Request for CA to remove 'Raze' from TW:A

[Barbarian Nobility]

IMO 'Raze' adds absolutely nothing to the game. All it leads to his a giant empty map full of nothing. If its possible, I'd like CA to remove the 'Raze' feature entirely from the game, thereby forcing nomadic and migration factions to ACTUALLY SETTLE SOMEWHERE!!! By all means, its great having nomads and migrants running around the map SACKING everything for sure, but razing is just stupid and pointless.

For me, part of the charm of barbarian invasion was that you could potentially end up with Roxallanians settled in Britain, Franks in Anatolia, Burgundians in Egypt. All that has been lost with razing, and yet could easily be recaptured by its removal.

Kind Regards,
Barbarian Nobility.

[Abendstern]

I strongly disagree: The ability adds a whole other strategic dimension in that scorched earth now finally has a meaning.

Before, if I wanted to pacify a region without conquering it I could liberate it given the choice. But then my new vassal can just rebel against me some turns later and I have to do the whole thing again. Or I could capture, destroy buildings, let rebels take it, given that rebels are NOT a faction. Which comes close to razing but is not applicable on a large scale due to faction rebels. The same thing is valid from an AI point of view.

Losing a settlement to an AI now can have dire consequences, as you can lose a powerful well developed city. So you have to garisson these. You cant just oops-well-wait-im-gona-march-that-army-across-Europe-to-retake-it-no-damage-done-good-as-new.

Also, I dont see the connection in between razing and not settling down. The same goes for sacking - capture city without taking it over - and that was in BI already. And I dont see how Franks not settling in Anatolia is a problem, I like it that way. Its a whole other topic but I feel that factions have a historical inclination as to where to settle. I see Jutes in Britain a lot, saw the vandals make Carthage their capital.

[Generaal Van Heutsz]

One of the reasons I bought this game was because this new option and what abendstern said

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

One of the reasons I bought this game was because this new option and what abendstern said

for me the sole reason.
And it is one of the most easy things to mod out, so hold your horses and take up modding, instead of ruining it for the rest of us.

[ikyu828]

imo razing ability should take a longer time, maybe xtra 1 turn for every building slot

[MrHoon]

The biggest issue with raze is not the mechanic itself but the fact that CA did a poor job of it with AIs which made it so that they would ALWAYS raze over anything else. There is nothing wrong with razing as Abendstern said perfectly; its a new strategic way to weaken the enemy without having to resort to Liberate (which cant be done with one of the factions of the settlement already exists on the map) or occupy.

Raze is a great feature and honestly I wish it becomes a staple in the future CA games too, unless it didnt make sense at all historically (but when did that stop CA). They just have to make sure goddamn AI doesnt think Raze that city with all the wealth >>>>>>> Occupy that city

[veverčák]

I also strongly disagree with this. I do not about experience of Barbarian Nobility with the game, but raze option is creating new space for migrators to settle, no mans land and later expansion for those kingdoms which manage to survive. Sure, the raze could be implemented different/better but it has place in the game. Also if you do not want to deal with razing you can find a mod - Radious took away razing option for most faction except nomadic and there are other options - so it is little bit spoiling the party for rest of us IMHO. Not to mention hordes are settling. In my Pict campaign I have backstab Calledonians and turn them into horde. Later on they settle in southern France as friends and allies of raising power Galia.

[RGA]

The raze is fine. What I want to change is the inhibitive cost of resettling. You have to spend like 10,000 golds and half of your army just to acquire a ruined settlement that would require another 10,000 golds to bring it back to minimal level. No wonder why no one is bother with resettling.

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

*promotes*
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...omads-can-Raze
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...e-made-cheaper!

The raze is fine. What I want to change is the inhibitive cost of resettling. You have to spend like 10,000 golds and half of your army just to acquire a ruined settlement that would require another 10,000 golds to bring it back to minimal level. No wonder why no one is bother with resettling.

