Razing and flipping

[Myrddin]

The problem with captured cities culture flipping seems not to be the flipping but that Civ3 only gives you the options of razing the city completely or accepting a city which is likely to flip.

I would like to see the 'razing' option replaced by a 'plunder' option which would:

reduce the population, say by half
destroy city improvements, say half
reduce the captured city's culture by 90%
produce some conscripted workers
generate cash, from looting

and leave the remaining population with a serious happiness problem.

A reduced population should make flipping less likely and the culture reduction would make rushed cultural buildings more effective, although countermeasures to deal with the unhappiness would need to be used for much longer.

[Space05us]

I still like the razing. but your idea is good too. perhaps if it had all three.... perhaps.....

[W4r_Machine]

Yes, like what the barbarians do when it attacks with massive force to take your city. They fall in line to take gold from your city.

You don't get to keep the city if you plunder and in the process It will likely defect to your civ.

[Coracle]

Plundering actually makes some sense - a lot more than that illogical Culture Flipping bullbleep.

Razing is a form of mass genocide on a scale undreamed of by Hitler, and performed with ludicrous ease and efficiency. It belongs in a Fantasy game, even more than Flipping.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Although I've never had a "Culture Flip" problem in Civ3, I have had something like this happen to me in "Birth of the Federation" where a planet has revolted against my rule!! (Damn those insolent retches!) Before you say "what has that got to do with Civ3?!" In order to stop this situation, you had a number of "improvements" like martial law, re-education centres and the like. My point is that, aside from my obvious beef that culture should be just one of a number of factors behind a decision by a city to break away (as I have mentioned in previous posts!), you should be able to build improvements like these which both reduce the chance of flipping, and increase your assimilation rate of captured cities! The flip side, of course (no pun intended) is increased unhappiness, especially in neighbouring cities!
Oh, and for the record, I think your idea is absolutely brilliant Myrrdin!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker

[Ninot]

i only raze cities that have higher culture, and even then i like to take them whole.

but if i really hate someone, i dont like to see their face no more, so i raze.

[Kryten]

Please forgive me for repeating one of the posts that I put into another thread....

"....in all my history books I can find NO record of any Democracy EVER razing a city (Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were close, but even these cities still exist and were not 'wiped from the face of the earth'). Likewise, although Communist governments tend to kill a lot of their own people, I can find NO record of them EVER razing an entire city. The same with Monarchy; many cities sacked yes, but none razed and totally wiped out so that the city no longer exists.
I'd therefore think that only Despotic governments (such as the Nazis and Mongols) should be able to raze cities (I know that the Roman Republic razed Carthage and Corinth, but when you consider their harsh taxes and inhumane treatment of slaves....well, they may have called themselves a Republic, but to the people they conquered they were Despots! Certainly all the Roman emperors should be classed as despots, even the good ones!)."

So I agree with Myrddin's idea and think that it is a very good suggestion

[Jethro83]

Yes. The above suggestion definitely makes more sense than what exists now.

But you should still be able to raze on top of that, only when you do raze, you get extra gold on top of what you gained from entering the city, and a worker for every pop point of the razed city. I've lost count of how many times the settler-puking expansionist enemies have plopped cities down in terrible places. I want to at least still be able to remove poorly placed cities, and relocate their people to a proper location.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Kryten
Please forgive me for repeating one of the posts that I put into another thread....

"....in all my history books I can find NO record of any Democracy EVER razing a city (Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were close, but even these cities still exist and were not 'wiped from the face of the earth'). Likewise, although Communist governments tend to kill a lot of their own people, I can find NO record of them EVER razing an entire city. The same with Monarchy; many cities sacked yes, but none razed and totally wiped out so that the city no longer exists.
I'd therefore think that only Despotic governments (such as the Nazis and Mongols) should be able to raze cities (I know that the Roman Republic razed Carthage and Corinth, but when you consider their harsh taxes and inhumane treatment of slaves....well, they may have called themselves a Republic, but to the people they conquered they were Despots! Certainly all the Roman emperors should be classed as despots, even the good ones!)."

So I agree with Myrddin's idea and think that it is a very good suggestion

Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were razed for all intents and purposes. However, I would agree that the nuked cities are different. Rome was certainly a republic at the time of the Punic Wars, though non-Romans had no say in the government, of course. America was certainly a democracy when they destroyed villages in Vietnam, though the Vietnamese had no say in the U.S. government. Rome was a monarchy when they razed Jerusalem. And tribal politics, not despotism, were in vogue when the barbarians destroyed Rome.

