Pillaging???

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Alex 14

What a post...

Anyway, selling enemy improvements is still a method of pillaging. So yah, you could do that then build your own temple, library, or whatever.

[Fintilgin]

So... sounds like if you conquer a big city it'd be worth selling off some of the improvements like temples, working the population really hard (so some die and there's less to worry about) to build temples to YOUR god and using the money you got from selling their stuff to rush buy yours.

Hrmmm...

Conquest is going to be a very different game then it was in the Civ2...

Joe

[Skanky Burns]

Selling a temple and then forcing your newly conquered subjects to work to death sounds like a sure-fire recipe for the city to revolt, even go back to their original owners... better make sure you have heaps of military police

If i conquered a city, the first building i sold wouldnt be a temple if i wanted to keep the city (and chances are i would). I wonder what other buildings produce culture though. They would be ripe for forced 'rebuilding'

[Sandman]

Well, I'd like to see two options for pillaging terrain. One simply deactivates the terrain improvement, by blowing up bridges or burning crops. It only takes one movement point, or even one 1/3 of a movement point, and can be easily repaired by a worker.

The other completely destroys the terrain improvement, takes a full turn to accomplish, and the improvement has to be rebuilt from scratch.

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by Sandman
Well, I'd like to see two options for pillaging terrain. One simply deactivates the terrain improvement, by blowing up bridges or burning crops. It only takes one movement point, or even one 1/3 of a movement point, and can be easily repaired by a worker.

The other completely destroys the terrain improvement, takes a full turn to accomplish, and the improvement has to be rebuilt from scratch.

I don't really see any point to this, it's just another level of complexity that we don't need.

[dainbramaged13]

Originally posted by Sabre2th


I don't really see any point to this, it's just another level of complexity that we don't need.

i dunno, it could be cool, but since complexity = bad in sids mind..

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by dainbramaged13


i dunno, it could be cool, but since complexity = bad in sids mind..

When you're working on a global scale, I believe that it is time to institute the KISS princicple. Keep it simple, stupid.

[Trifna]

Well... the big deal is too first look at if it had enough implications in History to be implemented (we don't want micro-micro management, we want macro).

After, gotta look at HOW to put it in in the best way, puting it in the renowned Sid-way, which is nice and easy.

[Pseud0nym]

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. 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.

You forgot the Vandals! Gotta give props to the 'barbarians' that coined the word for destructive behaviour.

[Pseud0nym]

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?...

Oh good! Somebody DID mention the Vandals. I think I'm going to have to make a custom civ here.