Tweet
When playing Civ2/SMAC, I would tend to be measured in the amount of bombardment against a city as I wanted there to something left to conquer. Nov in Civ3 you are doubly encouraged to flatten cities as all the city buidings are destroyed when you march in and the population are stragely ungrateful for their 'liberation' 
Now this is fine to an extent, as it was a bit too easy to conquor huge swathes of teritory before, but in the interests of balance, shouldn't there be some benefit from not approaching every city like Ghengis Khan. Wouldn't one expect a city that was spared a couple of years od cannon fire to be less resisting than one that has been guven a pasting. And is is fair for every improvement to be destroyed every time?
I think we need some more rewards for 'enlightened' empire builders.
Now this is fine to an extent, as it was a bit too easy to conquor huge swathes of teritory before, but in the interests of balance, shouldn't there be some benefit from not approaching every city like Ghengis Khan. Wouldn't one expect a city that was spared a couple of years od cannon fire to be less resisting than one that has been guven a pasting. And is is fair for every improvement to be destroyed every time?
I think we need some more rewards for 'enlightened' empire builders.