[YuMMz]

I think razing a city with a population higher than 6 is too harsh altogether. I takes more than one tank assaulting a city to totally raze it. I also definitely am all for a middle of the line option like plundering. Instead I am forced to sit their and starve the city every turn until the population is at a little more reasonable level, and starving them just makes it a better chance that it will flip.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki,

All represent massive air bombardment. This is akin to reducing an enemy civ city via massive arty bomabrdment. It is however, nothing like what CIV3 allows you to do namely ultimately use a single warrior unit to eliminate an entire megalopolis.

[frostycreep]

I agree. We do need another option. Currently I raze every city i capture and replace it with one of my own. I do this because culture flipping really annoys me, so this is my only option. But im starting to feel kinda guilty when razing size 15 cities, so I for one would certainly welcome a third option.

[jshelr]

The right cure is to really allow a large enough garrison to completely eliminate flipping. Then, you don't have an incentive to raze and the realism that the population has to be kept under strict military control is maintained. What frosts us is that you can have a stack of ten offensive units in a city and lose the whole thing. At worst, they should kick the enemy out of town. If they could kill the enemy, we wouldn't be in their town in the first place.

[SomeOneElse]

I was under the impression that in one of the last patches, a sizable garrison WOULD help prevent flips. There might have been a chance, but that's just to keep the game interesting, i think. To tell the truth, I've never had any problems with conquered cities flipping. Its happened, but never bothered me much, because it felt like I was fighting the enemy resistance, and I dont stack huge garrisons in those cities anyway, I always need those units to help fight the war.

[Kryten]

To Zachriel: it's unusual for you and I to be on opposite sides in an historical debate! (ah, but I've now joined "the dark side" an am begining to question some Civ3 features ):-

Vietnam: small villages razed = many, civilians killed by artillery/bombing = lots, major CITIES with 10,000 or more population massacred and razed to the ground so that they don't appear on modern maps = none.

Romans: as you know, unlike medieval monarchies, the Romans had no hereditary right of succession. ANYONE could be emperor, even the son of an emperor, but only if they had the army backing them up. Nowadays we call anyone who needs an army to stay in power a dictator or despot, not a king.

Barbarians: tribal leaders, who ruled for as long as they could hold power. Later this evolved into a hereditary monarchy. And in Civ3 the most primitive form of government is Despotism (Anarchy of course is the lack of a central government).

(....no further questions. Your witness. )

------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Myrddin, YuMMz, Ogie Oglethorpe:-

Here's an idea....why not have each individual unit perform it's own sacking & pillaging.
So when you first capture an enemy city, each unit that enters that city gains a handful of gold, destroys one building, and kills one population. Moving say 6 units into the city would gain 6 times the gold, destroy 6 buildings and kill 6 population. If the city had a population of 7 or more, then it would be severely sacked, but survive. If it had less than 7, then the troops have gone too far and the city would be destroyed. Really large cities would need a large army to raze them, but would still be sacked & pillaged.

(And I'll ignor for the moment the question of how long a democratic government would remain in power once public & world opinion discovers that they sanctioned the murder of hundred's of thousands of unarmed civilians.... )

[ShredZ]

"The right cure is to really allow a large enough garrison to completely eliminate flipping. "

That sounds good, like: 15 units = no flip ?

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Kryten
Vietnam: small villages razed = many, civilians killed by artillery/bombing = lots, major CITIES with 10,000 or more population massacred and razed to the ground so that they don't appear on modern maps = none.

The U.S. depopulated entire regions of Vietnam and declared them free-fire zones.

Romans: as you know, unlike medieval monarchies, the Romans had no hereditary right of succession. ANYONE could be emperor, even the son of an emperor, but only if they had the army backing them up. Nowadays we call anyone who needs an army to stay in power a dictator or despot, not a king.

The Punic Wars predate the first Roman Emperor.

[Kryten]

Round 2:-

Originally posted by Zachriel
The U.S. depopulated entire regions of Vietnam and declared them free-fire zones.

In Civ3 terms, small villages around cities are represented by irrigation/roads/mines, so pillaging these would represent 'depopulating the region'.
Nonetheless, "major CITIES with 10,000 or more population massacred and razed to the ground so that they don't appear on modern maps = none".

The Punic Wars predate the first Roman Emperor.

Hmmm....ok, you've got me there. It WAS the Roman Republic that razed Carthage & Corinth .
But they were a Republic, not a modern Democracy.
(I just think it's wrong that in Civ3 as a Democracy I can raze cities, massacre entire populations, starve my citizens, and do things that Hitler would have been proud of, all without worrying about the press/public opinion/opposition parties/the next election. Real life Presidents & Prime Ministers just don't have that freedom. Moral responsability and public image are as important as a strong economy in a Democracy, but that is not reflected in Civ3 )

ANYWAY.....what do you think of the idea that the number of civilians lost when a city is taken should depend apon the size of the conquering army .

