Reputation hits due to abandoning cities...

PGM · August 11, 2002, 12:13

I don't know if it was intended or not, but in the previous patch Firaxis finally seemed to have gotten past the problem regarding getting a reputation hit every time you abandoned a city, even if acquired through peaceful means (I remember abandoning dozens of opponent cities, and getting no rep hits at all).
Now, in patch v1.29f, it's back! Come on, it's my city, let me do whatever I want with it. What do you think?

Kuciwalker · August 11, 2002, 12:44

Do you get a hit when you abandon a city by building a worker or settler, when you hit the disband city thing, or both? I know when you disband a city, you don't get anything. Do you get something when you raze a city? I'm pretty sure. I think that you should only get a rep hit from razing, unless it doesn't give you anything, in which case you should get a rep hit from disbanding too.

Lord Merciless · August 11, 2002, 12:53

I don't care, since I'm playing psychotically, my reputation should be at atrocious level.

PGM · August 11, 2002, 12:57

Abandoning a city doesn't give you anything other than a reputation hit. Razing gives you a few workers, and a reputation hit. Where's the balance...?

Adagio · August 12, 2002, 10:36

I voted yes, but how things looks now, it's close to no...

If the formular for loosing a city due to culture is changed, then it should give a rep hit, but as it stands now, it's just a pain in the ass to keep a city of size 12+ when the war is far from finish, so it's just so much easier to just raze the newly taken city, and build a new one there...

Moonsinger · August 12, 2002, 16:55

I don't care either way. However, I think the game is working fine the way it is now. Let's keep it the same.

Coracle · August 12, 2002, 20:16

Quote:

Originally posted by ADG
I voted yes, but how things looks now, it's close to no...

If the formular for loosing a city due to culture is changed, then it should give a rep hit, but as it stands now, it's just a pain in the ass to keep a city of size 12+ when the war is far from finish, so it's just so much easier to just raze the newly taken city, and build a new one there...

Which is 100% unrealistic, non-historical, and just plain Fantasy. It's nuts.

And thus we see the crux of the main dilemma and problem with Civ 3. There are those who just want a Fantasy game with some "real" names slapped on for reference, and then there are those who expected Civ 3 to maintain the tradition of Civ 2 and be an historical simulation.

Abandonig cities (not towns), or razing them, should NOT be an option after the Ancient period. If used hence it should be a rep hit.

Tuberski · August 12, 2002, 20:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle

Which is 100% unrealistic, non-historical, and just plain Fantasy. It's nuts.

And thus we see the crux of the main dilemma and problem with Civ 3. There are those who just want a Fantasy game with some "real" names slapped on for reference, and then there are those who expected Civ 3 to maintain the tradition of Civ 2 and be an historical simulation.

Abandonig cities (not towns), or razing them, should NOT be an option after the Ancient period. If used hence it should be a rep hit.

Civ 2 was an historical simulation?

The only thing historical about it was the Earth maps.

August 13, 2002, 00:54

Of course, if you're a warmonger, the rep hit won't really make much of a difference.

I frequently abandon culture-flipped cities because the AI seems to place them in the damndest locations. I can see how that would damage your reputation - I mean, what's supposed to happen to the citizens?

Adagio · August 13, 2002, 06:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle

Quote:

I voted yes, but how things looks now, it's close to no...

If the formular for loosing a city due to culture is changed, then it should give a rep hit, but as it stands now, it's just a pain in the ass to keep a city of size 12+ when the war is far from finish, so it's just so much easier to just raze the newly taken city, and build a new one there...

Which is 100% unrealistic, non-historical, and just plain Fantasy. It's nuts.

And thus we see the crux of the main dilemma and problem with Civ 3. There are those who just want a Fantasy game with some "real" names slapped on for reference, and then there are those who expected Civ 3 to maintain the tradition of Civ 2 and be an historical simulation.

Abandonig cities (not towns), or razing them, should NOT be an option after the Ancient period. If used hence it should be a rep hit.

I guess I don't really get your point here!?!

First you say that it's unrealistic to get a rep hit, if you raze a city, while in the last line you say the opposite???

Which part did I miss here?

Grumbold · August 13, 2002, 06:54

I think its the same negative event chain. You can't afford to capture enemy cities and leave them intact because it takes far more units to hold them than capture an entire nation and there is a danger if you attempt it that they will all die. So destroying the cities becomes more important than owning them. Civ III has a quickie option to raze a city rather than rely on the older tedious method of starving a city down to 1 and building a settler. No its not historical but it does allow a micromanagement free way of resettling your enemies. Until a better variant on culture flipping arises it seems to be a necessary evil.

Mattaba · August 14, 2002, 07:59

I just let captured cities starve down to 6 pop or something and then hurry some cheap culture improvements.