Firaxis - Listen Please!!! - Page 2

Zachriel · May 9, 2002, 12:25

Quote:

Originally posted by The Rook
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?

Hurricane's suggestion would probably work, and simple is better -- especially for the AI, as you mentioned.

whosurdaddy · May 9, 2002, 13:03

All i was saying was that it shouldnt be possible to instantly wipe a huge modern metropolis off the face of the earth within the space of one turn so thats its as if the city had never even existed in the first place.

To those of you saying its my strategy which should be adjusted, the scenario i mentioned of a single cavarly being able to raze a size 21 city was just a hypothetical, i would never actually be foolish enough to leave such a city undefended.

While I agree that there should be some razing, as it did occur at times in history, there should be limits as has been mentioned already for realism's sakes.

As far as people saying i should just learn to play the game as it is, and that i only complain cause i cant properly play the game ... if somehow there was a death ray gun in the game that could cause an entire continet to sink into the water, could I learn to play the game anyway? ... certainly ... but would such a weapon be realistic (no it would not be) and would it annoy the living heck out of me every time i see it used?, ... yes. This is the same case with giving single units the ability to make cities of any size and complexity dissapear off the face of the earth in only a single turn.

Capt Dizle · May 9, 2002, 13:17

You are 100% correct, choir boys notwithstanding.

Zachriel · May 9, 2002, 13:37

Quote:

Originally posted by whosurdaddy
To those of you saying its my strategy which should be adjusted, the scenario i mentioned of a single cavarly being able to raze a size 21 city was just a hypothetical, i would never actually be foolish enough to leave such a city undefended.

Whew! Thank goodness you didn't leave millions of people undefended from the enemy hordes. I for one didn't believe it for a minute.

whosurdaddy · May 9, 2002, 13:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Zachriel

Whew! Thank goodness you didn't leave millions of people undefended from the enemy hordes. I for one didn't believe it for a minute.

Good to know that when the times get tough, ill be able to turn to you, my loyal defenders (wiping tear of happyness from eye)

Primus40 · May 9, 2002, 15:26

Quote:

Originally posted by whosurdaddy
As far as people saying i should just learn to play the game as it is, and that i only complain cause i cant properly play the game ...

...and the rest of what you said. Yeah sure, the whole idea is strategy, but if there is some aspect of the game that you see as just pointless effort (or whatever) and you can offer some suggestion and open up dialog for other suggestions, then that is constuctive. I mean you are not handing a blanket "this is stupid, so CIV III sucks!" (Whiners all!)

I can see how a raze-fest could really make for a boring game! I have been lucky and not expereinced that yet. I only use it on those cities that are jammed between my less developed perimeter cities - and only after war is declared for some other reason. No sense in letting an opportunity go by!

You realize that everyones an individual and some people might like it, but you don't - so let's make it a preference option. I like the suggestions about city size and year limitations as opposed to just "on or off". But yes, allow full off as well for those that just don't want it. Would be nice if FIRAXIS listened (wishful thinking?)

Zachriel · May 9, 2002, 16:39

Quote:

Originally posted by whosurdaddy

Good to know that when the times get tough, ill be able to turn to you, my loyal defenders (wiping tear of happyness from eye)

whosurdaddy · May 9, 2002, 16:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Primus40

...and the rest of what you said. Yeah sure, the whole idea is strategy, but if there is some aspect of the game that you see as just pointless effort (or whatever) and you can offer some suggestion and open up dialog for other suggestions, then that is constuctive. I mean you are not handing a blanket "this is stupid, so CIV III sucks!" (Whiners all!)

I can see how a raze-fest could really make for a boring game! I have been lucky and not expereinced that yet. I only use it on those cities that are jammed between my less developed perimeter cities - and only after war is declared for some other reason. No sense in letting an opportunity go by!

You realize that everyones an individual and some people might like it, but you don't - so let's make it a preference option. I like the suggestions about city size and year limitations as opposed to just "on or off". But yes, allow full off as well for those that just don't want it. Would be nice if FIRAXIS listened (wishful thinking?)

