Empty taken cities

[Trifna]

Some odd thing is to take a city from another civilization and seeing it has no improvement in it except granaries, aqueducts and things to keep population...

Will this issue be addressed?... Some day?...

[asleepathewheel]

Re: Empty taken cities

Originally posted by Trifna
Some odd thing is to take a city from another civilization and seeing it has no improvement in it except granaries, aqueducts and things to keep population...

Will this issue be addressed?... Some day?...

I think you're talking about the culture producing improvements like temple, library etc. They are automatically destroyed when you take a city. (I guess your troops burn everything with the opposing civ's cultural fingerprints) Everything else should stay, though I think one improvement is lost when the city changes hands (can't recall if this is accurate)

So-cultural improvements (excluding Great Wonders) are destroyed upon capture, non cultural improvements-barracks, granary, aqueducts etc. are not.

Did I address the question, or is this not what is going on?

[Caliban]

As I always bombard cities to rubble, they are already empty when my army gets there...

But I do not see why the destruction of improvements when you conquer a city is a problem

[Trifna]

When Hitler took over Paris, did all churches, wonders and all were destroyed or suddenly impossible to be used by population? Is every taken city always gets all its structures destroyed because someone took it? Maybe it culture "stops", but a temple is stil there for people to be happy, banks are stil there, etc etc.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Trifna
When Hitler took over Paris, did all churches, wonders and all were destroyed or suddenly impossible to be used by population? Is every taken city always gets all its structures destroyed because someone took it? Maybe it culture "stops", but a temple is stil there for people to be happy, banks are stil there, etc etc.

That's great and all, but it is a game. If you can't build a temple (or other cultural buildings) you can't expand the radius.

You can always take off the cultural value of buildings and then mod in buildings that only create culture.

Oh, and if Hitler didn't destroy churches, there are many many others who have destroyed such things. So its not like its that unrealistic.

[Caliban]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
Oh, and if Hitler didn't destroy churches, there are many many others who have destroyed such things. So its not like its that unrealistic.

Hitler didn't destroy churches in France, maybe because France and Germany in his eyes had the same "culture"... But let's talk about Poland and the Soviet Union. There the troops were allowed to destroy churches as meeting places for resisters...

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Trifna
When Hitler took over Paris, did all churches, wonders and all were destroyed or suddenly impossible to be used by population? Is every taken city always gets all its structures destroyed because someone took it? Maybe it culture "stops", but a temple is stil there for people to be happy, banks are stil there, etc etc.

Well, the temples, cathedrals, and coleseums would all be staffed by people of the conquered nation; and the libraries, universities, and labs run by people of the conquered nation. These people would not be of juch use in pacifying the natives for the conqueror, or aiding the research of the conqueror. So even if the buildings themselves might not be destroyed, it would be as if they did not exist for the conqueror.

Of course, I'm not syaying this analogy is perfect.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Caliban


Hitler didn't destroy churches in France, maybe because France and Germany in his eyes had the same "culture"... But let's talk about Poland and the Soviet Union. There the troops were allowed to destroy churches as meeting places for resisters...

great example

I was having a brain freeze, having just awoken.

It certainly doesn't shock me that a conqueror would try to erase all of the previous owner's culture, its probably what I would do. Erect temples to myself and whatnot

[Carver]

Originally posted by One_Brow

Well, the temples, cathedrals, and coleseums would all be staffed by people of the conquered nation; and the libraries, universities, and labs run by people of the conquered nation. These people would not be of juch use in pacifying the natives for the conqueror, or aiding the research of the conqueror. So even if the buildings themselves might not be destroyed, it would be as if they did not exist for the conqueror.

Of course, I'm not syaying this analogy is perfect.

As someone who has never liked the idea of cultural buildings being destroyed, I can say that's a very good insight. Even if the Uni doesn't get burned to the ground the people there aren't going to be helping the conquerer's research.

[Caliban]

Originally posted by Carver


As someone who has never liked the idea of cultural buildings being destroyed, I can say that's a very good insight. Even if the Uni doesn't get burned to the ground the people there aren't going to be helping the conquerer's research.

Hm... but the workers in the factories and the farmers on the markets help the conquerer?? Is it just a matter of education? (no offense!)

[WarpStorm]

It's easier to force someone to work than to think.

[Caliban]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
It's easier to force someone to work than to think.

Good point!

[Zero]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel

Oh, and if Hitler didn't destroy churches, there are many many others who have destroyed such things. So its not like its that unrealistic.

actually allied soliders caused more havoc in WW2 then the axis soldiers did. use of atomic bombs, looting, killing civilians and speaking of church, also destroying bunch of churches that axis used to camp in.

war's hell... isnt it.......

[Cidifer]

Well simply by using the atomic bombs the US probably destroyed more buildings then the Germans did (though it would be hard to tell who destroyed what buildings when both sides are firing at eachother).

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Caliban


Hm... but the workers in the factories and the farmers on the markets help the conquerer?? Is it just a matter of education? (no offense!)

Yes, workers in the factories still produce, and farmers/merchants still sell their wares and thereby pay taxes and spread desirable goods. They need to do this for a living.

Religious workers (and to a lesser degree, educational workers) will also continue to work, but they will be inclined to spread the ideals and values (i.e., culture) with which they were raised, which will be of little help to the conquerer.

In fact, it might be a decent idea for the temple of a taken city to remain until replaced, but it offers no benefits unless it's builder retakes the city.

Something like:

The Persians take a Babylonian city. The temple shows up in the city list as Temple (Babylonian), and cost 0 gold to support.. The Persian can immediately sell it for 0 dollars, or leave it there and get a 25% discount off the standard price when they bulid their own temple (45 shields, 15 shields if they were religious). If the Babylonians re-take the city before the Persian build a temple, the Babylonian temple operates as normal.

The discount amount might be too high.