Tweet
The amount of money you get from capturing a city is pathetic. You can make more money pillaging a few tiles than razing a city ever will give you. To me that diminishes gameplay. Shouldn't cities be the places where the money is at?
By conquering a city, you should be given its storehouses, like you are now. However, the game should give you more gold if you decide to raze it.
Think of how many times a conquerer took over a city, only to dismantle it and take objects and so on from it to use elsewhere.
Hence, I believe that upon razing a city, you should be given gold that somehow factors in the era as well. Razing a city in midieval era might yield you 750-1000, but raizing a city in the modern era should net you around 3000-4000.
The problem is that there is no real advantage to razing cities, except preventing high maintenance and ending up rebuilding a city you wrecked just moments ago.
By conquering a city, you should be given its storehouses, like you are now. However, the game should give you more gold if you decide to raze it.
Think of how many times a conquerer took over a city, only to dismantle it and take objects and so on from it to use elsewhere.
Hence, I believe that upon razing a city, you should be given gold that somehow factors in the era as well. Razing a city in midieval era might yield you 750-1000, but raizing a city in the modern era should net you around 3000-4000.
The problem is that there is no real advantage to razing cities, except preventing high maintenance and ending up rebuilding a city you wrecked just moments ago.
Comment