Scorched Earth, or not?

nbarclay · July 30, 2003, 20:36

In the war against Lux, Lux followed a pattern of abandoning cities rather than allowing them to fall into enemy hands. While the mechanics of Civ allow that, scorched earth policies tend to be rather hard on the civilians involved (not to mention straying a bit far afield from how Civ is really intended to work).

I've just now brought this up with my own team, so it certainly isn't an official proposal from GS, but I would like to ask both sides to agree not to abandon cities to prevent them from being captured. Conversely, I would like to ask for an agreement not to raze each other's cities, since a requirement for civs to leave cities intact just so the other side can raze them and grab some workers would be a bit nonsensical. Not only will such an agreement help keep the war a bit more civilized, but it will avoid a situation in which even the winners (whoever they may turn out to be) lose because little of value in conquered areas is left beyond the land itself.

And (from a roleplay perspective) I would like to ask for an agreement that civilians of all nationalities will be treated well and not blamed for any animosities that might linger between their nations' leaders. Some suffering in war is inevitable, but let's please keep the suffering for innocent civilians to a minimum.

Nathan

ZargonX · July 30, 2003, 20:39

Nathan, I just brought up this same concept in the PTWDGII forum, though you've elaborated more on it. I think it may be too late to implement in this game, unless all teams are truly willing. I actually have a lot more to say on the subject, but I'm going to put in the thread over in PTWDGII

badams52 · July 30, 2003, 20:40

Nathan, looks like this belongs in the PTWDG Forum...

GhengisFarb™ · July 30, 2003, 20:40

Deleted.

badams52 · July 30, 2003, 20:41

Wait a minute...ZargonX posted here...then GhengisFarb...

This isn't the strat forum?

D'oh...I'm the one in the wrong forum.

Carry on...

nbarclay · July 30, 2003, 20:45

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
What if we seriously don't like a city's postition and want to move it over a tile. Can we raze a captured city in that case?

Other than the condition above I fully support this proposal.

How many cities are you thinking of doing that with?

GhengisFarb™ · July 30, 2003, 20:49

Deleted.

nbarclay · July 30, 2003, 20:56

How would a limit of two razed cities per civ, allowed only (as a matter of honor) for the purpose of repositioning, sound?

GhengisFarb™ · July 30, 2003, 21:02

Deleted.

Beta · July 30, 2003, 21:07

Are you talking of an agreement for this war only - or sort of as an adopted 'rule'. If it is the latter, and that is what I think you are suggesting, then there are a pile of other off-beat rules we should ditch. Like the galley train, or gifting cities, etc.

So, I would say no. For better or worse, civ is what it is, and other than the obvious chetas, the rest are the rules we play by. And that includes razing cities. And as Arnelos as pointed out elsewhere regarding the gifting of cities during the 'Machiavellian' era, I'm sure we could find precedence for the razing of land and cities. Russia's defensive strategy in 1812 comes to mind.

The devil's advocate position....

GhengisFarb™ · July 30, 2003, 21:08

Deleted.

Panzer32 · July 30, 2003, 21:18

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Currently, just one.

* This is the opinion of GhengisFarb and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Glory of War *

GhengisFarb™ · July 30, 2003, 21:23

Deleted.

Panzer32 · July 30, 2003, 21:24

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
* GhengisFarb wonders just how many cities Panzer32 wants to raze.

/me wonders how many cities Aggie wants to raze cuz its really up to him...

nbarclay · July 30, 2003, 21:35

I was thinking two total per civ, because if GoW razes two GS cities and two RP cities, and ND razes two RP cities and two GS cities, that's eight dead cities, which is quite a bit. Conversely, of course, if RP and GS would raze similar numbers of GoW and ND cities.

Beta, I'm not suggesting this as a matter of closing off an "exploit," but rather because I think the game would be more fun without having to worry about scorched-earth policies. At the moment, I'm really just after an agreement among the teams involved in this particular war, but I wouldn't be averse to a longer-term agreement involving more teams.

Hot_Enamel · July 30, 2003, 21:46

I would not support this.
It is a valid Civ game tactic.

Gifting cities to "warp" units is a far more important issue thats needs to be debated.

ZargonX · July 30, 2003, 22:03

Quote:

Wait a minute...ZargonX posted here...then GhengisFarb...

This isn't the strat forum?

D'oh...I'm the one in the wrong forum.

Carry on...

Hey... just what are you trying to say? I've posted in the Strat forum once... or twice

Theseus · July 30, 2003, 22:31

I hope that at some point the lessons learned in MP in fact WILL be posted / discussed in the Strat forum.

GF, stop deleting things. Or at least give a reason...

Deleted because Theseus is a prissy b*stard.
Deleted because Vox is gonna win anyway.
Deleted because UnO won't be posting as much.
Deleted because Archers really should have zero-bombard.
Deleted because panag said so .... Have a nice day ...
Deleted because Team Tabemono ate my post. Really.

asleepathewheel · July 30, 2003, 23:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Hot_Enamel
I would not support this.
It is a valid Civ game tactic.

Gifting cities to "warp" units is a far more important issue thats needs to be debated.

Haven't you ever done this in SP?

I have. I've also gifted cities to third parties to buffer against an unexpected agressor.

