Razing cities need change

[d3xx | ☮]

Razing cities must not increase your settlement cap

It's annoying that I have to suffer settle cap penalty as for god knows how many turns while city is being razed and have no profit. Just now I've got city revolted and returned back to defender while being razed. WTF?

And there is no point of doing that, actually:
• enemy gets future war support, you suffer loyalty, no yeilds recieved
  
• and you get... nothing? maybe gold? maybe population in form of migrants?

Razing shoud be instant or giving something to attacker. Otherwise its boring soy ♥♥♥♥.

[Xenpo]

+ 1 on this. I believe because you can increase your settlement cap (greatly) through razing cities, your gold production tanks and you can lose all your units while in a war.

To put it bluntly, this is both nuts and really bad game design.

+++1 Please address.

[monkeypunch87]

I disagree. Why shouldn't produce a city being razed dissatisfaction across your empire? If it happens through the easy to understand game mechanic "city limit", it's great game design.

[Damien Demento]

I'm happy for razing to take turns and that you'd have to defend that settlement until you've essentially looted it but as OP says then it shouldn't be part of the settlement cap because you are not administering a whole new city. The alternative in my mind would be that you can set the previous city as an independent state immediately, it would then retreat back to say 3x3 tiles and be open to anyone who wants to concur it. It doesn't need to be able to be made into a suzerain state, just one that will defend itself like a hostile state would.

[PlagueChicken]

While the settlement cap limit might accomplish a goal, it is super strange to have my happy populace (busy doing stuff for my war effort) get all bent out of shape when some forward settling AI has their city demolished because it was in a terrible spot.

Agree that razing - if it can't be instant - needs some other way of representing a commitment to destruction. Maybe it costs you gold each turn to dismantle the city and you have to keep a unit parked there. That would be a more realistic opportunity cost.

[Zack]

I would understand it, when the AI does not spam these cities everywhere. Doesn´t even matter if it even makes sense to place a city there or not.
As the opponent you have no choice as raze the city.

That said, if someone decide to raze the city, the penalty should give some unhappy faces and maybe penalty against the country you having war against. The penalty now is by far to high.

[eternalsway]

Originally posted by Zack:

I would understand it, when the AI does not spam these cities everywhere. Doesn´t even matter if it even makes sense to place a city there or not.
As the opponent you have no choice as raze the city.

That said, if someone decide to raze the city, the penalty should give some unhappy faces and maybe penalty against the country you having war against. The penalty now is by far to high.

Not really, they still spam everywhere, and now you can't destroy them unless you are okay with tons of war disadvantage

[Usana]

Originally posted by d3xx |Just now I've got city revolted and returned back to defender [i:

while being razed[/i]. WTF?
.

Yeah. . . I just got this myself. It apparently takes 12 turns to raze a 4 pop city and it of course decided to immediately start revolting. So revolt in 9 turns. City razed in 12. Also was happening during unhappy crisis so hanging onto that city to try and raze it caused lots of pain elsewhere. You kinda can't do anything in war if you are at settle cap since razing or taking cities both sends you into an unhappy spiral. If razing wouldn't just undo itself with a revolt that could be justified as a something you can still do since it is a temporary penalty(though 12 turns for 4 pop is ludicrous).

A Revolt should spawn an independent packed general whose goal is to take the city center. And that is when it flips to someone willing to take it or becomes an unfriendly independent if there are no takers. This way you can at least have some counterplay. Also while on city revolts it really freaking sucks that not accepting an ally's city that wants to flip hits you with penalties to happiness and influence and if you accept you get hit with penalties to happiness(for going over the cap) and relationship(they view it as if you conquered the city if memory recalls). It is literally a lose lose ♥♥♥♥ YOU player no matter what event.

[Zack]

Originally posted by eternalsway:

Originally posted by Zack:

I would understand it, when the AI does not spam these cities everywhere. Doesn´t even matter if it even makes sense to place a city there or not.
As the opponent you have no choice as raze the city.

That said, if someone decide to raze the city, the penalty should give some unhappy faces and maybe penalty against the country you having war against. The penalty now is by far to high.

Not really, they still spam everywhere, and now you can't destroy them unless you are okay with tons of war disadvantage

Re-read my first sentence 😃