Idea for raising city options

[frenzyfol]

When taking an enemy city you are given the option of installing a new governor or raising the city.
Both choices give you the same amount of cash.

When completely raising a city, every single asset would be looted and the enemy populous enslaved. The amount of gold obtained from raising a city should therefore be higher than installing a new governor.

From memory there was a similar mechanism in Rome Total War. It's an interesting game dynamic, large bonus now in trade off for larger bonus later"

This post should really go in the "civ 5 wishlist" post, but I can't for the life of me find it.
Admin plz feel free to move this post if you know where it is.. Thanks.

[Purple]

I would also appreciate being able to see the city's details before deciding whether to raze it.

I miss the old steal-a-tech benefit of a capture. Maybe it could be (optionally?) restored in a form where one captures a certain number of beakers toward a specific tech.

[Provost Harrison]

You'd need some pretty heavy duty lifting equipment to raise a city...

[Tattila the Hun]

Well, trebuchets have that lever thing in them. Enough of those, should work. How was that, give me long enough lever, and I can raise the Earth?

Civ 3 had the nice "We are proud to report, that we now control The Hanging Gardens", when you took a city.

[Xorbon]

Spies can be handy for seeing what's in a city before you take it. Of course, that doesn't help in the early/mid part of the game.

As far as the idea in the original post goes, it's a fairly simple idea that doesn't have to go into a Civ 5 wishlist. It wouldn't take much to implement it into the current game.

[Addled Platypus]

what was the trick with missionaries...suppose to work like spies ??

not that effective?

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Purple
I would also appreciate being able to see the city's details before deciding whether to raze it.

I miss that from the earlier Civ games, it's not always I remember to check the city for wonders before attacking

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
You'd need some pretty heavy duty lifting equipment to raise a city...

You just need to raise the options, though.

[Willem]

Originally posted by LordShiva


You just need to raise the options, though.

It doesn't hurt to raise a bit of hell first.

[Tattila the Hun]

Raising an army helps, too.

[frenzyfol]

Anyone else want to have a go at my spelling?

[patcon]

Originally posted by frenzyfol
Anyone else want to have a go at my spelling?

Eye wood, butt eye dew knot dew that n e more.

[eris]

Originally posted by frenzyfol
Anyone else want to have a go at my spelling?

Post something else with the primary word in your issue spelled incorrectly and sure, there will be someone who reacts. Although jumping on someone's spelling is considered rude on the net, (especially by those who cannot spell or do not bother) there is still no reason to be proud or defensive about one's inabilities or errors.

Back on topic: I like the city razing options pretty much as they are. For whatever that is worth to you.

[rah]

I like the current options, but it would be nice if it shifted to the city screen when the raze popup pops so you could decide if the city was worth keeping. I think if you conquer a city, you'd be aware what was in it.

[Willem]

Originally posted by rah
I like the current options, but it would be nice if it shifted to the city screen when the raze popup pops so you could decide if the city was worth keeping. I think if you conquer a city, you'd be aware what was in it.

I personally think that what's in it is irrelevant as to whether you want to keep it or not. It's the location that's the primary determination. Is it strategic, does it have any resources, does it have potential for future growth? Those are the types of questions I usually ask myself.