City Capture Options

[Jason Beaudoin]

True enough!

In one of the new screen shots that was just released, you'll notice that the player who was attacking the unfortunate Civ of Germany razed most of the cities. I wonder why he didn't capture them. Was it because it wasn't worth the trouble, or did he need to satisfy some sick feeling of vengence?

[Urban Ranger]

Real life example

I don't think razing a large city is possible. If you have heard of the Nanjing Massacre, it's the proof. After the IJA (Imperial Japanese Army) captured Nanjing, a large city in China, they went berserk and started mass murdering the people. In a number of days 340,000 were killed However the city survived.

[Earthling7]

Re: Real life example

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
In a number of days 340,000 were killed

People are so nice

[crmeyer]

Literal vs. Strategic Interpretation

First we must all admit that we neither know how this is implemented nor what consequences are incurred upon the razing of a city.

Secondly consider the razing not in a literal sense but in a strategic sense. Yes Berlin "survived" but it wasn't worth much for the decade following WW2 and even then it required a huge amount of investment from both the West and the Soviet Union.

So, perhaps, the question should be: "Can a city be razed to the point that its population and infrastructure no longer provide value to a civilization?"

I think the answer to this is clearly: "Yes"

Also, on a related note ... I can still recall the "Partisan" explosion that I have experienced in Civ2 for just "taking" an enemy city ... I expect that Firaxis will suffer even greater pains upon those that raze a city.

Even without "penalties," the razing of a city is usually detrimental to the conquering force in wasted resources alone.

Finally, it is difficult to analyze specific elements without having a clear understaind of the system in which it operates. Remember that there are significant changes to the actual "system" under which the civs conduct themselves ... trade, diplomacy, etc.

[isaac brock]

Originally posted by Earthling7
If it's in, it should be implemented properly.

Wow, what a bold statement. Of course it should be implemented properly. Are there other parts of civ 3 that should only be implemented improperly? tsk tsk.

[The Andy-Man]

they have probably put the option in so that when a civ declares war on your lil republic, you can take a few of there cities (and because units now cost money and not production points) and to save the cost of an extensive feild army protecting new aquisitions on enemy teretory, you just destroy it.

[crmeyer]

Originally posted by isaac brock


Wow, what a bold statement. Of course it should be implemented properly. Are there other parts of civ 3 that should only be implemented improperly? tsk tsk.

Yes a bold statement indeed.

Clearly much more bold than statements about gameplay elements without regard for or understanding of the systems in which the gameplay elements operate.

[Inverse Icarus]

juding by the animation it might actually take TIME to raze a city, depending on it's size.

if you try to raze a large city, maybe 2 pop would die each turn, thereby making it important to hold the city while you are razing it.

it's just flat out stupid to be able to take over a city and destroy it that same turn, thats worse than nukes for christs sake.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by UberKruX
it's just flat out stupid to be able to take over a city and destroy it that same turn, thats worse than nukes for christs sake.

Hm, but if one turn is one year? Enough to destroy a city completely. The reason why cities in modern wars survived is not that they are so hard to destroy - with or without nukes. IMO the reason is that normally one side WILL capture the city, but not destroy it.

[DonJoel]

Hm, but if one turn is one year? Enough to destroy a city completely.

Everybody who says that you should be able to do this and that in a turn because its a year is plain stupid and doesnt know **** about civ.
Is it realistic that armor moves 3 squares in a year?
Is it realistic that it takes 20 years for a modern ship to move around the world?
No, but its ****ing fun.

Btw, i dont think you should be able to destroy cities in a turn. the gameplay in especially multiplayer but also singleplayer would suffer.

[Dida]

Can we give the city back to the orginal Civ, but only with some tough conditions? for example,
: you stop building nukes, sign peace treaty with me, and give me 50 golds per turn, I will give Berlin back to you.

[jsw363]

Originally posted by Dida
Can we give the city back to the orginal Civ, but only with some tough conditions? for example,
: you stop building nukes, sign peace treaty with me, and give me 50 golds per turn, I will give Berlin back to you.

This sounds quite plausible to me. A great way to enforce tough treaty conditions that the civ otherwise wouldn't agree to.

I think that the raze city option is especially helpful when AI cities are badly placed. But at least I won't find random cities appearing in the middle of my empire because of the borders feature. I always hated that the most. Razing a city would only be useful with blitzkreig tactics. In most other situations, you'd probably want to be able to "harvest" the settlers from the city.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by DonJoel


Everybody who says that you should be able to do this and that in a turn because its a year is plain stupid and doesnt know **** about civ.
Is it realistic that armor moves 3 squares in a year?
Is it realistic that it takes 20 years for a modern ship to move around the world?
No, but its ****ing fun.

Btw, i dont think you should be able to destroy cities in a turn. the gameplay in especially multiplayer but also singleplayer would suffer.

Oh, I wasn´t aware that this topic is hot enough for a flame war. However, feel free to go on, since your opinion is obviously always right...

[Daoloth]

My Two Cents

Well I posted the original thread at CivFanatics, and I would like to mention something about the screenshot I linked: The cities were destroyed in the 13th and 14th centuries...We do not know yet whether they can be destroyed in modern age. And yes, modern cities have been destroyed: Stalingrad, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, that small city the Nazis destroyed, etc. But those have really been rebuilt. Dan's reply was just one paragraph, so there's undoutedly something more with such a large feature. Personally, I think it's great.

[PGM]

Originally posted by Dida
Can we give the city back to the orginal Civ, but only with some tough conditions? for example,
: you stop building nukes, sign peace treaty with me, and give me 50 golds per turn, I will give Berlin back to you.

I don't see why not. It is now your city, you can trade any of them, just offer the city in the diplomatic negotiations screen and see what they give you for it. If the city still has a high inherent value (though city value after conquest might decrease substantially - loss of all accumulated culture points, loss of population, unhappiness, ...), I believe they will be interested. Besides, you have the upper-hand now.

Razing a city: I like the concept very much, but I think there should be a size limit to do that (5, 8, whatever). It's hard to accept a city size 20 being razed to the ground.

Daoloth: modern cities have been destroyed, but not razed to the ground (taken out of the world map) as if they never existed.

We've been told that Great Wonders can't be destroyed. What if you raze a city that has one of these???