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I like your proposal to have a limitted sacking and looting. Each unit occupying a city could sack/sell an improvement and steal one population point as a worker.

Nice work around as far as I'm concerned.

[Gangerolf]

. Each unit occupying a city could sack/sell an improvement and steal one population point as a worker.

except resistors perhaps. it wouldn't be fair to just make all the resistors workers and end up with only "cooperating" citizens

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Kryten
In Civ3 terms, small villages around cities are represented by irrigation/roads/mines, so pillaging these would represent 'depopulating the region'.

That seems like a reasonable interpretation.

(I just think it's wrong that in Civ3 as a Democracy I can raze cities, massacre entire populations, starve my citizens, and do things that Hitler would have been proud of, all without worrying about the press/public opinion/opposition parties/the next election. Real life Presidents & Prime Ministers just don't have that freedom. Moral responsability and public image are as important as a strong economy in a Democracy, but that is not reflected in Civ3 )

I agree that you should not be able to raze while in Democracy. And in Republic it should carry a large penalty, unless the victim had broken a treaty before it had expired.

ANYWAY.....what do you think of the idea that the number of civilians lost when a city is taken should depend apon the size of
the conquering army .

Each military unit could get a pillage order. The more units, the more pillaging. Each civilian would get a potentially lethal counterattack, as well. Pillaging could kill the pop, destroy a building, create a worker which flees, a slave, or create a partisan. Enough partisans and enough damage to your units, and the city could flip.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
except resistors perhaps. it wouldn't be fair to just make all the resistors workers and end up with only "cooperating" citizens

No doubt the military would round up the "usual suspects" and the resistors would continue to operate. Make it random.

And of course, arresting innocent people will just make more resistors and partisans.

[Zachriel]

Razing should have a much higher penalty, primarily in the unhappiness of the population. If the penalties are high enough, then most razers will switch to communism or monarchy. This should help put the brakes on razing.

[Zachriel]

- ignore -

[YuMMz]

Well I think razing in general is just too harsh for a major city (6+). It takes alot of effort and a hellavu alot of firepower to level a metropolis (pre-nuke). Not to mention even after massive attacks and bombing the city will usually still be there in some form and will grow again after a couple years of recovery. I think that once a city reaches 6 pop it should take multiple turns to raze it. For example a 9 pop city would take 10 turns to raze with one military unit, 5 turns with two and so on. This would require you to use more units to raze the city and would give the enemy empire a chance to save thier city. If razing stays the way it is, it will be extremely harsh in Multiplayer. Personally I really would like the chance to stop a player from razing my city if they take it. I mean a sneak attack could potential destroy your empire before you even get a turn!

[jshelr]

It would be news to General Sherman that no one has ever razed a major city. However, if he had stayed in Atlanta with his entire army, I can assure you that the local citizens wouldn't have killed all of them even if they did revolt. Maybe Scarlett could have lured a few of them to bed and Rhett could have done them in, but not the whole army. Garrisons reasonably large should safely hold cities until opposing armed forces throw them out. (BTW, there is a good movie on Hitler trying to raze Paris but being blocked by the incompetence / humanity of his garrison staff there. It's in black and white, however.)

[Myrddin]

Razing is even more disliked than flipping!

Given that a nuke only reduces the population of a city by half, it seems right that an occupying army should not be able to do more damage by razing a metropolis; although razing a town of 3 or less is reasonable

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by jshelr
Garrisons reasonably large should safely hold cities until opposing armed forces throw them out.

That's exactly how the game works. "Reasonably large" garrisons can hold cities. In the example given, Atlanta would be size 12 city. Sherman's army, the produce of the northern industrial economy, would be several dozen units, sufficient to take and hold Atlanta. Then what? You have to leave sufficient forces behind; or if the city does revolt, have sufficient forces on hand to subdue the rebellion; or suffer the consequences of poor planning.

[Coracle]

"Poor planning"?? Like the Civ 3 program, no doubt.

Eight full strength veteran and elite samurai in a town of '5' should cower the civilians into subservience if not worship. But that town still flipped on me and the samurai vanished into thin air. The town did not even lose a population point or get put into disorder. That was with 1.21.

The reality is proximity to the phony "capital" is all too important. Enemy capitals jump from town to town when captured meaning there is little point in attacking a capital per se. The proximity of a huge army ready to raze (another dumb idea) the town if it flips is not considered by Firaxis.

Culture Flipping is non-historical, and absurd even in game terms.

[jshelr]

Coracle's right IMO. Even with the top culture score and even close to my home civ, I've had towns flip in the latest patch, despite large stacks inside. If the formula given elsewhere in the forum that shows the "rules" for flipping is right, I don't really understand why it happens with such large garrisons.