Ruins of a city

[Gramphos]

How long will the ruins from a City stay on the map?

Is every frame in the end of animation one turn, or will the city disappear in the same turn as it destroys?

[Ralf]

Re: Ruins of a city

Originally posted by Gramphos
How long will the ruins from a City stay on the map?

Is every frame in the end of animation one turn, or will the city disappear in the same turn as it destroys?

Hmm. Ruins? This is news to me. In what game-situations does this happen?

Can the player disband a city and resurrect a city somewhere nearby? I heard about settlers and workers being detractable/mergeable with other cities, yes. But this happens only gradually and the old city-graphics should only shrink - not remain in size, although ruined. Or should it perhaps? Comments please.

[Gramphos]

Re: Re: Ruins of a city

Originally posted by Ralf
Hmm. Ruins? This is news to me. In what game-situations does this happen?

I don't know. Maybe when you destroy a city (attacking it down to 0 population).

Can the player disband a city and resurrect that city somewhere nearby? I heard about settlers and workers being detractable/mergeable with other cities, yes. But this happens only gradually and the old city-graphics should only shrink - not remain in size, although ruined. Or should it perhaps? Well, why not. Comments please.

That is also possible.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Gramphos
I don't know. Maybe when you destroy a city (attacking it down to 0 population).

Either that, or you can conquer that city - sell out its city-improvents and forcefully evacuate its population (by settler/workers), and allocate these pops along your own established cities? Or use them to populate small hastly founded cities & work-colonies in desolate parts of your empire. Like Stalin did.

Oh God, I already feel two horns slowly growing from my forehead. Think of the evil-spirited possibilities.

[Gramphos]

I just thought of something. The ruins begin at the biggest size, that way it can't be from the destruction of a small city.

It might be your evil version. It may also be an effect of abandoning the city. Or maybe it is the new effect of nukes. "No more half population loss. Just the entire City destroyed.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Gramphos
I just thought of something. The ruins begin at the biggest size, that way it can't be from the destruction of a small city.

Well, the city doesnt have to expand to its biggest size before it has the ability to turn into ruins. It can also be freely abandoned or forcefully destroyed & evacuated then its still only small or medium-sized. The team just had to add animation-stages for all 3 size-possibilities, I guess.

It might be your evil version. It may also be an effect of abandoning the city. Or maybe it is the new effect of nukes. "No more half population loss. Just the entire City destroyed.

Maybe a nuke-effect also, yes. We can only speculate so far.
But the possibility of merging settler/worker pop-points to already excisting cities has already been confirmed. From there one can lay two and two together about my -version.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Gramphos

I don't know. Maybe when you destroy a city (attacking it down to 0 population).

Originally posted by Ralf

Either that, or you can conquer that city - sell out its city-improvents, then forcefully evacuate its population (by settler/workers), and allocate these pops along your own established cities? Or use them to populate small hastly founded cities & work-colonies in desolate parts of your empire. Like Stalin did.

A third possibility: Conquering the city and instantly burning it down a la SMAC (IIRC, no outselling, no pop evacuation). I think it counted as major atrocity, and you wouldn´t have to mind about a diplomativ victory afterwards.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by lockstep
A third possibility: Conquering the city and instantly burning it down a la SMAC (IIRC, no outselling, no pop evacuation). I think it counted as major atrocity, and you wouldn´t have to mind about a diplomativ victory afterwards.

As an third option - why not? Im all positive to having different alternatives available.

By the way: We already know that a newly built worker/settler detracts 1-2 pop-points from the origin city. But what about if we choose NOT to move these produced workers/settlers outside the city-square? Does the city-size shrink anyway, or does it remain in size?

If the latter alternative is possible, then one can prepare in advance huge mass-exoduses, and then move them all out in one turn. Like Moses. Think about it.

[Gramphos]

Originally posted by lockstep
A third possibility: Conquering the city and instantly burning it down a la SMAC (IIRC, no outselling, no pop evacuation). I think it counted as major atrocity, and you wouldn´t have to mind about a diplomativ victory afterwards.

That is possible. I can think of some really evil tactics with all these possible abilities

Originally posted by Ralf
By the way: We already know that a newly built worker/settler detracts 1-2 pop-points from the origin city. But what about if we choose NOT to move these produced workers/settlers outside the city-square? Does the city-size shrink anyway, or does it remain in size?

