answer. Firaxis, please include an ability to turn off the razing of cities in the next patch, or expansion, or something. I might leave a size 21 city which has been a part of my empire since 2000 BC undefended, an enemy cavalry will sneak into it and raze it to the ground in only 1 turn, despite the fact that I might have 20 tanks nearby which would be ready to retake it immediately.

I would give the AI a gold medal in this case. If I am the AI, I would do the same.

Knowing that its impossible to capture and keep a size 21 city with only one cavalry (especially when I know you have 20 tanks nearby), it's best that I should burn it to the down so that you don't have it.

It's as real as it can be.

Zachriel · May 9, 2002, 09:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Moonsinger
I would give the AI a gold medal in this case. If I am the AI, I would do the same.

Knowing that its impossible to capture and keep a size 21 city with only one cavalry (especially when I know you have 20 tanks nearby), it's best that I should burn it to the down so that you don't have it.

It's as real as it can be.

In our army, we would courtmartial the general in charge of this humanitarian disaster. He'd be lucky to find a lawyer willing to defend his dereliction of duty. What was he thinking?!

graeme · May 9, 2002, 10:17

Quote:

A better solution would be to only allow razing of cities under size 7. You could still raze a city within a few turns by starving it, but it would not be automatic and give some time for the enemy to get the city back.

I think this is an excellent idea

This would add some balance so that on losing a city, whether due to leaving it undefended or not, the implications would not be so drastic. Which is what I interpreted as the point of the original complaint.

Also the progress of conquering armies would be slowed giving the potential for the defenders to reorganise themselves. And would require a bit more thinking on the part of the offensive troups if they also had to be able to hold a city at least for a few turns.

Of course one way to reduce the population would be to bombard the population down to below the threshold. But again it seems more sensible that a city can only be razed after it has been smashed to pieces for the last few turns.

Graeme

graeme · May 9, 2002, 10:28

Quote:

A better solution would be to only allow razing of cities under size 7. You could still raze a city within a few turns by starving it, but it would not be automatic and give some time for the enemy to get the city back.

I think this is an excellent idea

This would add some balance so that on losing a city, whether due to leaving it undefended or not, the implications would not be so drastic. Which is what I interpreted as the point of the original complaint.

Also the progress of conquering armies would be slowed giving the potential for the defenders to reorganise themselves. And would require a bit more thinking on the part of the offensive troups if they also had to be able to hold a city at least for a few turns.

Of course one way to reduce the population would be to bombard the population down to below the threshold. But again it seems more sensible that a city can only be razed after it has been smashed to pieces for the last few turns.

Graeme

dunk · May 9, 2002, 10:32

I think you should only be able to "Abandon City" if size 1 or 2. I mean, where do all the people go?

zulu9812 · May 9, 2002, 10:36

Quote:

Originally posted by whosurdaddy
I might leave a size 21 city which has been a part of my empire since 2000 BC undefended, an enemy cavalry will sneak into it and raze it to the ground in only 1 turn, despite the fact that I might have 20 tanks nearby which would be ready to retake it immediately.

This is sooooooo extremely unrealistic

Unrealistic? Really? What would you do if you captured an AI city and the AI had 20 of their tanks nearby ready to retake it immediately?

Akka · May 9, 2002, 10:48

There is a very simple and elegant way to deal with that :
First, remove the "raze" option.
Now, you just have to allow to military units to use the "pillage" command on a city square. Each unit could "pillage" a number of population point, depending on it's attack or technological level.
Example : for each tech level (ancient => 1, modern => 4) or for each 4/5 attack points, a unit can reduce the population of the city by three pop points : one become a worker, two disappear (killed, fleeing the pillaging army, etc.).

This would allow :
- razing to the ground a city. To do so, you need either several units, either several turns. It give the opportunity for reinforcement to liberate the city.
- crushing opposition : I would suggest that each pillage will kill/make flee resisters first. On the other hand, it will make one citizen unhappy for each citizen killed/enslaved.

Several options could be added, like "can't be used under democracy" or limiting the use to the number of units that can actually be used as military police. Each pillaging of a city square could also hit your reputation.

Icare · May 9, 2002, 10:55

Razing is a nice feature but I don't get how 1 archer unity can raze a big city that easily. Maybe razing could be adjusted to fit the size and the "modernity" of a city vs unity strengh? Might take several turns for 1 archer to raze a city of 15 while many thanks can do it in 1 turn....

Immortal Wombat · May 9, 2002, 11:00

Wouldn't the best way be to open up the AI so that players can set to preference whether they want the AI to raze cities?
ie. Set it so they only raze before 1400AD or under size 8 or something.

Zachriel · May 9, 2002, 11:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Akka le Vil

Now, you just have to allow to military units to use the "pillage" command on a city square. Each unit could "pillage" a number of population point, depending on it's attack or technological level.
Example : for each tech level (ancient => 1, modern => 4) or for each 4/5 attack points, a unit can reduce the population of the city by three pop points : one become a worker, two disappear (killed, fleeing the pillaging army, etc.).

Good suggestion. Balance is good. It takes a while to kill millions of people and get rid of the bodies. Just ask Hitler.

The Rook · May 9, 2002, 11:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Zachriel

Good suggestion. Balance is good. It takes a while to kill millions of people and get rid of the bodies. Just ask Hitler.

I prefer the previous suggestion about not being able to raze a city above pop 7. That would work for me. The question is, will the AI be able to cope? Would it just not raze the city at all?