Pillaging, Sacking and Nukes

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Christantine The Great
Warsaw was razed in WWII.

Warsaw was ALMOST razed in WW II. Although all that meant was blowing up the buildings. Much of the infrastructure, such as sewers remained. The land was not turned into plains ready for irrigation. That never happened.

Warsaw is the ONLY example of a major city being razed after the Ancient period, and it took immense effort over a long period. More than a year earlier the Jewish part of Warsaw was destroyed. Much of Warsaw was destroyed in the 1939 attacks.

It took the Nazis a great deal of time to do this, AND ONLY THE NAZIS WOULD EVER HAVE ATTEMPTED IT, and there are no Nazis in Civ 3. Only the Nazis, with no religious or political constraints, would have tried this. Even then, the population of Warsaw was NOT massacred or sold into slavery.

The Nazis also didn't need just a single unit to instantly raze a city, the way Civ 3 does. The Nazis needed lots of time and lots of troops and effort, and as I stated above, not just in 1944.

So razing is a FANTASY and a joke in Civ 3.

PILLAGING by opposing armies makes sense and would be historical. But since it makes sense it is not in Civ 3.


Oh. nukes. Civ 3 makes their effect not nearly serious enough. It promotes too much use of them by people who like big explosions. Also, an automatic quick response would be far more realistic. radiation poisoning seems totally ignored by Firaxis: "Hey, let me nuke that big stack over there and then attack it with my tanks!!". The reality? Your own troops would suffer serious and potential deadly effects from the radiation - as would the world as a whole. Not in the game. So I don't need nukes.

[Panag]

Re: This Sounds Great

Originally posted by Civfan
This is a great idea for the expansion pact of CIVIII. If it would be included in the expansion I surely would get this. Two thumbs up on this wonderful suggestion.

hi ,

, its allready in the game , ...

please explain what you mean , ....

have a nice day

[jsw363]

Originally posted by dunk999
I like the nuke ideas. Definately should be a counter-strike option with nukes though. Also, since the counter-strike should be able to be launched before the first volley hits, it should happen before you get hit.

I like this idea for nuclear retaliation, but I wonder if its possible to implement this type of change in CivIII. Will we have to wait for CivIV? There needs to be some means to implement better nuclear deterrance, since WMD can be used carelessly in CivIII without serious consequences. In this manner Civ still doesn't beign to approximate reality in the least.

[trevor]

If my memory serves me, I've been watching too much Iron Chef, you could do that in CTP2. Of course if it is a Activision idea than Firaxis will never use it no matter how smart it is.

[Christantine The Great]

Originally posted by Coracle


Warsaw was ALMOST razed in WW II. Although all that meant was blowing up the buildings. Much of the infrastructure, such as sewers remained. The land was not turned into plains ready for irrigation. That never happened.

Warsaw is the ONLY example of a major city being razed after the Ancient period, and it took immense effort over a long period. More than a year earlier the Jewish part of Warsaw was destroyed. Much of Warsaw was destroyed in the 1939 attacks.

It took the Nazis a great deal of time to do this, AND ONLY THE NAZIS WOULD EVER HAVE ATTEMPTED IT, and there are no Nazis in Civ 3. Only the Nazis, with no religious or political constraints, would have tried this. Even then, the population of Warsaw was NOT massacred or sold into slavery.

The Nazis also didn't need just a single unit to instantly raze a city, the way Civ 3 does. The Nazis needed lots of time and lots of troops and effort, and as I stated above, not just in 1944.

So razing is a FANTASY and a joke in Civ 3.

PILLAGING by opposing armies makes sense and would be historical. But since it makes sense it is not in Civ 3.


Oh. nukes. Civ 3 makes their effect not nearly serious enough. It promotes too much use of them by people who like big explosions. Also, an automatic quick response would be far more realistic. radiation poisoning seems totally ignored by Firaxis: "Hey, let me nuke that big stack over there and then attack it with my tanks!!". The reality? Your own troops would suffer serious and potential deadly effects from the radiation - as would the world as a whole. Not in the game. So I don't need nukes.

Another session of flaming and whining with Coracle...it's starting to lose its entertaining value...

1) Building were blow up but not infastructure? They're nearly one in the same, but if you're going to nitpick, here's a better example:

Carthage was completely razed by the Romans.

So well that when they wanted the city back, they were forced to build a new one.

2) Ok...so you're claiming that modern weapons can't raze a modern city (glass in a steel frame) as well as an ancient army armed with catapults can against an ancient city (stone, stone, and lots of stone)? We can do it BETTER today. Instead of crying about the unrealistic way cities are razed, why don't you try to justify why modern cities can't be razed in the space of a single year? If I sent a group of swordsmen against a firmly intrenched mech. infantry position, would they fight to the death and not run away in real life? The realistic argument is full of holes.

3) So? Are you saying that, in real life, armies can't do this? Do weapons suddenly have no use against civilian populations? Would you rather have some population escape in the form of settlers, which would just get hunted down?

4) Ok...during the time that you'd use a swordsmen unit, it would have roughly 50-10 years to accomplish its task. Not impossible. During the modern era, with tanks and bombs, it takes a minimum of a year. Again, this is entirely possible.

5) OH MY GOD?!?!?!?? CivIII isn't REAL?!!?!? Quick, call the papers! CivIII is a FRAUD because all it's supposed to be is an ACCURATE WAR SIMULATION and it's NOT.

6) Why should I be FORCED to leave the city or keep it? It's MY army and they'll work up to 50 years or 24/365 days to completely raze any city I want to the ground! Try taking that attitude. No, wait, you can't because that would make sense to suspend disbelief.

7) Well gee, let's have all of our troops die of old age, too. While you're adding that, remember that a freak accident where all of the barracks collapse on them and they all die. Oh yeah, sometimes commercial airplanes are hijacked by terrorists and crash into buildings so airports should allow for a freak "Terrorist Strike" accident to happen, destroying a few buildings. And walls can be undermined by roving bands of hedgehogs (it's POSSIBLE, because everything not in CivIII makes sense) so that means entire cities can be destroyed after walls cause a chain reaction and destroy every building in the city.