If the latter alternative is possible, then one can prepare in advance huge mass-exoduses, and then move them all out in one turn. Like Moses. Think about it.

Sounds cool, but I don't think the game works that way.

[lockstep]

If I´m engaged in a defensive war, struggling for survival, and in a sudden strike-back conquer an enemy´s city which I can not expect to hold, I´ll think about burning it down, even if that makes me a paria civ. On the other hand, what situation would demand in-advance-preparing of a mass-exodus? When in war, I´d rather produce military units than later-to-be-settlers. If I´m probably going to lose a city in the long run because of my neighbour civ´s higher culture, I´d simply try to trade the city for techs, resources, gold or whatever instead of wasting shields for a population transfer. (My neighbour civ should be willing to trade, because both parties will benefit.)

[Gramphos]

I have loads of tactics growing in my head. I must just know how many of them that actually will work.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Gramphos
Sounds cool, but I don't think the game works that way.

Im not sure either. Perhaps not. Again, just wild speculations.

Originally posted by Lockstep
On the other hand, what situation would demand in-advance-preparing of a mass-exodus? When in war, I´d rather produce military units than later-to-be-settlers.

Well, the thing is that you have a choice, Lockstep. And choices are often mixed blessings, either way. Maybe one can do a little of both. Or perhaps your cities further back provides the upholding cannon-fodder, while the maybe-doomed city prepares or execute its own evacuation, just in case.

If I´m probably going to lose a city in the long run because of my neighbour civ´s higher culture, I´d simply try to trade the city for techs, resources, gold or whatever instead of wasting shields for a population transfer.

You cannot trade a whole city if its doomed to be swallowed up anyway. Who would want it? Not the culturally dominant Civ surely - he get it soon enough anyway. And not any other AI-civs either, because they will loose out to that dominant Civ also. Cultural border-strength are city-indevidual, remember. If the AI is good enough, it will never allow an AI-civ to accept such a deal.
By comparison, sending away refugee-pops and selling out city-improvement seems more wortwhile - at least in terms of damage-controlling the city's unavoidable doom. We already know that refugee-transfers is possible 2 pops for each produced settler - the question is if you can prepare in advance?

Originally posted by Gramphos
I have loads of tactics growing in my head. I must just know how many of them that actually will work.

Another alternative would selling out doomed city-improvents and letting the gold from that, help rush-building refugee-settlers/workers more quickly. That comes pretty close to mass-exodus as well.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Ralf

You cannot trade a whole city if its doomed to be swallowed up anyway. Who would want it? Not the culturally dominant Civ surely - he get it soon enough anyway.

As the culturally dominant civ, I could imagine at least two reasons to make an attractive offer for a city that I´ll get 'soon enough':

- the difference between 'soon enough' and 'instantly' (which can mean more research points, gold etc.),

- the difference between what it would cost me to rebuild all the city improvements and what the other civ would get from selling out in distress.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Ralf

Or perhaps your cities further back provides the upholding cannon-fodder, while the maybe-doomed city prepares or execute its own evacuation, just in case.

You have a point here, Ralf. However, preparing for just-in-case-evacuation, as I understand it, means sacrificing some of your empire´s shield production. It is a choice, but a very tough one.

[Ralf]

Lockstep - I have given the whole Moses-style "instant mass-exodus" idea a second thought, and I have decided that I dont like it after all. Any produced workers/settlers should always instantly subtract 1-2 pop-points from its city regardless if these units still remain within the city-square, or not. The idea of "instant mass-exoduses" becomes too inflationary and potentially loophole cheatable, I suspect.

The only disbanding/evacuating-options which should be available for the defending city, is the following ones:

• You can disband the city by transfering pop-points through settlers/workers and selling out city-improvements (but never big Wonders). Its relatively time-consuming to build refugee-settlers/workers, and selling city-improvement can only be done 1 improvement per turn (as in Civ-2). Time that you perhaps dont have/cant priority in a doomed city war-situation.
  
• You can try to strike a deal with the invader; offer/trade the doomed city. You cannot expect a "advantageous deal" in such situations, of course. Lets hope the AI isnt gullible in this respect.
  
• You can simply torch the city yourself rather then give it to the enemy (scorched earth-tactics). This cant be done instantly though. It should take at least one full turn between decision and execution (and maybe only possible with small/medium-sized cities). If the enemy conquer the city before that (or if you change your mind), the execution is halted. The disadvantage of above is obvious - you loose everything that you cant sell or move.