EitB v12 Wishlist/Progress

[Mardoc]

2. Sure, you over expand before getting relevant economy techs and now you're crippled.

Um...how can you not notice your economy is tanking before you hit 'settle'? Just delete the settler instead of plant city -> raze.

You capture a bunch of cities instead of razing them. You use some of your captured cities as bait for thr enemy civ to recapture. When they get close you raze it anyway.


You capture enemy cities instead of razing them. You later realize your economy is being crippled by them. And you raze them.

You put this option in, and you're never capturing a city anyway. So why 'raze my own city' as an option? Just make it 'all cities raze on capture' - that way you don't have to teach the AI how to use it.

Plus, thematically, I think it would have to be part of a civic like 'sacrifice the weak'. Only, balance-wise, that civic doesn't need anything more!

[Kragroth]

No, people generally want to settle cities and capture cities. Sometimes however they end up with too many cities and too much cost. Look up raze own city civ4 into google. Read people's comments on their playthroughs on how they got too many cities and need to raze them.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=442041.

Yes, this is a basic logical feature that's been desired from the beginning of civ4.

[Qgqqqqq]

I don't think those are scenarios that need addressing. Settlers are expensive investments, conquering doesn't need a boost - just make sure you pay attention to what happens to the economy.

It certainly isn't worth the enormous hassle of adding a button to the UI, to say nothing of player confusion.

Again for the tech one, you should time your usage/teching better. Also interferes with things like loki.

[Qgqqqqq]

Sorry, missed the second page.

Sure people have been wanting it for ages. But honestly, people are dumb. It's overcomplication, would substantially alter (and imo detract from) a major section of the game, and in most cases competence/a broader understanding of the game will supercede its function.

[Mardoc]

No, people generally want to settle cities and capture cities.

But if I can raze my own cities, you're never going to capture them from me. So it's the same thing as all cities razing on conquest.

[Kragroth]

It's not because I now have a choice. I can hold up my troops there and get the culture and defense bonuses, or I can decide that the takeover is foregone and get rid of it. Whatever, again. It's an option; a logical option. If a 2 Str scout can raze my city, why can't my standing troops? It simply makes sense and is appropriate.

It makes no sense that in order to better my economy I have to entice my enemy to raze my cities for me or hope that barbarians are an option and will spawn near my city to kill it.

[Qgqqqqq]

Mardoc is right - why would you ever let the enemy capture a city? If there's a good chance of it happening - and you'll often know if it's the case - just self-raze. That's not nessecarily a bad option, but it is one that fundamentally alters the gameplay, and its not one I'm prepared to undertake.

[Mardoc]

If a 2 Str scout can raze my city, why can't my standing troops? It simply makes sense and is appropriate.

Because they're not willing to kill their own wives and children, or burn down the houses they spent so much time building? Even Evil people like having stuff and love their children.

It makes no sense that in order to better my economy I have to entice my enemy to raze my cities for me or hope that barbarians are an option and will spawn near my city to kill it.

There are many other ways to improve an economy.

[Kragroth]

I don't really see it as being a deep fundamental change. The only thing it does is give you a logical out to get rid of your built / captured cities that you can't afford anymore for whatever reason. Seriously, go overexpand as a barbarian civilization before getting the right techs. You can irrevocably screw your game up to the point where you cannot recover.

Yes, you can try to raze a city you think your enemy might capture. You can also destroy your own improvements so that your enemy can't pillage them. This is a combination of the Fabian Strategy and the Scorched Earth Strategy. This has significant military precedent.

The only thing you lose is now logically a human would not allow his city to be culture bombed, s/he would just raze it instead. And of course, by doing that you allow the enemy civ to settle a new one in the same location (since the culture border will be gone) or settle a new city in a better location than the original one.

[Bobchillingworth]

I haven't commented on most of the recent suggestions; I disagree with all of them and seriously doubt any will be implemented, since they're dramatically outside the scope of the mod. Razing your own cities is the worst, though.


Kragroth, if that setting is implemented, nobody will ever allow any of their cities to be taken. As multiple people have told you here, you would be forcing everyone to play with the "no city captures" setting. The isn't even getting into the various exploits razing your own cities would enable, such as AC boosting, holy city / wonder denial and using settlers as disposable canals.


City maintenance exists for a reason- if you overexpand to the point where you literally cannot afford to do anything, you did something wrong. Having to deal with the consequences of overexpansion is just part of the game, and always has been.