Anyone heard about city razing?

[CGreen]

In SMAC, one of the nicest features was the ability to completely destroy an enemy city instead of capturing it. This helps a great deal when trying to build a "utopia"- evenly spacing your cities, that is.

Has there been any discussion on this feature? I'm tired of having to poison cities with spies in order to remove them.

Of course, it's death to you culturally unless you have Fundamentalism.

[Mister Pleasant]

In this day and age, razing cities will get you in trouble also. Still, should be a possibility - as should disband (ala CTP).

[Pingu:]

I think there should be a scale of this, and you get the option to choose which you commit.
Starting with a "nice" occupation, where not much happens. Nice modern warfare does this, and the more genteel sort of colonist too. Your invading troops should not be repaired if you do this. You probalby should need an advance to be able to control your troops this well. Nationalsim perhap?

Next up comes the looting and sacking of a city. Most historical conflict has this in in it, think Constantinople/Istanbul. In modern times it is a farily hefty atrocity and only dictators like Milosovic and Saddam Hussein will risk the uproar this will cause. The city is still there, but you refresh your troops "life bar" and morale by letting them go nuts on a few unsuspecting citizens, and steeling all the food, so causing the city itself alot of damage, but it's still there. Civil wars will tend to do this to you, Rwanda being a good example... Perhaps if you have the UN, your High Commission for Refugees can do this under the auspices of resettlement, reducing the atrocity factor.

After that comes the complete razing of the city, the city is reduced to ash, and the feilds sown with salt. All citizens are dead. This is an atrocity no matter what the era is.

Pingu: