Raze city

[Tectosage]

Hi there,

I was wondering if it'd be feasible to give the option to raze a settlement when capturing it - meaning to lower the level of the settlement (either right down to village level, or just by one level (e.g. huge city to large city), or even to any desired level. Maybe it could be tied to or replace the "exterminate" and/or "enslave" options. My reasoning:

1. In the late game there are an abundance of cities and large cities, and in the player's territories quite a few huge cities. It would keep the game-play a bit more varied to still encounter smaller settlements.
2. As a strategy of war, there is already the option to capture a settlement and destroy its economic and military buildings. Stripping a settlement in this way but still leaving it as a large settlement seems strange.
3. From a historical realism perspective, razings did occur, including to famous cities such as Carthage.
4. Currently with the "exterminate" and "enslave" options, there is not really any penalty to the player to balance the cash reward. A reduction in the city size would make sense as a logical drawback to depopulating a settlement which you want to hold on to.
5. It would increase the stakes for the player defending their own cities!

What do you think? If I remember right, there was a console command to increase the city level but not to reduce it, so maybe that means it's impossible.

Cheers!

[ur-Lord Tedric]

I suspect it's not possible and potentially even undesirable. Practically, of course, it makes no difference. The 'size' of the settlement is predicated on how much population it has and that is accurately reflected.

Certainly in the 'Late Game' - every single settlement on the map is a product of what has happened. Artificially having 'villages' still to capture because.........is beyond 'gamey'.

In reality (Carthage being somewhat a special case even today) of course this still wouldn't happen. The best and most perfect example of this is, of course, Rome itself! Post the Dark Ages and even in Rennaissance Italy, Rome had a population of ~15,000 living amongst the ruins of the mightiest empire the world had ever seen (until 'you know who's'). Rome was still a 'City' sized for over a million - just in ruins.

[Alavaria]

Rome was still a 'City' sized for over a million - just in ruins.

As long as those ruins help keep a high Public Order (and ideally minimize corruption).

[ur-Lord Tedric]

As long as those ruins help keep a high Public Order (and ideally minimize corruption).

Well, if the 'Police stations', 'churches', sewers, water supplies, etc are in ruins - then they can hardly contribute!

[mirelicus]

Is it just me or the penalty for razing a city is too low?
If you massacre thousands of people the city shouldn't be able to provide money at least for 2,3 turns to make it more of a challange,because,in the current state,it's the easiest thing to do and the only negative consequence is low number of people available to recruit and some damaged buildings .

[dvk901]

The 'mechanism' of RTW just doesn't allow you to destroy a settlement in the manner suggested. Furthermore, the monetary gain for enslaving or de-populating a city is hardcoded in the exe.

[Agrippa19]

Could a growth penalty be implented for sacked cities so it effects the player as well as the ai?

As in the plague icon, could one be introduced to show 'recently sacked' and -6% growth penalty or something be put in effect?

[Alavaria]

Pretty sure it's hardcoded effects all the way through....

Having a negative growth rate for killing tons of people would be a great bonus to killing tons of people in various cases.