Abandoning a City

[Kevin Ar18]

There should be an option in Civ III to abandon a city.

What would happen, is your people would be put into settlers (since all settlers do is settle cities and not any type of work this would make sense.)

Also, you should have to option to pillage/destroy the city structures. However, you would not be able to destroy quite everything.

The enemy civ would then be able to march into a burned out city and take control. But before they could use it they would have to send settlers in to resettle it with people.

[Inverse Icarus]

couldnt you take over an enemy city, (say a size 20 city) and abandon it, load all the settlers on transports, and create a huge island nearby?

sound cheap to me, but p[erhaps i misunderstood.

[manofthehour]

You should be able to destory some cities and get 1 settler, but not above size 5 or 6. CTP2 you could do this but only up to size three. What good is a size 3 city going to do you 5000 years in the game with no improvements?

[Kevin Ar18]

Originally posted by UberKruX
couldnt you take over an enemy city, (say a size 20 city) and abandon it, load all the settlers on transports, and create a huge island nearby?

Thats a good point.
But how about this?
You can only disband a city that YOU founded (thus it's people are truly part of your Civ).

But then again that could cause some problems too.

Perhaps abandoning a city should be much more limited than my first suggestion, ideas?

[manofthehour]

Yes there should be a limit to either a max of how many settlers you get out of abonding a city or not being able to abondon a city past a certain size.

[rah]

If CivIII is going to discourage ICS by harsher happiness problems for a lot of cities similar to CTPII(based on government). There had better be a disband city option. This helped ruin CPTII, making world conquest a boring evening of starving cites. You should be building and not have to worry about disbanding civs as you conquer them.

RAH

[Mo]

In SMAC there was to option to destroy a city and kill all the occupants, however I think that one should be able to abandon a city if it is small, and only if it has belonged to you for a long time. However I also think that cities that don't fall in the above group, should have an option. I would propose that you can grant them independence, and generally they would be friendly to you.

[manofthehour]

You would have to kill all of the occupents. Mabey you could make the pop. workers or slaves and than burn the city.

[Inverse Icarus]

you could always disband a city the civ2 way, keep building settlers till it disbands itself.

although i understand your reasoning for wanting a button that disbands a city, i feel this system is tried and true. the slow manner of it makes it difficult.

but i have a compromise

theres a button that says "disband city".

when clicked, it takes 5 turns to generate one settler (reguardless of production), and removes a population point each turn.

in effect, it is a 5 population to 1 settler ratio, to make a size 20 city only worth 4 settlers, after 20 turns. so the enemy has the ability to recapture the city and stop your stupid rampage

i also suppse while in "disbandment" mode, the city should have no trade or production, it should be, in effect, a dead city.

[imgod2u]

I think you should be able to strip a city of everything worthwhile and then abandon it. That has been the traditional thing to do in real life. And I think it makes sense. You can't really take buildings with you, but you can take all the food, equipement, and tear down a lot of stuff for resources. Take what you can carry basically.

[bagdar]

Abandoning cities is an absolute must!!!

[Stefu]

I think that this is the way it should be handled. When you have a city, you can click the 'abandon' button. Then city would sell it's city improvements (though not for as much money as you'get otherwise) and you'd get special settler that has little number on top of it, marking how much population is contained in that settler. Settler would start with same amount of population as were in abandoned city (if there were 20, then settler has 20 people), and each turn, there's a chance it loses one or more people, depending on your level of technology. When it finally gets where it should be, then amount of people left in settler is amount of people that would inhabit the new city. That way, you can move a city, for instance, one step, and not suffer much damage, but longer treks will be harmful. Also, this would avoid "take over 20-size city, create 20 settlers, settle the whole Africa" symptom that was talked about, since there would be only one settler to move around.

[Eli]

Originally posted by Stefu
I think that this is the way it should be handled. When you have a city, you can click the 'abandon' button. Then city would sell it's city improvements (though not for as much money as you'get otherwise) and you'd get special settler that has little number on top of it, marking how much population is contained in that settler. Settler would start with same amount of population as were in abandoned city (if there were 20, then settler has 20 people), and each turn, there's a chance it loses one or more people, depending on your level of technology. When it finally gets where it should be, then amount of people left in settler is amount of people that would inhabit the new city. That way, you can move a city, for instance, one step, and not suffer much damage, but longer treks will be harmful. Also, this would avoid "take over 20-size city, create 20 settlers, settle the whole Africa" symptom that was talked about, since there would be only one settler to move around.

"oh darn, I dont like that city location, let's move it one square right"

[Inverse Icarus]

why dont we remove EVERYTHING that ever pissed us off in any game of civ we ever played?

maybe some of the annoyances were but there on purpose?

[Stefu]

"oh darn, I dont like that city location, let's move it one square right"

Look, it may not be historic, it may not HEY, WE HAVE NEW SMILEYS, COOL be realistic, but all I know is that it's darn annoying when I have constructed a perfect layout of cities and then there's one annoying bugger of a city captured from an enemy that doesn't quite fit in.