Pillaging, Sacking and Nukes

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

The following ideas have almost certainly been canvassed elsewhere however, I wish to repeat them here!
I have the following ideas, which I'd like to see implemented in PtW, or some future expansion:
Basically when you enter an enemy city (after destroying it's defenders), you should be given the choice of either a) Pillaging, b) Razing or c) Occupying that city.

a) Pillaging: Basically, when you pillage, the city remains in the hands of the original Civ. The base chance of a successful pillage is 80% for foot units and 60% for motorized and mounted units. A bonus is gained according to tech (0, 5, 10, 15 and 20% respectively), and this total chance is modified by the base defense value of the city. If you fail, your unit is repulsed and loses 1hp. If successful, you gain the total commercial and scientific value of that city (in gold and "beakers"). If the city is part of a trade route, then the trade is disrupted for 2 turns, and the pillaging civ gains the benefits of that resource for 2 turns. The population drops by 10%. All improvements have a 20% chance of being destroyed and small wonders have a 10% chance of being destroyed. Great wonders cannot be destroyed by pillaging. Unhappiness increases by 2. You may only make 1 successful pillage attempt against a single city per turn.
Note: As I mentioned in a previous thread, I also believe that pirate vessels should be able to pillage coastal cities, even if units are there! In this case, the base chance would be 50%, modified up by experience, and modified down by a coastal fortress and the number of naval vessels in the city! The results of a sucessful pillage would be the same as that mentioned above!
b) Razing: Cities of Size>8 CANNOT be razed!
Cities of size 1-4 are automatically destroyed.
Cities of size 5-8 have population reduced by 20-30%. All improvements have a 40% chance of being destroyed, small wonders have a 20% of destruction and Great Wonders have a 10% chance of destruction( This is the equivalent of Sacking a city).
Your civ gains half the commercial value of the city when you raze it (even if unsuccessful), but unsuccesful razing leaves happiness at -3. Obviously, if a former razing attempt redues a city below size 5, then it can be destroyed by another razing attempt. Each unit can only attempt to raze a city once/turn.

Nuclear Weapons: These weapons should have the following effects on ALL cities.
Reduces population by 60-80% (half with fallout shelter). All units inside have an 90% chance of instant destruction, with all survivors being reduced to 1hp. All improvements have an 80% chance of destruction, small wonders have a 40% chance of destruction and great wonders have a 20% chance of destruction.
In all adjacent squares, all units have an 80% chance of destruction, with all survivors reduced to 1hp. Forests and jungles are immediately changed to plains and plains are changed to deserts. All adjacent tiles become polluted.
Radioactive tiles which are "depolluted" will still remain polluted for AT LEAST 5 turns. If a tile remains polluted for more than 10 turns, the cities population drops by 1, and a random adjacent tile also becomes polluted.
ICBM's should be able to be pre-targeted at any time. This can be at any square on the map, but would most often be targetted against a city. In the city screen there should be a "LAUNCH" button which, if pressed, will launch ALL pre-targetted ICBM's in that city! There should also be, underneath that, a "LAUNCH ALL" button which will launch ALL pre-targetted ICBM's in ALL your cities!
All the above parameters should be editable and, in my opinion, all of these ideas seem like they could be implemented without too much trouble, and I do think they will add to the enjoyment and depth of the game!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Duddha]

Yeah, i don't think you should be able to raze large cities either.

[Christantine The Great]

Warsaw was razed in WWII.

I don't see the need for this complexity. If you don't want the city, sell the improvements and abandon it (pillaging) or give it back (after selling stuff off).

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

I can understand what you're saying Christantine, it's not that I'd feel gipped if these suggestions didn't make it into PtW! My motivation was twofold:

1) I didn't like the fact that nuclear weapons were less capable of destroying a city than a single unit using the Raze command!

2) I wanted the option to be able to go into a city and steal from it (and raise all hell!) but not neccessarily destory it or capture it!

For my part, if these rules were introduced, then they'd be good as an option, with, as I've said before, the parameters being editable!
On a final note, I'd probably have less problem with the raze function if it wasn't SO EASY to do!! On size 9+ cities it should take a single unit more than 1 turn to do!!!
Anyway, just my feelings on the matter. Still a great game, nonetheless!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker

[zulu9812]

To be honest, I dislike your ideas on pillaging: a) it sounds too complex, b) why would you want to allow a civ to keep control of a city - it means as your front line advances the enemy has cities deep in your territory - very unrealistic, c) barbarians already pillage anyway.

I like the ideas on nukes. In addition, if you suffer a nuke strike, there should be an automatic counterstrike. There could be levels of retaliation: launch all nukes, launch half of the nukes, launch equal number of nukes, etc.

[Carver]

Originally posted by zulu9812
I like the ideas on nukes. In addition, if you suffer a nuke strike, there should be an automatic counterstrike. There could be levels of retaliation: launch all nukes, launch half of the nukes, launch equal number of nukes, etc.

I used to think the same thing. But, ICBMs apparently survive all nuke strikes so I don't really see a need for an auto retaliate feature. Where it might be handy is when a civ nukes several cities (holding ICBMs) and siezes them the same turn. But that should be rare and limited.

