Ruins?

brianshapiro · August 30, 2002, 23:57

The second screenshot on the civ3.com page shows ruins of destroyed cities

kring · August 31, 2002, 00:09

The video mentioned ruins happens when a city is destroyed.

whosurdaddy · August 31, 2002, 00:34

maybe they should provide a chance for the previous owner to repopulate the city or somethin???

After all, the ability for an invader to erase a huge city that had existed for millenia in a single turn is a bit harsh, isnt it?

hr_oskar · August 31, 2002, 01:24

Those ruins are interesting, and quite cool... I suppose the tiles can't be used until the workers clear them up (???)

WarpStorm · August 31, 2002, 08:34

I imagine they are just eye candy. Just to let you see just how much of a bad boy you've been.

It'd be cool if they gave you an extra shield because of the extra building materials readily available and extra defense.

Lord_Davinator · August 31, 2002, 12:23

interesting... should let the original owner... or the one with higher culture to esb. a city with much more ease

Caliban · August 31, 2002, 12:24

I'd say you can just send a worker into the ruins to repopulate them. So you save the construction costs for a settler...

Andrew_Jay · August 31, 2002, 12:37

It'd be nice that once you take them back, the ruins become the original city, just one population and no buildings, but your city is where it was, with its old name, or perhaps something like New Madras.
The city of Stalingrad was more or less "razed" during the Second World War, but was later repaired.

Darkworld Ark · August 31, 2002, 14:09

I think it'd be cool if by repopulating a ruin, you could get a wonder that was built in the city before it was destroyed.

JtheJackal · August 31, 2002, 15:46

The ruins should give you gold. They are ruins and what better way to use them but for tourists?

Panag · August 31, 2002, 16:09

hi ,

a long time ago they confirm that that option was going to be included , ....

have a nice day

hr_oskar · August 31, 2002, 16:10

Wow, we're off flying here

I say the ruins give you a defence bonus like cities and metropoles do - note that they come in different sizes!

Panag · August 31, 2002, 16:19

hi ,

lets hope their is a worker task option that let you clear them up , ....

Firaxis

have a nice day

Firebird · September 2, 2002, 04:21

Sounds good.

Galvatron · September 2, 2002, 07:20

Quote:

Originally posted by JtheJackal
The ruins should give you gold. They are ruins and what better way to use them but for tourists?

Yeahh ruins are always good for tourism people love to see things that are destroyed (don't know why perhaps we like to see things get trashed

).

But I think the working progress of rebuilding a city should take a long time. It would be very unrealistic of a worker just enter a ruin and tata the city is back. I suggest you would need a certain amount of workers regarding the size of the city was and it should take longer if the city was bigger.

Adagio · September 2, 2002, 08:15

Quote:

Originally posted by JtheJackal
The ruins should give you gold. They are ruins and what better way to use them but for tourists?

I agree, though the tourism shouldn't work before late industrial, early modern, but should give lots of money...and maybe also some culture...This gives a nice thing to think about...should you let the ruins stay (Without getting anything from them), or should you just raze the ruins, to get some mines or irrigation...

The older the ruins is (And the bigger the city was), the more gold per turn you'll get...

Trying to make a nice formula: (For a size 12 city)

Less than 500 years since destruction

+2 gpt + 2 cpt

If it is more than 500 years since destruction:

5 gpt + 5 cpt

If more than 2000 years since destruction:

20 gpt + 20 cpt

For each more/less population point, just add/reduce 8% (Size 6 only gives 50%, while a size 24 gives 200%)

Adm.Naismith · September 2, 2002, 11:56

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm
I imagine they are just eye candy. Just to let you see just how much of a bad boy you've been.

It'd be cool if they gave you an extra shield because of the extra building materials readily available and extra defense.

Eh, eh, ruins sounds interesting to me, because I mentioned them as a suggestion for Firaxis in a very old suggestion thread before the Civ III release

I suppose in PTW they simply are eye-candy, but I find interesting your proposal to consider them a special resource bonus (+1 shield) early, may be changing in a (+1 coin) with railroad or after industrial era (tourism effect replacing use of ruins as source of stones and metals).

