An interesting observation..

Mercatia · May 31, 2002, 03:11

I had a city size 9 without a aquaduct. Has this happened to anyone before and if so why?

Scouse Gits · May 31, 2002, 03:27

Easy - it has been captured - the Aqueduct is one of the first improvements destroyed by conquest - you will often keep the Sewer System strangely...

SG[1]

Mercatia · May 31, 2002, 04:58

Ok thanks I had taken it from the japanese so maybe thats it.

finbar · May 31, 2002, 21:37

I think the Temple - if there is one - is automatically destroyed when you take a city.

The Mad Monk · June 1, 2002, 03:18

Interesting -- I always thought it was completely random in Civ 2; I know that if you replay a conquest of a city with lots of improvements, you'll usually get a different mix every time.

The Mad Monk · June 1, 2002, 03:29

dp

Scouse Gits · June 1, 2002, 03:34

My experience is that you will lose any happy improvements - Temple and Cathedral in particular - almost certainly lose a Colosseum and frequently lose an Aqueduct - other improvements seem to be largely random - and further, now we are in totally untested - gutfeeling land, I get a distinct impression that the proportion of lost improvements is somewhat proportional to the number of 'rounds' of battle that have taken place.

SG[1]

Scouse Gits · June 1, 2002, 13:26

The only time I ever remember inheriting a temple was when a city was bribed x 2 to avoid an incident. Courthouses are always lost in any kind of city capture.

---------------

SG(2)

finbar · June 1, 2002, 21:44

The charming little ivy-covered village church of St Scouse Git, presumably?

Straybow · June 2, 2002, 00:43

Yes, saving temple/cathedral (40/120 shields = 80/240 gold [edit: cost]) is the primary advantage of bribe x2. Usually Coliseum survives a bribed revolt. Small cities aren't worth it, as I've never seen a revolt cost less than 100 gold so buying the Temple is cheaper.

Rufus T. Firefly · June 3, 2002, 01:48

I've been under the impression that the conquest of a city will generally destroy the barracks, too (though bribery will leave them standing). Is that so, or is it just my bad luck?

Scouse Gits · June 3, 2002, 05:27

Barracks and Walls can often be left - but remember about half the improvements are going to go so if the city only has Barracks & Walls one or both might well go the way of all flesh

SG[1]

rah · June 3, 2002, 09:46

In the old days, I used to reset to test what would survive.
It seems to either start in the first slot and delete every other one, or it starts in the second slot. Once that is done, it eliminates any temples or caths. left. If you did multiple resets, you would find that you got one of two patterns. Sometimes the number of improvements left changed based on where the temple was.

Depending on the civ's characteristics you were taking on, you might start to see a pattern since their city build order would be reasonably consistent. (this could be changed by the "at war" status)

All of this was not very scientific, but held up to testing. It was done a long time ago.

RAH

SlowThinker · June 3, 2002, 20:50

See Info: Combat (GL) , post 62

SlowThinker · June 3, 2002, 20:59

Sorry, rah, I have read your post just now...

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
Depending on the civ's characteristics you were taking on, you might start to see a pattern since their city build order would be reasonably consistent.

What characteristics do you mean?

rah · June 4, 2002, 09:28

whether they are expansionists, militaristic, etc. (I don't remember all the characteristics off the top of my head. Since we only play MP these days, the characteristics are meaningless)

Militaristic civs will build more barracks. The more peaceful civs will build markets.

Of course once an AI is at war, they seem to start building barracks and walls.

I believe (but never thoroughly tested) that based on the civs characteristics and current diplomatic status, it will determine the build order in all their cities. Like stupid govenors in ctp2 or civ3.