I want to raze cities!

FNBrown · November 20, 2002, 13:35

PTW should have left this feature alone.

I was playing as the Vikings and had just captured Mecca. Because there's no "raze" option, I had to hold the city. The "abandon" option seems to take a few turns now (why????) So, naturally, the city flips after a turn or two, before the abandon order can complete, and I lose the city, and about four berserks I had guarding it.

This sucks.

Boris Godunov · November 20, 2002, 13:37

I don't know what you're talking about...I still get the option to raze a city right after I capture it.

FNBrown · November 20, 2002, 13:59

Are you playing a multiplayer game or stand-alone?

vmxa1 · November 20, 2002, 14:39

Raze works for me, but anyway you could abandon.

Andrew1999 · November 20, 2002, 14:46

Is it a government thing? Like maybe you can't raze cities if you're a Democracy or something.

Boris Godunov · November 20, 2002, 14:55

Quote:

Originally posted by FNBrown
Are you playing a multiplayer game or stand-alone?

Both. At least, on hotseat, I can still raze. SP works fine.

twilight · November 21, 2002, 02:45

I saw that once. Was a game with "City Elemination". Abandon a city woould mean to loose the game ;-)

Dis · November 21, 2002, 03:26

What did they change?

And what is abandon city?

I was playing a multiplayer game with one other person. I was beating him up pretty good with horseman.

I'm guessing he abandoned his city. The screen showed what appeared to by ruins or something. I guess he abandoned it? I couldn't figure out why there was no normal terrain square. What kind of bonus' would that terrain offer?

ZargonX · November 21, 2002, 04:48

You right click on a city to bring up the menu with the option to abandon it.

As for the ruins that are left behind, they have no effect on the terrain (so far as I've seen...). If you improve the tile they are on, the ruins will disappear.

notyoueither · November 21, 2002, 05:29

It would suck if someone blitzed in, took a city and razed it on you, wouldn't it?

Well, they have reacted to the complaints of people that a major city cannot just be 'poofed'.

Now there are complaints that you can't just 'poof' Paris. Pity.

ChaotikVisions · November 21, 2002, 05:34

Heh, "Is Paris burning?". Maybe it is more realistic I suppose, but kind of annoying. Theres some enemys that deserve to be ground into dust and stricken from the history books as I slaughter their entire civilization. But in either case I haven't noticed this, haven't tried to raze or abandon in any of the games i've been playing last, but I believe i've always gotten the option to raze when capturing. Could be wrong though.

FNBrown · November 21, 2002, 13:20

Well, I try not to make a habit of razing cities unless there's simply no tactical alternative, but in my current multiplayer LAN game, I am not given the option to do so. If I capture a city, I only get a pop-up from the military advisor if there happens to be resistors present in the city. If there's no resistance, I get no alert at all.

Also, in the same game (multiplayer, local network, turn based, timer off) when I engage in a battle with the enemy, the screen will jump to the next unit awaiting orders before letting me see the outcome of the fight. Is this a known bug?

twilight · November 22, 2002, 00:32

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
It would suck if someone blitzed in, took a city and razed it on you, wouldn't it?

Yep. Most kings who experienced this thought so

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Well, they have reacted to the complaints of people that a major city cannot just be 'poofed'.

Why not? Isn't it a question of the time? In the middleages it would be quite normal, in modern times ... I don't know if it is even possible to do such things to Paris. On the other hand look at pictures of Stalingrad. The army must be big enough then it will work even with Paris.

I think its very realistic how it is now.

So my thought on the Razing of cities. The Abandoning is quite strange. The city would try to defend it. Hm, funny idea.

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Now there are complaints that you can't just 'poof' Paris. Pity.

Yes! Of course! Nobody should be able to do so! Hey, wait a minute

Chuckles · November 22, 2002, 01:20

Well Hitler did order the burning of Paris on the way out, just no one followed those orders.

I would be fine with only being able to abondon small cities. 3 or under like CTP was fine. The worst in those size one cities that are suddenly surrounded by your enemy, are full of corruption, and you have no chance of defending. Just like real life, may as well pack up and move.

I keep forgetting about that right click thing. Damn hidden commands. Why oh why does this game have some commands in buttons only, some right click only, and some hotkey only????

Jaybe · November 22, 2002, 01:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Chuckles
...
I keep forgetting about that right click thing. Damn hidden commands. Why oh why does this game have some commands in buttons only, some right click only, and some hotkey only????

Sounds like you would like to have menus, as with Civ2.

I agree that there should not be ANYTHING that is "hotkey only," but that is the Macintosh way. Firaxis has done a great job in reducing hotkey dependence with all the extra buttons they have provided in PTW.

There are so many commands available in so many modes in Civ3, to have them all duplicated in all the different ways would be to make each of them way toooo long. The complexity of Civ3 DOES lend itself to having to read documentation and it would be better if the documentation was better and all in one place (PDF file?).

planetfall · November 22, 2002, 12:15

Abandon is so much better than the old raze.

Remember some of old problems without abandon:

1. very hard to move a city over 1-2 tiles.
Sometimes you have a city planted in middle ages and later discovery a resource is just 1 tile beyond the city. It used to be the only way you could move the city was to let someone else destroy it and then on recapture it would be razed. Or to starve it down to one and stop all food production so you got the prompt, do you want to give up on this city. This did not always work because you could not turn off food production in city center and sometimes that was too much.

2. when razed accidently.
Don't you remember, checking yes raze this city and then, 2 seconds later, saying dummy?
With abandon option you can see the city improvements before you give it up.

3. when raze, lose $$$
Now with abandon. You get a city. When you set production to anything. Before you close the city view, sell all improvements you can. Can easily be 40-80 gold. Then after close city view, when you abandon you have both eliminated the city and gained gold from selling the existing city improvements.

Unfortunately you can't sell those 10 resisters.

== PF

Panag · November 22, 2002, 16:20

hi ,

its more intresting to sell the buildings if any are there , and sometimes captured cities are great to produce settlers or workers , .....

have a nice day

Baggio · November 22, 2002, 20:41

Force the resisitors to be slaves......like in CTP where they had this slave driver unit........bwahahha!