Instead of a cleaning by workers, simply made ruins mutually exclusive with other enhancement like irrigation and mine, but compatible with road and railroad.
So, if you want you can change the terrain, but of course you can't order a worker to reverse it to ruin again: archeologistic digs aren't allowed

Hagbart · September 2, 2002, 13:11

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm
I imagine they are just eye candy. Just to let you see just how much of a bad boy you've been.

It'd be cool if they gave you an extra shield because of the extra building materials readily available and extra defense.

I think you are right. Nice idea!

XOR · September 2, 2002, 13:40

Taking building materials from destroyed town is unrealistic and a bad idea. Repopulating and having the same city back again is much more realistic and has historicly happenned many many many times. So much that some cities have been build on top of their previous ruins and now there remain like, sometimes up to 7 layers of different eras of the city buried under some old cities. A defensive bonus similar to forts/fortresses would be good.

Gangerolf · September 2, 2002, 14:02

One more reason for burning down cities:. I get a cute little ruin afterwards

brianshapiro · September 2, 2002, 16:59

XOR: Its not unrealistic, in the middle ages peope tore apart roman cities and statues to use the stone for castles this is why much of the ruins in rome are so damaged and the original sculptural works are missing

Andrew_Jay · September 2, 2002, 18:40

That's true Shapiro, it wasn't until the mid 1800's or so I think before people stopped chopping up old ruins. Stonehenge was mostly carted away to build bridges.

hr_oskar · September 2, 2002, 20:47

I like the point of ruins being easier to repopulate; perhaps you can found a new city there with your workers.

I also like how many ideas we're spinning out of a couple of screenshots!

If ruins bring some sort of benefit, the negative effect is that it will encourage destructiveness even more, which I think is already a bit out of hand...

player1 · September 3, 2002, 09:11

Maybe ruins are just part of some MP mode?

alva · September 3, 2002, 10:02

What if you resettle a ruin, it allready has for example : aquaducts and/or walls or something.

Jethro83 · September 3, 2002, 20:46

I definitely like the idea of rebuilding ruined cities. It happened many times throughout history (one example being that the Romans razed Carthage and later rebuilt near the ruins there)

If you were to rebuild a ruined city, you couldn't have all the improvements that the city had. I think that there should be some of the original improvements, and the chance of them surviving could depend on the type. Cultural buildings (temples, libraries, etc.) could have no chance of surviving. Aqueducts, walls, and Coastal Forts should have very little chance of still standing when the ruins are repopulated. Commercial buildings (markets, banks, harbours, etc. and courthouses could have a greater chance of surviving.

Also, wonders should be returned to existance, not with their original effect, but to increase commerce in the city (through tourism). For example, say the French build the Oracle in Orleans, and the Chinese raze the city. The Chinese should them be able to rebuild the ruins, and instead of the doubled effect of temples (assuming that this is at a pre-theology time), it should increase commerce output in the city instead, and not be able to generate any culture, or contribute to a culture flip of the city back to the French.

Its not like the Pyramids are actually doing anything for the modern Egyptian state except for drawing in extra tourist cash.

Firebird · September 5, 2002, 03:26

In the real world only one of the ancient wonders are still standing (the Pyramids) and I think it is fair that a wonder in a city being razed will be destroyed too. But it would perhaps be ok for some wonders (f.ex. the UN or the Internet) to be rebuilt.

Adm.Naismith · September 5, 2002, 04:22

Quote:

Originally posted by LordAzreal
Its not like the Pyramids are actually doing anything for the modern Egyptian state except for drawing in extra tourist cash.

Uh? No free granaries in every Egyptian town, then?

Well, I would add a cultural side effect: Pyramids are the visible tip (no pun intended) of an Egyptian culture inherited by old Egypt.

Traelin · September 5, 2002, 14:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Caliban
I'd say you can just send a worker into the ruins to repopulate them. So you save the construction costs for a settler...

That's a cool idea, and makes sense too. I mean it's not like they're breaking completely new ground.

Traelin · September 5, 2002, 14:39

Quote:

Originally posted by XOR
Taking building materials from destroyed town is unrealistic and a bad idea. Repopulating and having the same city back again is much more realistic and has historicly happenned many many many times. So much that some cities have been build on top of their previous ruins and now there remain like, sometimes up to 7 layers of different eras of the city buried under some old cities. A defensive bonus similar to forts/fortresses would be good.

I complete agree. The whole tourism idea is stretching it a bit IMHO.