Who here is whining??? I stated why I think razing was a bad idea, and stated some alternatives such as dissallowing razing or making it a more complicted affair (i.e. takes a certain number of turns to raise certain size cities whatever). And of course, I completely agree that since some people like it and some don't, then it should be a preference, and there u go, if it is an option, then everyone can be happy.

Deornwulf · May 9, 2002, 16:55

All I see whosurdaddy asking for is a simple on/off toggle for one feature of the game. There is nothing ignoble about his request. It falls under the same idea of being able to toggle certain victories on or off or being able to select map options. It is not a difficult bit of coding and is quite a reasonable to include to alter game play. For some, it might make the game seem easier while for others the game would become more difficult.

Tuberski · May 9, 2002, 17:13

Quote:

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

Swtich offable????

Primus40 · May 9, 2002, 17:20

Whoa, whoa... before this gets outta hand! I was AGREEING with you! I just didn't want to quote the entire comment. I was adding to it. My point was that what you are saying / doing is constructive... those that use something they don't like to blanket statement "so CIV III sucks!" are the whiners!

Then went on to compliment you on realizing that everyone is an individual and that it should be an option etc...

Sorry for the misconstured method of the post. Seemed clear to me at the time.

Will try to do better next time.

Tuberski · May 9, 2002, 17:21

Quote:

Originally posted by whosurdaddy
All i was saying was that it shouldnt be possible to instantly wipe a huge modern metropolis off the face of the earth within the space of one turn so thats its as if the city had never even existed in the first place.

I do agree with this don't get me wrong, especially when a nuke doesn't destroy the entire town. Yes, a town might survive a nuke,parts of it anyway, but a horseman being able to raze a town and not a nuke IS kind of silly.

Zachriel · May 9, 2002, 17:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Primus40
Whoa, whoa... before this gets outta hand! I was AGREEING with you!

And England attacks France over a misinterpreted communication. The Iroquois come in on the side of France, while Japan attacks India just for the heck of it. Soon the whole world is at war.

Meanwhile, the peasants in Egypt rise up and overthrow the government over a comment made by Cleopatra concerning the luxury rate being too high.

Zachriel · May 9, 2002, 17:57

Didn't you station a garrison in the city?
No. I thought you did. Didn't you?
You mean we have forty tank divisions and not one lousy rifle unit in the city?
Let's hope the enemy doesn't find out.

Primus40 · May 9, 2002, 18:09

Could this be why I tend to get the short end in dipolmacy in my games????

nato · May 9, 2002, 18:23

Now that you mention it, it is odd that one unit could raze a size 20 city.

However I don't think it is that big a problem. In an actual game, size 20 cities are only going to be captured with large armies fighting over them, and large armies could raze a large city if they were there long enough and enough fighting happened. For instance Stalingrad was a very large city, but it was effectively razed.

That is just one example out of all of history though, so its not a big deal... just like too much is made of the Zulus at Rorke's Drift for the combat model and Marc Antony for culture flipping (ha ha!).

What I am saying is you are correct. Your hypothetical example is ridiculous and is possible in the game. However, practically speaking in a real game, no large city is going to be captured without large armies fighting ... and large armies fighting could raze large cities.

It should be rare though, and the AI definitely should not be programmed to do it too often. Human players can restrain themselves if it is unrealistic to them ... MP might be another matter though...

A toggle or some sort of restriction is a good idea, but since I don't think it will really come up to often in a real game, I don't know if I think it is super important.

Coracle · May 9, 2002, 19:41

And what happens to all the bodies?? You set up Auschwitz-style crematoria on a massive scale??

Culture Flipping is dumb. Razing huge cities is a lot dumber.

nato · May 9, 2002, 19:52

Well I figure quite a lot get killed, but most turn into refugees. Whenever there is some major crisis, there are always great streams of refugees fleeing the cities, who then become a problem somewhere else.

