Pillaging???

[Trifna]

I was woundering if there was any possibility to pillage and vandalize...

Goths did alot of it, Huns also, Alexander the Great maybe, Vikings, Romans did it in every conquered city, and a ton of other if not majority that went conquering. Bring all the nice goodies to our own natal cities, to our personal expanses. But not all pillaging meant that they destroyed all. Sometimes they "only" took the richness and let the rest, so that the rich people were giving all, and every citizen was still able to work and live in the city that was now yours.

[Jason Beaudoin]

It could be that by razing a city, you actually get money. I'm not sure how razing works or whether you get anything for it.

[Sabre2th]

I'm pretty sure that the 'raze city' option means the city is destroyed.

[Christantine The Great]

raze also rase (rz)
tr.v. razed, also rased raz·ing, ras·ing raz·es, ras·es
To level to the ground; demolish.

C'mon people! Of course it means "destroy".

[Admiral PJ]

It should be made possible to be able to 'pillage' or remove your own infrastructure improvements, so when an enemy captures your city (if you know they will) you can try and leave them with less than they had wanted.
I always found it annoying when enemies used my roads to move about quickly to destroy my civ, so maybe we should be able to remove some non vital roads to prevent this. ( we can always rebuild once we havea big enough army to crush theirs )

[Earthling7]

Re: Pillaging???

Originally posted by Trifna
I was woundering if there was any possibility to pillage and vandalize...

Goths did alot of it, Huns also, Alexander the Great maybe, Vikings, Romans did it in every conquered city, and a ton of other if not majority that went conquering.

We did not!

I think the only ay to vandalise is to build Privateers and pirate the oceans and trade routes.

[Hakkapeliitta]

Originally posted by Admiral PJ
I always found it annoying when enemies used my roads to move about quickly to destroy my civ, so maybe we should be able to remove some non vital roads to prevent this. ( we can always rebuild once we havea big enough army to crush theirs )

AFAIK enemies can't use your roads, or am I understood something wrong?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Admiral PJ
It should be made possible to be able to 'pillage' or remove your own infrastructure improvements, so when an enemy captures your city (if you know they will) you can try and leave them with less than they had wanted.
I always found it annoying when enemies used my roads to move about quickly to destroy my civ, so maybe we should be able to remove some non vital roads to prevent this. ( we can always rebuild once we havea big enough army to crush theirs )

Ummm, couple of things to point out.
You could always sell buildings in Civ II.
And in Civ III enemies can't use your roads or rails.

Why would you want to pillage a city that you just took if you were still going to keep it?

You can raze it if you don't want it and pillage while the city is under siege, but make it good once you take it!

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by Christantine The Great


C'mon people! Of course it means "destroy".

That's what I said.

[Trifna]

Originally posted by Lorizael


Ummm, couple of things to point out.
You could always sell buildings in Civ II.
And in Civ III enemies can't use your roads or rails.

Why would you want to pillage a city that you just took if you were still going to keep it?

You can raze it if you don't want it and pillage while the city is under siege, but make it good once you take it!

You would want to pillage a city that you just took for the same reasons than Romans, Vandals and other Goths, Vikings and many others did. To get the wealth from all what's worth something. No one can say that it isn't useful, or why so many civilisations did so?...

[Faboba]

I'm sure there'll still be some kind of pillaging option for terrain improvements. Admittedly the enemy can't use your roads, however as soon as he captures a city he can start using those roads to ensure his back-up is never far behind his front line.

What I'm more curious about is whether pillaging takes your whole turn ( like civ II ) or just one movement point ( like it should ) Which would allow you to adopt both hit and run raid into enemy territory to destroy farmland and a scortched earth policy should, heaven forbid, you be forced to give up one of your cities to an enemy's onslaught.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Trifna



You would want to pillage a city that you just took for the same reasons than Romans, Vandals and other Goths, Vikings and many others did. To get the wealth from all what's worth something. No one can say that it isn't useful, or why so many civilisations did so?...

They handled this in a way in Civ II, at least they way you're describing it. When you took a city, the city lost infrastructure and one population point, and you got money.

Pillage, rape, and burn!

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Pillage, rape, and burn!

Kill, loot, enslave, eat ,

[Stuie]

Originally posted by Lorizael

Why would you want to pillage a city that you just took if you were still going to keep it?

So I can re-build the buildings and have them start generating culture.

Pillage in the name of culture - cool!

[Alex 14]