AI burning your cities

[Flanker]

Optimum City Number

Yes, I know, but what does that mean? Is that only an AI-aspect? What are the advantages of having that exact number of cities? Which game-aspects does it affect?

[twoflower]

if you exceed the Optimum city number you get more corruption

[AeonOfTime]

Razing = atrocity

In a recent game I played, the carthaginians declared war spontaneously and on the next turn landed a huge mass of troops on a small island I had two cities on.

They attacked the biggest of the two, which was 32 in size and razed it . In my opinion, this is even a bigger atrocity than a nuke!

Shouldn't this be handled a bit differently? A civ doing this should not get away so easily with it!

...just my two cents on the subject...

AeonOfTime

[crotch]

killing 10million civilian is very bad and player should get bad reptaton for doing this as this is murdinring and destroying but why is it ok for the computer to do this when murdering is illegal in places in world. who can get away with murdeing innocent people and not get bad reputation.

monkey doest agree

[Demerzel]

I get annoyed when the AI takes one of my cities and will eventually get around to retaking it and some of his. If the AI burns one of my cities then generally I'll drop my other plans at the time and exterminate the b*stard ASAP

[twoflower]

I unleash a nuclear rain of fire every chance I get in civ 3

[Jaybe]

Re: Razing = atrocity

Originally posted by AeonOfTime
In a recent game I played, the carthaginians declared war spontaneously and on the next turn landed a huge mass of troops on a small island I had two cities on.

They attacked the biggest of the two, which was 32 in size and razed it . In my opinion, this is even a bigger atrocity than a nuke!

Shouldn't this be handled a bit differently? A civ doing this should not get away so easily with it!

...

Did you not retaliate appropriately? Did you not take (or raze) every single city they had?

I am confident that YOU punished them for their actions!

[Naiveplayer]

Originally posted by badams52
I think the biggest factor is how close the AI is to that magic OCN (optimal city number). Once he's over it, most cities are razed unless the city he's capturing has wonders, luxuries he doesn't have, or resources (whether the pop up now or will in the future).

What?

That was completely opposite from what I observed in my Civ Fanatics' game of the month 16 game. I was Rome and the Germans were fiercely aggressive. They took over the Japanese and Americans.

They were way over their OCN, and had an odd way of razing. They razed almost all the Japanese cities and kept two or three. When they finally turned on me, they kept three cities - all of them having little value. It was emperor and I was getting really crushed.

They razed cities with resources in the cities' radius. They established colonies over the resources/luxs, instead, which made no sense at all.

[AeonOfTime]

Re: Re: Razing = atrocity

Originally posted by Jaybe

Did you not retaliate appropriately? Did you not take (or raze) every single city they had?

I am confident that YOU punished them for their actions!

Indeed I did - that was the first and last move aginast me that they did. Even got me some extra luxuries I was coveting for quite a while, so in that sense it came in quite handy...

[AeonOfTime]

Originally posted by Naiveplayer

They razed cities with resources in the cities' radius. They established colonies over the resources/luxs, instead, which made no sense at all.

I usually decide which cities to keep depending on the defendability of the city's position, and the amount of units I can spare to defend it while still having enough to continue my conquest.

Maybe the AI does something similar?