0 size cities.

[Biddles]

Does anybody else get really annoyed (I had another word planned for here ) when you attack a 1 size city with a unit in it, you win, but you don't get the city because it is destroyed.

Why on earth does a whole city dissappear just beacuase the population has been wiped out. There is such a thing as Ghost Towns.

What I propose happens is that if you wipe out the population, the city becomes a zero size city. This city would provide you with nothing. It is merely a city with all it's ifrastructure in tact. You can move a settler unit into the city when you want and add population to make it a 1 size city (normal city), that has already built structures.

When you initially take over the city you should have the option to raze it (hey, there are situations when you don't want the UoP to ever have the HSA again ) and suffer no penalty.


------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

[UltraSonix]

I like your idea about putting a settler into a zero sized town - but perhaps there has to be a cost incurred to do that - after all, all the buildings hasn't been maintained for a while. But perhaps the zero sized town can only stand for a while, and after a few years, it just disappears into oblivion.

But I disagree on the point of allowing cities to be razed without penalty --> maybe if you do raze a un-CityWalled town of size one (or allow the town to disappear by not putting a settler in) the other civ will get very angry at you. This would be simliar to SMAC where if you changed the name of a captured town soon after you captured it the other civ gets at you.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[Biddles]

I really have to work on this communication thing. I was talking specifically about razing size zero cities. You should get a penalty for razing any city size one or greater.

If you did mean size zero cities, than I have to disagree. If a city has no people i it you should be able to use it for target practice.


------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

[MidKnight Lament]

Actually, that's a pretty good idea. I think I like it.

Looks like Melbourne is the Civ capital of Australia.

- MKL
[This message has been edited by MidKnight Lament (edited May 31, 2000).]

[Father Beast]

Hmmnn... I like it.
I was always a bit confused when I would conquer a size 1 city, and it would dissapear. This is especially interesting later on in the game, when a lot of land has been developed, and you take out the city, leaving this hole in the road network.
How about when a city reaches size 0, you can move a settler in and renew it, keeping the old improvements that survived your siege. the city loses 1 random improvement per turn, and when they're gone, it's just a hole in the map. You can fortify a unit in the ruins to slow the decay (it's assumed that the soldiers go around performing a bit of rudimentary maintenance)to, say, 1 per 3 turns.
Still, it would end a funny picture. My army storms the streets of Cairo, and all of a sudden the pyramids come tumbling down.

[Par4]

I like this idea, cities are too big for ghost town tourist attractions, maybe if we have small cities near the towns, the whole region ideas. I think razing a size 0 city that has something important, say it was the city that islam came from, then the muslims are going to have a cow because of the old buildings and stuff. I have had a vision, national parks, you could clean up stuff and turn it into a national park, with war memorials or stuff like that, ok dumb idea but hey most countries have em, even China.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
OMG if your hard drive dies,
And you ain't got backup of your files
Life sucks
Although I am doing a lot more Mountain Biking

[Biddles]

Father Beast: Good idea about losing the 1 improvement per turn. This would force people to move the settler in to the city quickly. It would also mean that there wouldn't be a heapd of zero size cities all over the map. I like the fortification idea as well. Maybe the more units you station there the less that the city degrades by:
1 unit = lose 1 structure every 3 turns
2 units = lose 1 structure every 6 turns
3 units = lose 1 structure every 9 turns
etc.


------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission

[Az]

I think that we should be able to give armies the commands of exiling small populations ( 1-3 ) and leaving them intact , as we want . so even as we occupy the city they won't run away ( at least not because of us ) if they are running away you should be able to put this as a National Priority Region ( low Taxes ) and then the ppl we migrate there ( here comes that hard to accomplish migration adea ) . well I know it is kinda tricky all this , but thats reality.
comments plz.

------------------
Prepare to Land !

[Adm.Naismith]

Biddles, I agree "0 size" cities must be kept on map, at least for a few turns. Good point!

That IMHO open some problems that must be addressed:

1) a "1 pop" city work 2 squares (itself and one with the worker available): of course "0 pop" must eliminate any production

2) as already suggested, "0 pop" must disappear in a few turn if not re-populated by settler BUT it shouldn't lose any enhancement (otherwise, what will be the advantage to repopulate a city with a settler instead of refund it from scratch?

3) a "0 pop" city can offer same defense bonus of normal city to any unit inside, but it shouldn't allow any production (normal or by "hurry"), nor add any benefit on repairing/upgrade units over open field (there is no populace to put at work)

4) a "0 pop" that decay to disappear make no atrocity, if you pillage it by direct order it can be a minor atrocity, not for every civ on the game, but only in diplomacy strong "angry" of offended Civ and may be its alley (I mean, when Rome destroyed Cartago they didn't like it, did they?

Of course it should still exist a feature to force a city to disband without atrocity (e.g. by migration concept) but not really easy to achieve (it can't be easy to force some thousand people to leave their houses without serius menace, IMO).

Maybe we can add the concept of "threatened city": if the last turn a city suffer a famine, has been attacked and loss population, or suffer a natural disaster, may be also if it's in revolt for too long, you can incite the population to leave the city at "0 pop" (an "Exodus" command) and become one/more settlers that you can direct to a better place.

May be you suffer one point of population loss in the process (you must have some minus to balance the CIV II need of the slower "build settler until empty" process).

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[MidKnight Lament]

In answer to number two, it may have only lost half it's improvements, so there still could be a benefit. They should decay one turn after another (or perhaps depending on what type of improvement - eg. city walls might take a lot longer than a marketplace)
It would also still be inviting if there were TIs still existing in the city radius.

We should also talk about how all this affects wonders. Is a wonder only lost once the whole city is gone, or does it decay like improvements? I'd probably suggest the former.

- MKL

[OrangeSfwr]

How about the option (up until a certain tech or discovery, or not including a certain set of wonders) to destroy a wonder for increased production in one of your other cities? For example - destroying the Colossus and then using the bronze and iron for production purposes? it could make the other civ REALLY po'd. But oh well Again, there should be exceptions because you can't just destroy the manhattan project or apollo program. Maybe it should only apply to the first 2 sets of wonders?

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

[Christantine]

I like the 0 pop city idea but I don't think that if you don't repopulate the city than it's improvements should just wither away. I think that maybe "nomads" should gradually populate the abandoned city and form a city-state. They would then form a civilization.

------------------
I came, I saw, I conquered...my allies!!

[UltraSonix]

The nomads taking over a 0-sized town is pretty good, and would fit in well with the other nomad stuff in the other thread.

But, wouldn't nomads living in a town not be called "nomads" anymore?

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...
[This message has been edited by UltraSonix (edited June 04, 2000).]

[Father Beast]

Naismith, iteresting ideas. let me comment.
1). size 1 cities SHOULD only produce the city square, as in the ONLY REAL FIX for ICS.
2). the idea for losing improvements is that if you don't settle it, you lose the benefits of the old city. I decided on improvements because it extends the time available if the city is built up more. i.e. if it's more developed, it takes more time to wither away.
Wonders should be the last thing to go.
3). a 0 city can provide defense bonus if the city walls are still intact. but once they go... agreed on no production or repair bonuses until you resettle.
4). shouldn't be an atrocity to let it die, razing it should only tick off the civ you took it from, unless there's a wonder, then they are all offended.

[Ken Bregott]

A few questions:

1) Is it historically viable? An army overrunning a previously well populated city mainly in ruins and killing the reamining inhabitants will probably pillage a bit as well. Maybe if you got no gold out of taking a city "alive" so to speak, there would actually be a choice.

2) Does it give too many benefits to the conqueror? Civ is supposed to be balanced in such a way that war is unprofitable and wasteful (as indeed it is in real life). Gaining additional cities will be one more incentive for conquest and one less for a peaceful route.

3) Is it viable in gameplay? Won't the additional factors this implies only confuse?