Destroy capitals

[Suisight]

So anyone knows how to destroy a capital of a region i conquered but actually just want off the map for my onw nice shining city?

[CDuque]

You can't sadly. You can only raze tribal villages.

They certainly should include the option to raze enemy cities, and also to merge 2 regions into one.

[Suisight]

Thanks.

[Lichlord9333]

Originally posted by Ch3m:

You can't sadly. You can only raze tribal villages.

They certainly should include the option to raze enemy cities, and also to merge 2 regions into one.

This tbh the AI never was good at placing cities razing them was a saving grace...

[Suisight]

Well, I do expect several updates. Bugfixing first, i guess (although I didn't encounter any), and content fixes maybe in about a month or so. But it IS weird this feature is not included to begin with. Feels like a very basic one.

[The Former]

Originally posted by Suisight:

Well, I do expect several updates. Bugfixing first, i guess (although I didn't encounter any), and content fixes maybe in about a month or so. But it IS weird this feature is not included to begin with. Feels like a very basic one.

I think it's because the absolute razing of cities just wasn't done all that often in history. I think Carthage might be the only one that comes to mind, and even then, it found a way to eventually bounce back and actually exists today as a Tunisian municipality. The devs are leaning heavily into a historical foundation for this one, so mechanics like razing cities - which is more there for game convenience in other 4X titles - is something they elected to not implement.

[Lichlord9333]

Originally posted by Ärlig, Paradoxriddaren:

I think it's because the absolute razing of cities just wasn't done all that often in history. I think Carthage might be the only one that comes to mind, and even then, it found a way to eventually bounce back and actually exists today as a Tunisian municipality. The devs are leaning heavily into a historical foundation for this one, so mechanics like razing cities - which is more there for game convenience in other 4X titles - is something they elected to not implement.

https://youtu.be/TkzU9Lu5JCY?si=3bcDmHT7hLCrE7GA CARTHAGO DELENDA EST

[Lord Conquor]

The thing is this game is all about alternate history too.... so they need to implement razing asap. I absolutely do not like conquering other places and being forced into keep garbage cities. Half the time I am only attacking the city to remove it so my cities can continue to expand further. The game forces you to play wide and gives little option to play tall currently.

[Riftwalker]

i would prefer being able to like, move the capital city.

also, AFAIK, you can raze them by letting them fall to barbarians and then attacking the neutral city that pops up after. you force all the pops to relocate to a nearby city.

[Suisight]

Originally posted by Ärlig, Paradoxriddaren:

Originally posted by Suisight:

Well, I do expect several updates. Bugfixing first, i guess (although I didn't encounter any), and content fixes maybe in about a month or so. But it IS weird this feature is not included to begin with. Feels like a very basic one.

I think it's because the absolute razing of cities just wasn't done all that often in history. I think Carthage might be the only one that comes to mind, and even then, it found a way to eventually bounce back and actually exists today as a Tunisian municipality. The devs are leaning heavily into a historical foundation for this one, so mechanics like razing cities - which is more there for game convenience in other 4X titles - is something they elected to not implement.

I can understand what you think about, but in fact, razing cities is in the game (independent cities). Just adding such a choice on conquest would imo not constitute a new mechanic or a break in the general system. In any case, I don't think historical accuracy can take precedence above gameplay here, as this thing with regions and their mutually-exclusive influence zones already does the opposite.

I can only think of a reasoning such as that losing a city only to have it razed immediately negates any option to get it back, obviously, and that could be experienced as frustrating. This would not apply to independent cities.

However, one could include a gradual resettlement of the population - let it maybe take 20 turns to remove the city: Opportunity to reconquest the city for the defending side as well as the option for a better planning of empire layout for the conquering side.

[XartaX]

City Absorption at the very least should be a thing, where a city takes over the region of another city. Plenty of historical examples here: Rome & Ostia, Athens & Eleusis, Constantinople and Chalcedon, etc.

[Rowsdower]

Yes, we need to be able to raze "player" cities just like the neutral ones.

Hopefully they add this in soon.

I am already sick of the AI building cities in ♥♥♥♥♥♥ places. I am trying to space my cities with enough room to grow and the AI is planting new cities in between mine.

[Lyr]

+1 for remove/destroy city option

[Alharemi]

+1 for be able to remove this tons of sheety enemy regions preventing big ones to expand at mid-late game
Or to absorb them into one region (with one region center and downgrade rest to regular cities with current max lvl for example)

[Anomalous]

Agreed, razing needs to be implemented. I found this thread after an AI placed a city right between 2 other cities, hamstringing the growth of all 3 cities permanently

[The Former]

Originally posted by Suisight:

Originally posted by Ärlig, Paradoxriddaren:

I think it's because the absolute razing of cities just wasn't done all that often in history. I think Carthage might be the only one that comes to mind, and even then, it found a way to eventually bounce back and actually exists today as a Tunisian municipality. The devs are leaning heavily into a historical foundation for this one, so mechanics like razing cities - which is more there for game convenience in other 4X titles - is something they elected to not implement.

I can understand what you think about, but in fact, razing cities is in the game (independent cities). Just adding such a choice on conquest would imo not constitute a new mechanic or a break in the general system.

Yeah, I actually did that myself early game due to old habits, haha. But I think that speaks to their reasoning being just what I stated: Independent cities don't grow or improve, so destroying one doesn't really affect "tapestry", as it were.

I think a good solution to this would be to allow a city to be destroyed within x turns after being placed. Or perhaps before its first border expansion or improvement, whichever comes first.