Cities razed, again and again...

[Earthling7]

I am playing Civ4 for the first time. What strikes me is that if an enemy captures a city, it razes it almost without exception. What used to be an atrocity in previous versions has become the norm. Why? AFAIC, warfare has become pointless and tedious. This is also highly unrealistic as the only major examples throughout history I can think of are Carthage and Warsaw. What does the community think?

I tried searching for this but couldn't find anything. Also, I'm playing Warlords.

[snoopy369]

I've not found this generally to be the case. Are you talking size=1 cities, or others that are larger? Size=1 cities are razed automatically (they're too small to survive the clash).

Anyhow, if you select 'custom game' you can turn off the option of razing cities (except for size=1 cities I think).

[Supr49er]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I've not found this generally to be the case. Are you talking size=1 cities, or others that are larger? Size=1 cities are razed automatically (they're too small to survive the clash).

Anyhow, if you select 'custom game' you can turn off the option of razing cities (except for size=1 cities I think).

I think if a city has ever been larger than 1, it is not automatically razed.

[Earthling7]

I'm taking large cities throughout the game. Size-1 has always been like that, but it's razing the 10+ cities that puzzles me. There were two major wars in the game I just played, one in Redcoats time, the other modern. All cities captured by any side were razed.

I wouldn't want to turn the option off, as things happen, but all the time?

[snoopy369]

Razing is a decision that mostly matters based on the purpose of the war.

Purpose: Conquest - don't raze.
Purpose: Weakening opponent - raze.

In my experience the AI usually doesn't raze cities if it's next to the target, but will raze them if it's not next to it(if it would involve keeping a city that's separated by another country from its homeland).

However, I think power makes a difference- if the AI doesn't think it can hold a city, it will raze it. A perfectly reasonable game decision

I think in BtS this may have changed somewhat, however, so I'm not 100% sure. It's been a long time since I played warlords except in MP.

[Hauptman]

Ghengis Khan razed countless cities on his little rampage in the 1200s.

In game however, sometimes the ai's simply want to weaken an opponent (to help themselves win the game!) And they often declare war simply to wound an enemy. Also, if the city is "culture smashed" as in, likely to flip, they wont bother keeping it.

[snoopy369]

Actually, Genghis generally did NOT raze cities. He plundered them. That is vastly different He certainly razed a few, but on balance he left them structurally sound - that was one of the things that differentiated him from other Mongol-ish tribes and made him successful; he understood there was more to be gained by holding a city than just taking what you want and burning the rest. He generally only burned cities down when they offered resistance beyond a reasonable point.

[Earthling7]

Sounds like Civ4 is more concerned with dampening the competition, rather that conquering.

A possible explanation, I suppose. I captured Toledo, a lovely city in Spain. Centuries later, after an eternity of peace, it was perfectly surrounded by Spanish territory. I had no room to breathe. There was the occasional uprising, but they did little, even with the city unprotected. Spain was rather a good friend by now and I didn't care if I kept the city, so I had no units there. So, a couple of centuries later and the city was useless to me.

I can see that in game turns, razing is a useful tool. I just think that it is taken too lightly, especially in the "enlightened" end game. It should be treated as the atrocity it is.

[clarkcd]

Well you do get a relations hit with the owner of the city when it is razed so at least someone cares when it's razed.

[Hauptman]

Not to mention the partisons who take up arms to revenge the mass killings.

First time I had 6 infantry spawn around a city I razed was the last time I razed a city...

[MoonWolf]

I think razing a city should cause a diplo hit with civs that run emancipation or free speech. The larger the city, the bigger hit. There are too many examples of razing cities and slaugthering enitre populations in history.

[ybrevo]

Isn´t it basically a question of: Can I use this city for anything (resources, strategic value, wonders etc.) or not? An enemy city situated in the middle of tundra or surrounded by Sahara is an automatic raze when I play. Cities near my border I try to keep for future expansion.

ybrevo

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Actually, Genghis generally did NOT raze cities. He plundered them. That is vastly different He certainly razed a few, but on balance he left them structurally sound - that was one of the things that differentiated him from other Mongol-ish tribes and made him successful; he understood there was more to be gained by holding a city than just taking what you want and burning the rest. He generally only burned cities down when they offered resistance beyond a reasonable point.

Were those cities actually razed or did he just have everyone killed.

And who raise Warsaw? Last time I looked it was still there.

[Earthling7]

The Nazis razed Warsaw after the uprising in August 1944. Hitler ordered the city to be wiped off the face of the earth as an example to others. When the Soviets "liberated" it in early 1945, almost nothing remained and the entire population had been moved to concentration camps. The city had to be rebuilt after the war.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by couerdelion


Were those cities actually razed or did he just have everyone killed.

And who raise Warsaw? Last time I looked it was still there.

I believe he did raze some of the cities (not necessarily the ENTIRE city, but a good portion of some). It's been too long since I read the various history books to remember details (I read several when I was testing the GK scenario, back in what, 2006? I'm getting old I guess... lol)