Ugh - pillaging

[Venger]

Unless I missed it, ordering a unit to pillage doesn't give you any options as to WHAT you want to pillage. Is this correct? What a step backwards...

I ask because I tend to pillage behind me at times, and just had to destroy irrigation, roads, and railroads to destroy the fortification on the site. Huh? I WANTED all the other three items...

Yuck...

Venger

[Green Giant]

I was a little surprised at it too. I guess it works for you sometimes when you are bombing and want to destroy all improvements. I don't know why it was done though.

[Sarxis]

There is a definate order to the pillage:

Railroads, then road and irrigation/mine, then Fortresses.

It is the same everytime.

[Dis]

still it would be nice to know what you are destroying. I never pillage things, I just conquer them. But it would be nice from a realistic standpoint. that damn R word again.

But who goes around destroying things without knowing what they are destroying?

[Mannamagnus]

The civ2 way makes much more sense. Sometimes I build fortresses at chkeponts or to protect resources. If I want to get rid of them I have to destroy everything else first. It's sily!

Also, in the four games of civ3 I played I haven't seen the AI build a fortress once!?

[Kekkonen]

Originally posted by Mannamagnus
The civ2 way makes much more sense. Sometimes I build fortresses at chkeponts or to protect resources. If I want to get rid of them I have to destroy everything else first. It's sily!

Is there a reason to destroy a fortress? I don't think it hampers production or anything.

Also, in the four games of civ3 I played I haven't seen the AI build a fortress once!?

I've seen them. In my last game, the Americans had at least one. What's more, it was exactly where I would've built a fortress -- blocking the way from/to a peninsula to the American mainland.

[Mannamagnus]

Is there a reason to destroy a fortress? I don't think it hampers production or anything.

I don't want to keep a fortress occupied forever and an empty fortress can be occupied by enemy units.

[Buck Birdseed]

Perfectionists...

[Kekkonen]

Originally posted by Mannamagnus
I don't want to keep a fortress occupied forever and an empty fortress can be occupied by enemy units.

That's true. But you can also use it yourself as a second line of defense, if a war is going poorly.

[Mannamagnus]

if a war is going poorly

What does that mean

[Kekkonen]

I'm not sure of the exact definition. However, to take a hypothetical (yeah, right) example, I think that if Otto the Cranky German uses a knight rush to take over two small border towns that used to be yours, that's, like, not good. Then he bangs his head on two spearmen fortified inside a hill fortress blocking access to your mainland and sues for peace, and that, while not good, is nowhere near as bad as it could have been.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Mannamagnus

What does that mean

Yeah, no kidding, a war not going well???

Mannamagnus is right, there are times to destroy a fortification. I use them as choke points when attacking other Civs to hold my one side of a frontier while I conquer the other. When done, I want to get rid of those so that cannot be occupied.

Why was the proven, easy, and clearly BETTER Civ2 system ditched? Sheer laziness?

Venger