Ahhmen!
Don't know if they change it, in the new patch but my mod did reduce it to 10000g from 20000g.
Maybe I should look into it again?
No just checked it, it is still 20000g in vanilla.

[wulfgar610]

That would take away all the fun. The Huns razed a few of my WRE regions, in one of them the Barbs moved in and rebuilt it. It's characteristics of the era. Paris went nowherewille to premier city precisely because it escaped the ravages of the Huns. Venice became important too because it was a nowhere town that escaped the Huns. The Danube provinces remained a wreck for centuries after the Huns. If anything it is unrealistic how quickly the provinces can be rebuilt.

[Antiokhos Euergetes]

That would take away all the fun. The Huns razed a few of my WRE regions, in one of them the Barbs moved in and rebuilt it. It's characteristics of the era. Paris went nowherewille to premier city precisely because it escaped the ravages of the Huns. Venice became important too because it was a nowhere town that escaped the Huns. The Danube provinces remained a wreck for centuries after the Huns. If anything it is unrealistic how quickly the provinces can be rebuilt.

Precisely, the Danubian cities went from large classical style Roman cities to small high walled towns built around churches, with farming villages outside. It never recovered truly, never had the chance. After the Huns came more Goths, Gepids, Bulgars, Avars and Slavs. Warfare constantly destroyed the agriculture the towns depended on, remember Roman armies trampling across territory was damaging to local economy too!

[Barbarian Nobility]

But its not fun, they just destroy literally everything. It may be somewhat cool if it were done sparingly, but in all my games the AI just nukes everything to the point it becomes tedious. ohwell.

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

But its not fun, they just destroy literally everything. It may be somewhat cool if it were done sparingly, but in all my games the AI just nukes everything to the point it becomes tedious. ohwell.

Then try out those mods I put up as links.

[Butan]

I would have voted: No, it has a place in the game, 'but should be restricted further*'.

As many people anticipated before release, the nuking of conquered provinces has no cost and the AI doesnt know how to deal with it, thus it is used far too frequently.
Much mods dealt with that issue by decreasing resettling cost and/or restricting razing to specified cultures (the Huns only, mainly): that way the campaign map becomes less a walk into the Fallout universe. Go download said mods, for lack of a better solution, like CA decreasing the stupidity by themselves!

[PointOfViewGun]

I would have voted: No, it has a place in the game, 'but should be restricted further*'.

As many people anticipated before release, the nuking of conquered provinces has no cost and the AI doesnt know how to deal with it, thus it is used far too frequently.
Much mods dealt with that issue by decreasing resettling cost and/or restricting razing to specified cultures (the Huns only, mainly): that way the campaign map becomes less a walk into the Fallout universe. Go download said mods, for lack of a better solution, like CA decreasing the stupidity by themselves!

There is no cost in letting go a settlement that provides you income, food, recruitment and various bonuses?

[Butan]

There is no cost in letting go a settlement that provides you income, food, recruitment and various bonuses?

Ask the AI that
They know never to abandon the settlement they have, because it provide them income, food, recruitment and various bonuses.
But a newly conquered province? Nop, nuke it to hell it gives me nothing right now, and that raze button is so shiny I want to push it!

Ofc I'm exagerating, the fact is they tend to raze even when its not a good idea.
Now do define a "good" razing...

[Påsan]

I disagree, Raze is a valuable strategical tool for denying enemy land you have no interest in yourself.


However "resettlement" is too expensive and should be cut down to very little, as after paying the price you still have to build the already expensive buildings, so resettlement is never economically viable.

[maexim]

I think the raze feature should take more time, like 2 turn for letting the owner of the city the time to liberate it...

[kanzy]

I think the raze feature should take more time, like 2 turn for letting the owner of the city the time to liberate it...

That's a good idea.

[Humble Warrior]

I think raze should be made even less frequent (mostly used by hordes) and not cost quite so much to rebuild. I wouldnt say remove though.