I also don't support any ban on razing cities. But thats easy to say when they aren't our natural cities

Master Zen · July 30, 2003, 23:33

Nathan is it just me or I sense you simply just want to keep Bob intact with all their cities for GS?

Razing is a valid strategy IMO, we might have laughed at Trip for doing it (we still do) but it's something that happens. I've had to raze cities in PBEMs so they don't fall into enemy hands, just as nations in history left their countryside in ruins.

Can you imagine what would have happened if Russia didn't use scorched earth in 1812?

Theseus · July 30, 2003, 23:41

I say, raze away. But then, I am sort of a warmonger.

Aeson · July 30, 2003, 23:45

The possibilities of abandonment, gifting, or razing of cities adds a lot to the game IMO. I think this is something for diplomatic channels, to be agreed between teams (before or during war) as gentlemen agreements.

In the absence of such an agreement... Raze the world... someone will rebuild.

Quote:

Deleted because Team Tabemono ate my post. Really.

Mmmmm...

Hot_Enamel · July 30, 2003, 23:49

Quote:

Originally posted by asleepathewheel

Haven't you ever done this in SP?

I have. I've also gifted cities to third parties to buffer against an unexpected agressor.

When in SP, have you ever done it ?

Gfting a city to an AI, (for the sole purpose of moving troops), and then somehow convincing the AI to gift the city back ?

Please tell me, because I am yet to find an AI willing to do it.

Warping units back to your capital when you gift a city, was to ensure that the AI or Human player was not so disadvantaged by losing so many units.

GS's use of it with Inchon to bulk move troops, was exploiting the game mechanics. Not illegal because we have no rules set up for this game...but certainly taking advantage of a programming flault.

IMO

Hot_Enamel · July 30, 2003, 23:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen
Nathan is it just me or I sense you simply just want to keep Bob intact with all their cities for GS?

Actually... I thought it was because he wanted to ensure there were GS citizans left when GoW invaded Little Bob.

Theseus · July 30, 2003, 23:54

H_E, I have done it... in fact I've done it more over the last several months as I've played more of the late game, bigger maps, and thus IC invasions.

In AU 402, if I had kept playing past 1500AD, this was to be a standard part of my battle plan.

asleepathewheel · July 30, 2003, 23:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Hot_Enamel

When in SP, have you ever done it ?

Gfting a city to an AI, (for the sole purpose of moving troops), and then somehow convincing the AI to gift the city back ?

I've certainly gifted cities to third parties that were undefendable.

Such as, one of those island cities far away with no defense that I get in a peace deal. My enemy lands next to it, I gift to another civ.

Or, an unexpected declaration of war, my units are scattered, I gift a border town to a very weak civ to serve as a buffer. I get a ROP with them, can attack through their territory and the enemy can't really attack back effectively.

Sure the AI won't trade you back. Eventually I will take it by force, that's why I only gift to a weak civ.

I've never used this to move my army around, but could see using it if the army was far from my homeland or needing a desperate heal deep in enemy territory.

Hot_Enamel · July 31, 2003, 00:10

OK - I dont seem to be making myself clear....

I think the following is an exploit of the game.

GS gifting Inchon to RP so that they can bulk move troops.
Then RP gifting the city straight back.

Gifting cities to stop advancing armies is cheezy...but OK
Gifting cities under surrender terms if fine

Gifting cities for the sole purpose of warping troops is abuse.

IMO

P.S. again.. nothing illegal was been done by GS, as this was not covered in any agreed rules at the start of the game.

P.P.S .. yes gentlemen..I have used gifting cities in SP.

Aggie · July 31, 2003, 00:46

I would like to say I won't urge razing, but can't say with absolute certainly I won't. It depends on many factors such as location and defendablity. For example if I get an lightly defended city only to see an insurmountable force about to attack I will probably raze rather than let it go to my enemy. Generally I keep cities, but there are legitamate reasons to raze.
Aggie

Tiberius · July 31, 2003, 01:43

Nay from me

Razing cities (own or enemy's) is part of the game and aside from rolepaying ("save the civilians!") it isn't worse than other tactics already used in this game (city gifting to deny them from a 3rd party, troops teleporting, etc). Besides, why didn't you protest when Lux burned their own cities?

Sure, I wouldn't be happy myself if someone came and burned Lego cities, but then, it'd be our own fault too. Gentlemen, face it, this is part of the game, unless we ban it from the beginning in some sort of UN regulations, or "code of honour" or call it anyhow.

Probably one of the most important lessons from this first DG is this: when people play, a UN must be created, laws must be outlined and rules must be enforced.

Darekill · July 31, 2003, 01:53

Well burning citys especially those of enemys is a part of the game even in singleplayer. So why on earth should it be forbitten. Just to please the enemy?

I for myself will never abandon a ND city. I may be forced to do this by my team. But I think I'm free to raze any city of the enemy I feel wil benefit me.

The city gifting and troop teleporting case is a different one and I don't think that the designers thought we should use it the way that rP and GS has done it.

I don't complain about it since it was not forbidden and it worked for them. There is a price however if you do it. We all know that there is a price for every "clever" move we make. If we are willing to pay it then we should do it.

You are always in danger to get fooled once but you think twice if they try to fool you twice and I think the willingness to accept NAP'S is about to sink dramatically right now.....