Razing and flipping

[ShredZ]

"The right cure is to really allow a large enough garrison to completely eliminate flipping. "

That sounds good, like: 15 units = no flip ?

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Kryten
Vietnam: small villages razed = many, civilians killed by artillery/bombing = lots, major CITIES with 10,000 or more population massacred and razed to the ground so that they don't appear on modern maps = none.

The U.S. depopulated entire regions of Vietnam and declared them free-fire zones.

Romans: as you know, unlike medieval monarchies, the Romans had no hereditary right of succession. ANYONE could be emperor, even the son of an emperor, but only if they had the army backing them up. Nowadays we call anyone who needs an army to stay in power a dictator or despot, not a king.

The Punic Wars predate the first Roman Emperor.

[Kryten]

Round 2:-

Originally posted by Zachriel
The U.S. depopulated entire regions of Vietnam and declared them free-fire zones.

In Civ3 terms, small villages around cities are represented by irrigation/roads/mines, so pillaging these would represent 'depopulating the region'.
Nonetheless, "major CITIES with 10,000 or more population massacred and razed to the ground so that they don't appear on modern maps = none".

The Punic Wars predate the first Roman Emperor.

Hmmm....ok, you've got me there. It WAS the Roman Republic that razed Carthage & Corinth .
But they were a Republic, not a modern Democracy.
(I just think it's wrong that in Civ3 as a Democracy I can raze cities, massacre entire populations, starve my citizens, and do things that Hitler would have been proud of, all without worrying about the press/public opinion/opposition parties/the next election. Real life Presidents & Prime Ministers just don't have that freedom. Moral responsability and public image are as important as a strong economy in a Democracy, but that is not reflected in Civ3 )

ANYWAY.....what do you think of the idea that the number of civilians lost when a city is taken should depend apon the size of the conquering army .

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I like your proposal to have a limitted sacking and looting. Each unit occupying a city could sack/sell an improvement and steal one population point as a worker.

Nice work around as far as I'm concerned.

[Gangerolf]

. Each unit occupying a city could sack/sell an improvement and steal one population point as a worker.

except resistors perhaps. it wouldn't be fair to just make all the resistors workers and end up with only "cooperating" citizens

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Kryten
In Civ3 terms, small villages around cities are represented by irrigation/roads/mines, so pillaging these would represent 'depopulating the region'.

That seems like a reasonable interpretation.

(I just think it's wrong that in Civ3 as a Democracy I can raze cities, massacre entire populations, starve my citizens, and do things that Hitler would have been proud of, all without worrying about the press/public opinion/opposition parties/the next election. Real life Presidents & Prime Ministers just don't have that freedom. Moral responsability and public image are as important as a strong economy in a Democracy, but that is not reflected in Civ3 )

I agree that you should not be able to raze while in Democracy. And in Republic it should carry a large penalty, unless the victim had broken a treaty before it had expired.

ANYWAY.....what do you think of the idea that the number of civilians lost when a city is taken should depend apon the size of
the conquering army .

Each military unit could get a pillage order. The more units, the more pillaging. Each civilian would get a potentially lethal counterattack, as well. Pillaging could kill the pop, destroy a building, create a worker which flees, a slave, or create a partisan. Enough partisans and enough damage to your units, and the city could flip.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
except resistors perhaps. it wouldn't be fair to just make all the resistors workers and end up with only "cooperating" citizens

No doubt the military would round up the "usual suspects" and the resistors would continue to operate. Make it random.

And of course, arresting innocent people will just make more resistors and partisans.

[Zachriel]

Razing should have a much higher penalty, primarily in the unhappiness of the population. If the penalties are high enough, then most razers will switch to communism or monarchy. This should help put the brakes on razing.

[Zachriel]

- ignore -

[YuMMz]

Well I think razing in general is just too harsh for a major city (6+). It takes alot of effort and a hellavu alot of firepower to level a metropolis (pre-nuke). Not to mention even after massive attacks and bombing the city will usually still be there in some form and will grow again after a couple years of recovery. I think that once a city reaches 6 pop it should take multiple turns to raze it. For example a 9 pop city would take 10 turns to raze with one military unit, 5 turns with two and so on. This would require you to use more units to raze the city and would give the enemy empire a chance to save thier city. If razing stays the way it is, it will be extremely harsh in Multiplayer. Personally I really would like the chance to stop a player from razing my city if they take it. I mean a sneak attack could potential destroy your empire before you even get a turn!

[jshelr]

It would be news to General Sherman that no one has ever razed a major city. However, if he had stayed in Atlanta with his entire army, I can assure you that the local citizens wouldn't have killed all of them even if they did revolt. Maybe Scarlett could have lured a few of them to bed and Rhett could have done them in, but not the whole army. Garrisons reasonably large should safely hold cities until opposing armed forces throw them out. (BTW, there is a good movie on Hitler trying to raze Paris but being blocked by the incompetence / humanity of his garrison staff there. It's in black and white, however.)

[Myrddin]

Razing is even more disliked than flipping!

Given that a nuke only reduces the population of a city by half, it seems right that an occupying army should not be able to do more damage by razing a metropolis; although razing a town of 3 or less is reasonable

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by jshelr
Garrisons reasonably large should safely hold cities until opposing armed forces throw them out.

That's exactly how the game works. "Reasonably large" garrisons can hold cities. In the example given, Atlanta would be size 12 city. Sherman's army, the produce of the northern industrial economy, would be several dozen units, sufficient to take and hold Atlanta. Then what? You have to leave sufficient forces behind; or if the city does revolt, have sufficient forces on hand to subdue the rebellion; or suffer the consequences of poor planning.

[Coracle]

"Poor planning"?? Like the Civ 3 program, no doubt.

Eight full strength veteran and elite samurai in a town of '5' should cower the civilians into subservience if not worship. But that town still flipped on me and the samurai vanished into thin air. The town did not even lose a population point or get put into disorder. That was with 1.21.

The reality is proximity to the phony "capital" is all too important. Enemy capitals jump from town to town when captured meaning there is little point in attacking a capital per se. The proximity of a huge army ready to raze (another dumb idea) the town if it flips is not considered by Firaxis.

Culture Flipping is non-historical, and absurd even in game terms.

[jshelr]

Coracle's right IMO. Even with the top culture score and even close to my home civ, I've had towns flip in the latest patch, despite large stacks inside. If the formula given elsewhere in the forum that shows the "rules" for flipping is right, I don't really understand why it happens with such large garrisons.