[Balance] Remove one turn Razing

This is a major balance problem - a high level city can take dozens or hundreds of turns to build up fully, and that can all be destroyed with the click of a button in _one_ turn.

This makes guerilla raids on lightly defended cities far, far too effective.

Razing needs to be changed to a lengthy, multi-turn affair, with the pop destruction dependant on the size and strength of the occupying army.

Another option, because razing can be used to control empire size and Prestige use, if you conquer an unwanted colony, I'd suggest an option to 'puppet' a city. It goes neutral, no longer under your control, but not under the empires that it was either. This wouldn't help you if you conquered a city you didn't want, but it also wouldn't raze it to the ground, giving your opponent (or you) a chance to retake it.

Whatever the case, one turn razing needs to go. It's badly exploitable, and disproportionately powerful given the time investment that goes into a city.

Suggestions:

  • Razing takes many turns, dependant on size of city/pop and size of occupying army (heroes have a much harder time razing than units/large monsters)
  • Puppet cities to make them neutral
  • Raid and loot structures/heroes/tech/gold
  • Massive diplomatic penalties for razing a city to the ground
8,844 views 13 replies
Reply #1 Top

I completely agree about razing cities...and anything else, from forests to camp sites, etc.  It all happens instantaneously and without cost.  It is less gameplay mechanic and more map editor.  It needs to be changed.  As you said, razing should take time,  at least one season for small sites (such as a patch of forest) and more for cities, and should involve some gildar cost, albeit I would like to see some materials returned in exchange (salvage).  In fact, for cities I would like to see a Total War mechanic where when you raze a city, you also loot it and put people to the sword, losing the population. 

 

Another option, because razing can be used to control empire size and Prestige use, if you conquer an unwanted colony, I'd suggest an option to 'puppet' a city. It goes neutral, no longer under your control, but not under the empires that it was either. This wouldn't help you if you conquered a city you didn't want, but it also wouldn't raze it to the ground, giving your opponent (or you) a chance to retake it.

 

Great idea.  It is very similar to the vassal idea that Stardock originally floated for WoM:

 

"In Elemental, one of your abilities will be the governing ability. The more cities under you control, the more overhead cost there is to run your ever growing kingdom. At some point, it may become advisable to turn some cities into vassals. A vassal state is a city (or group of cities) that is originally founded by the player but has been made independent by that player. It becomes its own independent faction controlled by the AI. Initially, as a vassal, it is allied to you. But being independent, all bets are off of what happens in the future. It may join up with someone else, combine up with other vassals to form a new kingdom, or even go on its own to try to become a major faction in its own right through a path of conquest.

"One could picture a large game where there might be dozens of vassals who form ever changing alliances throughout the game."

 

Still want to see this one day....

Reply #2 Top


 
Razing needs to be changed to a lengthy, multi-turn affair, with the pop destruction dependant on the size and strength of the occupying army.

 
End of quote

 

Are we playing the same game? Currently cities get reduced to zero population whether or not you raze them.  Every city would still be razed in one turn if you made the destruction dependant upon population vs army size.

Reply #3 Top

You are only supposed to lose half the population from taking a city. If you are getting 0 it is a bug and should be posted. 

I have to admit that I am so bloodthirsty lately I have not bothered to look before razing a city.  }:)

Reply #4 Top


I agree that you shouldn't be able to raze a whole city in one turn.

Also, there should be a way to convert a city from Kingdom to Empire, or vice versa, if you capture a city from a different race than your own. Maybe the race-specific improvements should blow up, and the race-neutral improvements (granery etc.) should switch to your own look.

Reply #5 Top

The same is true of razing resources. I gained a resource under my city's control, and razed it in one turn without even needing to send an army. Seems like you should at least need to send an army. Even moreso for razing a whole city!

Reply #6 Top

Can only agree with the above posters. Please prevent razing cities in a single turn. Make it more difficult. For the puppet idea, a look at Civ V might be a good idea. Have the cities build what they want, but pay a certain percentage of taxes to your empire...

Reply #7 Top

Yep, razing a city is too easy and im glad that the AI does not do it.

Reply #8 Top

What ur saying is pretty damn new xD . Anything I ever plaied related to Elemental including Civ allows you to raze a city in one turn and resources . I mean if you lost a city whatever happens to it is deserved tbh.

Edit : Do like Civ and add a no city raze option ?

Reply #9 Top

Btw - a related bug I have seen is that from time to time my cities auto raze themselves

Reply #10 Top

Quoting Wizard1200, reply 7
Yep, razing a city is too easy and im glad that the AI does not do it.
End of Wizard1200's quote

Monsters do. If you can get one to actually attack that is.

Reply #11 Top

Still present in .76, still as abusable as ever.

Reply #12 Top

Can we at least have an option to remove city razing from the game?  When I play Civ games, I some times play without city razing and it changes the nature of the game.  

 

Oh, just now saw Ryansee said that too.  

Reply #13 Top

There should also be a diplomatic penalty to razing. That would help stop a scorched earth plan or a rampage by the player against an unsuspecting AI.