How to destroy your OWN cities?

[LzPrst]

I too want an abandon city function. I love the idea of abandoning a city and having it fall to barbarism without my enlightened rulership

what about culture flipped cities? do you get an option to reject the flip? it happened to me once and I dont think I got an option to say no... dont remember for sure though. Anyway, I wanted to move the city one square south to get a nice fishy in the radius, but no, i was stuck there.

it should also be possible for barbarian civs to develop into full fledged civilizations... grant them independence and later they form their own civ and are suddenly a serious competitor, would be cool

finally, when taking enemy cities and choosing the "Raze" function... wow. now that is crazy. a size 20 city that has been there for thousands of years, with millions of people and buildings, gone in an instant. removed by a single attacker. one unit of macemen can kill and rip down every building in a whole city? one marine can massacre hundreds of thousands in an instant? the raze function should be similar to what happens when you raze advanced cottages. first it becomes a village, then a hamlet, then a cottage and THEN it is destroyed. how it is possible to destroy a whole city with one unit in the blink of an eye but not a village is to me very illogical and poor design.

there should be a function called loot/plunder or similar for cities. when you conquer a city you get the option to keep, plunder og raze. If you choose keep, you get the city and all its people etc. if you choose loot you destroy some buildings and some people and get some more gold. if you choose raze the city is burned over a number of turns and the population FLEES. to put them all to the death is highly unrealistic. people tend to run off when enemy armies march on their cities, so nearby cities of that civ or civs that have open borders with the destroyed cities civ would grow.

also in order to reduce the WMD effect of a unit razing a city there should be a bonus for cities built on the ruins of an old city. quicker growth, culture production and production of things that were there before the razing. that way you could rebuild cities, not be forced to start them again from scratch. it would take time of course, but you wouldnt have to wait for millennia to get it up and running again. populations in nearby cities should sink as the refugees return home. all these things should be included! give me game designer job now!

[DRoseDARs]

For the record, someone is already working on this as a mod over in the cIV Files & Creation forum.

[Atahualpa]

if you choose raze the city is burned over a number of turns and the population FLEES. to put them all to the death is highly unrealistic. people tend to run off when enemy armies march on their cities, so nearby cities of that civ or civs that have open borders with the destroyed cities civ would grow.

This only has one catch: In Civ the growth of a city means a productive growth. Refugees are seldom welcomed additions to a population.

An abandon to barbarians would be an idea, though the loophole would be to abandon, while waiting with some military forces, reconquer and raze it.

[Gray_Lensman]

Originally posted by Nailfoot
I had a similiar feeling when I rode over one of my enemies and kept all of the cities. I later realized I could NOT afford them! But I couldn't "let them go" either. Wouldn't it be neat if you could abandon a city to barbarians? Although, I am not sure it would be justified. What civilization is ever going to just "adandon" a city?

The Romans did essentially just that when they left Britainia and sent them a diplomatic message that in effect said they were on their own... Actual History

[Tuberski]

Just leave a city you don't want defenseless, set it to wealth or research and simply leave it alone. Someone will take it.

ACK!

[Nailfoot]

Originally posted by Atahualpa


.....
An abandon to barbarians would be an idea, though the loophole would be to abandon, while waiting with some military forces, reconquer and raze it.

I thought about that when I was typeing my original post. I am unsure how to balance that issue. The city would have to start with some units capable of actually defending it, I guess. But, Barbarians are notorious (in this game) for marching on you with almost everything they've got. So, you could use this tactic to have a barbarian city march on your oppenent.

[Jerh9e1k5]

I have not been able to play the game yet due to some issues with my computer, but I just had an idea for a possible loophole. Is it possible to make extra cities (for this example let's say 3) and then gift them all to an AI effectively bankrupting it after a few turns?

[spy14]

Originally posted by Jerh9e1k5
I have not been able to play the game yet due to some issues with my computer, but I just had an idea for a possible loophole. Is it possible to make extra cities (for this example let's say 3) and then gift them all to an AI effectively bankrupting it after a few turns?

Yes, in another thread a player received most of an AI's cities in a peace deal, nearly bankrupting him, it cuts both ways.

[Jerh9e1k5]

I could see this being taken advantage of very easily... Having not played the game myself is there anything hampering a player from doing this? Would the cost of making all those cities outweigh the advantage of bankrupting the "enemy" AI?

[Tuberski]

Considering the fact that every time you build a settler in a city, all growth stops in that city, plus the production cost of the settler needed to build the city, it doesn't seem worth it to me.

ACK!

[Navyman]

Yeah, that tactic could work... I mean look how well the French and the Russians managed to bankrupt America by selling Louisiana Territory and Alaska, respectively.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Rogerdude
There's another thing I noticed: it seems that when you conquer a city, you don't get the option to raze it if it has your state religion. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

This must depend on civics, if it's correct. I have conquered several cities with my state religion present and have been given the option to raze them.

Never do, of course.

[jdchambe]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
An abandon to barbarians would be an idea, though the loophole would be to abandon, while waiting with some military forces, reconquer and raze it.

I found this strategy to be helpful (goofy, but helpful). The situation is that you just took a city from an opponent you are at war with and you want to get rid of it. This is what I did: I got another AI player who doesn't like the civ that I just took the city from to declare war on that civ as well. Then I move all of my units out of the city I wanted to destroy. Then I gifted the city to my new friend. My reputation with that other civ ends up going up a little even though I just screwed him and now he's the one who'se going to get looted when the enemy civ re-invades.

Yes, a very goofy way to work around the problem. But all the reason they should just give me the ability to raise it again. Whether or not I have the ability to raise it after the fact has nothing to do with closing off strategic options as others have posted. There are ways to work around the strategic alternatives.

[RobC]

Originally posted by Jerh9e1k5
I have not been able to play the game yet due to some issues with my computer, but I just had an idea for a possible loophole. Is it possible to make extra cities (for this example let's say 3) and then gift them all to an AI effectively bankrupting it after a few turns?

Nope. The AI will not accept cities if they are below a certain level of financial health (i.e. if their science rate "too low")

[bongo]

That trick only works on human players then?

I always found both razing and abondoning cities being far to easy in civ3. I don't mind it being possible though but it should be a major effort, taking several turns on larger cities and maybe even large forces...