|
Post by SirPartyMan on Sept 26, 2006 9:28:21 GMT -5
In the past we've had some events with No City Razing and some without. While I personally like the "strategic" issues involved in keeping captured cities, it's clear very few games are played this way these days.
I will be guided by the results of this poll.
Best, SPM
|
|
|
Post by eiffel on Sept 26, 2006 11:15:24 GMT -5
Please no random "check this option" or "even events check this option". If you check it, it should be event specific because it has some interest : i think it is suitable for late eras where it can be so easy to boat rush cities (modern pangea, indu inslands, etc...). My opinion is that below indu era, it should be unchecked.
|
|
moineau
Warrior
Administrator
Posts: 330
|
Post by moineau on Sept 26, 2006 11:44:18 GMT -5
I think if you play on a easy defensible map like Hub you can have unchecked no city razing in all era.On pangea cylindrical, for example, that isnt the same story.
Like Eiffel i would prefer indus uncheck on this map.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Sept 26, 2006 14:28:57 GMT -5
Actually, on all non-water map it's easy to defend so "no city raizing" should be unchecked. In a normal game on a land map, it's next to impossible to capture 2 cities at the same time.
On any water map, it's easy to raze one coastal city at a time because a double-move of a galleon or a transport reachs further than any scouting (it's almost like if Cavalry and catapults had 4 turns instead of 2). Also, even with a "no city raizing" on rushes are successful. So, "no city raizing" on doesn't make it too hard to kill enemy by raizing.
So, i think this poll asks a wrong question. In most settings, you don't need "no city raizing". In some, you do need it. So, a general poll gives you an expected answer - "no city raizing" should be off.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Sept 26, 2006 14:29:51 GMT -5
I think if you play on a easy defensible map like Hub you can have unchecked no city razing in all era.On pangea cylindrical, for example, that isnt the same story. Like Eiffel i would prefer indus uncheck on this map. In a later eras, Hub isn't an easy defensible map Especially in Modern.
|
|
moineau
Warrior
Administrator
Posts: 330
|
Post by moineau on Sept 26, 2006 14:46:34 GMT -5
You have just one sea front (if you plant city as you should) and one terra front ( not ofen used and very small ).It is easier than on pangea for example where ennemy can come by lot of ways.
|
|
Juni
Worker
Posts: 137
|
Post by Juni on Sept 26, 2006 15:37:02 GMT -5
I suggest an easy rule : no city razing checked for 1-city elim events, and no city razing unchecked for 2-cities elim events. It seems logical, isn't it ?
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Sept 26, 2006 17:21:59 GMT -5
I suggest an easy rule : no city razing checked for 1-city elim events, and no city razing unchecked for 2-cities elim events. It seems logical, isn't it ? Totally agree with u Juni I already give my point on this on another thread
|
|
|
Post by SweViking on Sept 27, 2006 9:20:26 GMT -5
Hmm if you play 1 city elimination and lose a city, razed or not razed you lose or?? So whats the logic in that? IMO no city raze is best in later eras just as eiffel said. But you dont suffer as much to lose a city in future as you do in ancient so.. maybe the best and only era would be indu so you have a chance to recapture it after a eirlie boat rush. Bah, idont know... No city raze or city raze just give 2 diffrent play styles, just play accordingly. ;D My small experience of no city raze is that games tend to be more offensive since you have the possibility to recapture a fallen city, and thats always good
|
|
|
Post by SweViking on Sept 27, 2006 9:25:12 GMT -5
btw... what a funny poll Isent "always checked" and "never unchecked" the same thing? ;D So the choise is at the moment: 50/50 or city raze
|
|
|
Post by SirPartyMan on Sept 27, 2006 16:07:55 GMT -5
Well, I meant "always unchecked" and "always checked".
I was really trying to determine if people still wanted some CCC games to be played where you keep a city instead of raze it.
Looking at the votes, it seems that there is still some enthusiasm for checking NO CITY RAZING in non-ancient start games. Interesting.
Continue to post your ideas.
Best, SPM
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Sept 27, 2006 16:10:08 GMT -5
IMO 1 city elim = no city razing
otherwise its a stupid option and god knows why people say it helps the attacker! It just makes the already too difficult task of killing even harder!
But i wount be playing in CCC so whatever but this is my opinion on the matter!
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Sept 29, 2006 16:18:37 GMT -5
Isent "always checked" and "never unchecked" the same thing? ;D That's what I was thinking .
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Sept 29, 2006 16:20:28 GMT -5
As for the city razing issue ... Civ4 was designed to be a more defensive game than Civ3. It's a lot easier to defend than it is to attack. The defender should not be further rewarded with the ability to retake lost cities when it's already so much effort for the attacker to take a city.
However, if we are going to use the rule, I think Juni has a great idea here:
|
|
|
Post by ironclad on Sept 29, 2006 18:42:09 GMT -5
no city razing on 2 city elim is stupid no city razing on one city elim would be great (anc-med, ironman)
|
|
Arvcran
Worker
Tourney Director
Remember the purpose of CIV / BtS is enjoyment, entertainment, and hobby!
Posts: 181
|
Post by Arvcran on Oct 3, 2006 19:56:18 GMT -5
I personally don't like the automatic razing of cities. If I had designed the game myself I'd have made city razing in the post Medieval Era an atrocity to mankind and had the civ's population revolt the government in power. Earlier eras probably could get away with razing cities. I'd say let the attacker decide to raze or not.
What I never understood was why the automatic raze in the first place?
I can't think of the settings or the reason for the automatic raze so technically I have no argument with settings just the resulting play feel I witness between options unchecked and some checked in ladder games.
I know this is not a supported method of playing but it also makes no sense for me that a civ would be eliminated after settling a front city with 1 population when the capital is flourishing and able to build units, who in fact me be a stronger civ than the Civ that just demolished a village post or border town?
I do understand the notion of playability and having an end to a game though. As Mookie points out so well, after all defending is easier - well until superior air power enters the picture anyway.
For the vote I say you have to let the agressor choose to raze or not so no city razing should not even be a legal option until the people become more able to affect a civilization's ability to thrive in which case no city razing should be the 'desired' choice or suffer the consequences of being put in jail for war crimes lol.
|
|