I don't like razing large cities either. But for SP I don't see it as a problem ... MP it could be I guess...

notyoueither · May 9, 2002, 21:00

Akka le Vil's suggestion is the best I've seen on this topic so far.

You could go a bit further and reduce the pop loss if the city has a Aquaduct and again for a Hospital. That way weak ancient units would not be able to raze any major pop centre, and it would indeed require a major effort to completely destroy a modern metropolis.

It would also negate the need for the seperate 'abandon city' command.

nato · May 9, 2002, 21:31

Yes Akka's suggestion is excellent.

Hurricane's suggestion to only allow razing of cities size 7 and under is not quite as neat as Akka's, but would be quite sufficient if you ask me. It also would probably be much much easier to implement.

Zachriel · May 9, 2002, 21:42

Quote:

Originally posted by nato
Now that you mention it, it is odd that one unit could raze a size 20 city.
... and large armies fighting could raze large cities.

It should be rare though, and the AI definitely should not be programmed to do it too often. Human players can restrain themselves if it is unrealistic to them ... MP might be another matter though...

I once saw the Zulus raze Chicago. It seemed real to me, and totally evil. It left a huge hole in a map of thriving cities. I was America's neighbor. I declared war on the Zulus and destroyed their army saving America. I never raze, but can easily see a terrible and abrupt destruction considered as "realistic." There are zillions of possible modifications to make the tactic not so all or nothing, though. I'm all for changes to the game.

Certain governments should not be able to raze, probably only Despotism. This would limit razing somewhat.

Tuberski · May 9, 2002, 21:51

I think Despotism, Monarchy, and maybe Communism should be the only ones allowed. If republic or democracy tried it, there should be some sort of happiness penalty.

notyoueither · May 9, 2002, 22:06

I believe the Romans were quite happy when Carthage was salted under.

Akka · May 9, 2002, 22:19

Quote:

Originally posted by nato
Yes Akka's suggestion is excellent.

Hurricane's suggestion to only allow razing of cities size 7 and under is not quite as neat as Akka's, but would be quite sufficient if you ask me. It also would probably be much much easier to implement.

Well thanks

But still, I don't think my idea is hard to implement.
It's basically a pop-rush of 2 citizen to make a worker, activated by clicking on "pillaging" in the unit's menu. All the tools and the coding is already in the game.

You will even have the population screaming "We can't forgot your cruel oppression"

Zachriel · May 9, 2002, 22:22

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
I believe the Romans were quite happy when Carthage was salted under.

Republic. Good point. And it didn't take 25 years (one turn)!

Tuberski · May 9, 2002, 22:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Zachriel

Republic. Good point. And it didn't take 25 years (one turn)!

So, basically we are back to the theory that a unit CAN raze a city.

notyoueither · May 9, 2002, 23:04

Yes. Carthage itself was not that big AFAIK, but there were a lot of Legions on hand to put the old foe down once and for all.

Going by Ancient units kill 1 pop point, 6 Legions could destroy a size 6 city in one turn. If you put breaks on it depending on improvements, then they would be unable to effect a size 7 city.

Tuberski · May 9, 2002, 23:11

How would you implement that? I mean leave a bunch of units around to raze a city, kind of slows down the game even more.

Coracle · May 9, 2002, 23:55

The only thing stupider than Culture Flipping borders and cities is razing them.

One unit can magically wipe out a metropolis, kill millions of people with ease, and make the corpses disappear without so much as a tile of pollution.

It is truly absurd.

nato · May 10, 2002, 00:34

Hey good idea Coracle! The old city tile could be polluted after a razing, to represent the ruins and rubble that have to be cleared. If there weren't too many razings in ancient time, global warming wouldn't be a big concern.

Even when you're not trying you're brilliant!

Quote:

Well thanks

But still, I don't think my idea is hard to implement.

Well thats a good point. If it could work it would be great!

Watch out though, once I had an idea using existing functions, and Dan himself posted to tell me it wasn't as simple as using the existing code...