[dunk]

I think only size 1 cities should be auto-razed.

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.

Example... a message pops up... "England has launched 5 ICBMs targeted at us. Shall we counter-strike?" And if you say yes, you get to target and launch your missles individually (with an 85% chance that you are fast enough to get each missile ready for launch before the attack). This would make nuclear warfare a VERY risky business and not beneficial at all if on a even nuclear footing with your foe. This should also occur if someone nukes a civ you have an MPP with. "England has launched 3 ICBMs targeted at our friends the Persians. Shall we counter-strike?"

Pillaging, is this only for an empty city, like how barbarians do it? I could see some uses for it. Raiding for gold and such without having to worry about maintaining an occupation force. It would obvioiusly be of limited use, but it might be a neat idea.

[dunk]

Originally posted by Carver

I used to think the same thing. But, ICBMs apparently survive all nuke strikes so I don't really see a need for an auto retaliate feature. Where it might be handy is when a civ nukes several cities (holding ICBMs) and siezes them the same turn. But that should be rare and limited.

Think about MP. If I see an opponent's ships lining up on my coast, I'll line mine up on his. When the nukes come, I'll be able to hit him on the same turn. In MP, your opponent may be able to seize your missiles before you can use them in retaliation.

[Christantine The Great]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
I can understand what you're saying Christantine, it's not that I'd feel gipped if these suggestions didn't make it into PtW! My motivation was twofold:

1) I didn't like the fact that nuclear weapons were less capable of destroying a city than a single unit using the Raze command!

2) I wanted the option to be able to go into a city and steal from it (and raise all hell!) but not neccessarily destory it or capture it!

For my part, if these rules were introduced, then they'd be good as an option, with, as I've said before, the parameters being editable!
On a final note, I'd probably have less problem with the raze function if it wasn't SO EASY to do!! On size 9+ cities it should take a single unit more than 1 turn to do!!!
Anyway, just my feelings on the matter. Still a great game, nonetheless!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker

1) Yes, it is a bit weird that nukes can't destroy cities completely but armies can BUT:

Nukes to destroy a lot of infastructure and population.
A single nuke can't completely obliterate all life in a city, say New York.

Armies can do both of these much easier.

2) Just give it back if you don't want it. Maybe you can rush build a few workers if there are no resisters, like capturing people to be used as slaves.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hi Dunk,

Yes, my pillage idea referred to cities which have no military forces defending them (except for pirate vessels), either because they have been destroyed by your forces, or because they neglected to build them! I actually got the idea, partially, from what barbarians do!
This wouldn't neccessarily be part of a frontline action, but more of a harrasment of an enemy with whom you might have reached a Stalemate! As you put it, Dunk, you gain a one turn financial and research benefit from the city, without having to worry about leaving a garrison or possible culture flip! You also leave your enemy with broken trade routes and a city on the brink of uprising!! Also, raids against cities have been a long-time part of conflict! I don't see that it needs to be much more complicated than it currently is-you just move into the city, get a pop-up screen with three choices (pillage, occupy, raze), you click on the one you want and the result of your choice is determined!!
I did have one thought about occupation! After you destroy an enemy garrison, should your movement into the city be guaranteed, regardless, or should your success be, in some way, determined by city size and the type of unit you try and move in? i.e. A tank is not nearly as good in an urban warfare environment as a foot-soldier! That might add unneeded complexity to warfare in Civ, but I'd find it funny if someone used their tanks to destroy the defending infantry, only to have those same tanks repulsed by the incensed population of a metropolis!
Anyway, just a thought. As I've mentioned before, my enjoyment level from this game is already high so, if these things were NEVER included, I wouldn't feel gipped!!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[SomeOneElse]

icbms do indeed survive nuclear strikes, so i dont really see a need to have an automatic response.

icbms should probably do a little bit more damage, but shouldnt have too many consequences, else there would be no point at all in building them. only if their benefits outweigh their consequences will they get built. just look at the helicopter unit, rarely used because it has almost no beniefits.

[dnassman]

I still don't even know what the helicopter unit does!!! Don't care to look it up either.

[dunk]

Originally posted by SomeOneElse
icbms do indeed survive nuclear strikes, so i dont really see a need to have an automatic response.

icbms should probably do a little bit more damage, but shouldnt have too many consequences, else there would be no point at all in building them. only if their benefits outweigh their consequences will they get built. just look at the helicopter unit, rarely used because it has almost no beniefits.

They survive nuclear attacks, but not ground force attacks. It is possible, maybe somewhat unlikely, that someone will nuke your city and then capture it in the same turn. If that happens, you will have lost the ability to use your nukes. I've never gotten into a nuclear conflict yet. But I would want to retaliate immediately, not wait until my turn.

Nations don't use ICBMs or other nuclear weapons for the same reason you don't in Civ. The consequences are too severe.

[Panag]

Originally posted by dnassman
I still don't even know what the helicopter unit does!!! Don't care to look it up either.

hi ,

"airlift" some units , ....

can be used to drop them behind enemy lines , or two transport some units on a fast way , ....

its nice , but most people let it hold two or even more units .

have a nice day

[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.

[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]

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.