Scorched Earth, or not?

[nbarclay]

In the war against Lux, Lux followed a pattern of abandoning cities rather than allowing them to fall into enemy hands. While the mechanics of Civ allow that, scorched earth policies tend to be rather hard on the civilians involved (not to mention straying a bit far afield from how Civ is really intended to work).

I've just now brought this up with my own team, so it certainly isn't an official proposal from GS, but I would like to ask both sides to agree not to abandon cities to prevent them from being captured. Conversely, I would like to ask for an agreement not to raze each other's cities, since a requirement for civs to leave cities intact just so the other side can raze them and grab some workers would be a bit nonsensical. Not only will such an agreement help keep the war a bit more civilized, but it will avoid a situation in which even the winners (whoever they may turn out to be) lose because little of value in conquered areas is left beyond the land itself.

And (from a roleplay perspective) I would like to ask for an agreement that civilians of all nationalities will be treated well and not blamed for any animosities that might linger between their nations' leaders. Some suffering in war is inevitable, but let's please keep the suffering for innocent civilians to a minimum.

Nathan

[ZargonX]

Nathan, I just brought up this same concept in the PTWDGII forum, though you've elaborated more on it. I think it may be too late to implement in this game, unless all teams are truly willing. I actually have a lot more to say on the subject, but I'm going to put in the thread over in PTWDGII

[badams52]

Nathan, looks like this belongs in the PTWDG Forum...

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Deleted.

[badams52]

Wait a minute...ZargonX posted here...then GhengisFarb...

This isn't the strat forum?

D'oh...I'm the one in the wrong forum.

Carry on...

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
What if we seriously don't like a city's postition and want to move it over a tile. Can we raze a captured city in that case?

Other than the condition above I fully support this proposal.

How many cities are you thinking of doing that with?

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Deleted.

[nbarclay]

How would a limit of two razed cities per civ, allowed only (as a matter of honor) for the purpose of repositioning, sound?

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Deleted.

[Beta]

Are you talking of an agreement for this war only - or sort of as an adopted 'rule'. If it is the latter, and that is what I think you are suggesting, then there are a pile of other off-beat rules we should ditch. Like the galley train, or gifting cities, etc.

So, I would say no. For better or worse, civ is what it is, and other than the obvious chetas, the rest are the rules we play by. And that includes razing cities. And as Arnelos as pointed out elsewhere regarding the gifting of cities during the 'Machiavellian' era, I'm sure we could find precedence for the razing of land and cities. Russia's defensive strategy in 1812 comes to mind.

The devil's advocate position....

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Deleted.

[Panzer32]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Currently, just one.

* This is the opinion of GhengisFarb and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Glory of War *

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Deleted.

[Panzer32]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
* GhengisFarb wonders just how many cities Panzer32 wants to raze.

/me wonders how many cities Aggie wants to raze cuz its really up to him...

[nbarclay]

I was thinking two total per civ, because if GoW razes two GS cities and two RP cities, and ND razes two RP cities and two GS cities, that's eight dead cities, which is quite a bit. Conversely, of course, if RP and GS would raze similar numbers of GoW and ND cities.

Beta, I'm not suggesting this as a matter of closing off an "exploit," but rather because I think the game would be more fun without having to worry about scorched-earth policies. At the moment, I'm really just after an agreement among the teams involved in this particular war, but I wouldn't be averse to a longer-term agreement involving more teams.