Pre-Bill Discussion: Razing of Roman Cities

E_T · January 3, 2003, 23:17

As the war with Germany will be drawing to a final close relatively soon, we will be shifting our focus more towards Rome. As most of the Cities that are currently in Roman Territory will be quite corrupt, what will we do with them?

Do we want to keep them, and spend vast sums of our monies to bring them out of a Catastophic Corruption situation OR do we just want to Damage the Offending Nation, so that they will have to start them from scratch?

This bill, if enough Senatorial support is behind it, will sanction the Razing of Roman Cities & Territories.

This will make a statement to the other Nations, that we will not be trifled with when they decide to make war on us.

SMC E_T

Meshelic · January 4, 2003, 00:15

You have forgotten the third possibility that has been brought up here and there, and that is whether we decide to give away newly captured cities to our allies. After all, why worry about Roman corruption at all when we can just give the cities to Russia or Iroquois. Of course they would be worth a price.

Some might call it a waste of resources to spend the manpower on capturing a city and then just giving it away, but think of the benefits there!
1.) Rome would either be destroyed completely or removed of it's ability to threaten or invade again.
2.) We wouldn't have to pay extra lytons for the courthouses, temples, marketplaces....
3.) We would be looked at in probably a better light, thus giving us a potential opportunity to win the UN vote.

Are we entering Rome as conquerors or liberators? I believe that's a question we must all ask ourselves.

Although I would otherwise support the razing of Roman cities, I do think there are rewards to be gained from giving them away...at least the smaller to mid-sized ones....

Meshelic

Thud · January 4, 2003, 00:27

I fully support the plan Meshelic mentioned! Not only would Rome be removed as a military threat, but as a scientific and production space-race threat.

ManicStarSeed · January 4, 2003, 00:28

Yes I do support giving the cities away. Considerit punishing our enemies and rewarding our friends. The cities will be much more productive (for us) in the hands of our trading partners.

I consider Russia and (believe it or not ) Persia as prime examples of nations we can gift cities to. The Babylonians and Iroquois were prime candidates but between siding woth the wrong nation and the silly embargo, they are now on my s*** list.

Mss

Kloreep · January 4, 2003, 00:38

Russia is, IMO, too powerful to gift cities to - or rather, that would make them too powerful.

Persia is a good idea, though.

ManicStarSeed · January 4, 2003, 00:46

I would consider it a major diplomatic milestone to be able to turn persia around to cautious or even polite.

Spiffor · January 4, 2003, 04:14

I agree with giving cities away as well. While I don't think if it would dramatically increase the reciever Civ's stance, it'll make a cheap stamp which will hinder Rome to attack us again.

Shiber · January 4, 2003, 05:01

I'm all for giving cities to weaker AIs. I suggest that we capture several Roman cities that stand between us and the rest of Rome and then gift them to a poor civ such as the Persians or the Zulu (who won't make much use of it anyway due to corruption). These buffer cities could potentially slow down Rome should they decide to attack us again.

Panzer32 · January 4, 2003, 12:03

give cities away, but do not totally destroy Rome. Leave them 5 or so cities; that way they can pay us for techs, and they will be so small there will be no way they can compete with us.

joncnunn · January 6, 2003, 12:11

I'd prefer peace with Rome as soon as we can get it without having to pay anything. Any cities we take over in the mean time should be razed unless they contain luxaries are are close to the rest of our empire. (In that case, keep an intermedate city if needed to keep it connected to our empire.)

Shiber · January 6, 2003, 12:32

We can sign peace with Rome and milk them for whatever gpt they have and a city (IIRC). If we continue the war and inflict further damage upon them we'd be able to squeeze refining out of them as well.

roadcage · January 6, 2003, 15:48

We want to delay gifting cities until we see where the oil is. We have no tundra and little desert. Brundesium and Syracuse may be our best hope for 'Industrial age Oxygen'

joncnunn · January 7, 2003, 11:17

I just remembered about our active MPPs. I guess we'll need to keep them until Germany is defeated (letting them ride) and so we'll need to stay in a technical state of war with Rome until then.

Raze the Roman cities in the mean time, but keep the bulk of our forces concentrated on destroying Germany.

When we get Refinery we should know if we need to annex more Roman territory for Oil or if it's safe to let the AIs resettle there.