Destroying Enemy Capitals

[Bones]

I just want to destroy all those pesky and terribly placed cities, salt the fields, and carry away the population in chains. Is that too much to ask for?

[Duck from State Farm]

just raze the capital in Civ 6 that's the way to destroy cities or you can nuke the cities to death

[Lady Grey]

Originally posted by Duck from State Farm:

just raze the capital in Civ 6 that's the way to destroy cities or you can nuke the cities to death

In Civ 5 you cannot raze capitols or city states, I think that is what Bones means.

Personally I prefer it this way - I like being able to resurrect civilizations from the dead. Because of the way the game now works with capitols (ie Domination Victory), I think it is necessary to prevent them from being razed.

Remember the Planet Buster from SMAC? Now that was a way to erase a city ...

[Bones]

I am very annoyed when so many cities exist on the map and I am extremely limited in where I can place my own cities. If you are playing with Domination victory enabled, just have a capital leave some sort of monument tile improvement when it is razed. Now you can place a new city in a GOOD place and keep the monument in your territory to count for the victory.

[Kukko]

Originally posted by Bones:

I am very annoyed when so many cities exist on the map and I am extremely limited in where I can place my own cities. If you are playing with Domination victory enabled, just have a capital leave some sort of monument tile improvement when it is razed. Now you can place a new city in a GOOD place and keep the monument in your territory to count for the victory.

Btw does razing cities leave districts or not?

[Bones]

Razing a city in Civ V (you cannot raze capitals or city states) completely removes it from the game, including any buildings or wonders it may have held. Any tile improvements remain (like mines, farms, etc.)

[Sugam]

you should be able to raise the capital city. its a lazy way to deal with where the palace ends up at. Its simply really, just have the option to rebuild it as if a national wonder and have its hammers based on the age of the civ. instead, they throw thier arms into the air and just make indestructable citys instead. makes no sense. Kinda like the requirments for civ 6 wonders. I dont think the devs are in touch in reality. Would explain the cartoons lol.

[Rhudda]

Originally posted by Sugam:

you should be able to raise the capital city. its a lazy way to deal with where the palace ends up at. Its simply really, just have the option to rebuild it as if a national wonder and have its hammers based on the age of the civ. instead, they throw thier arms into the air and just make indestructable citys instead. makes no sense. Kinda like the requirments for civ 6 wonders. I dont think the devs are in touch in reality. Would explain the cartoons lol.

In Civ V capitals are a victory condition. That's why they can't be razed or moved. Since the bonus the palace gives is tiny and, unlike earlier games, there is no penalty based on the distance to the capital, there's really no reason to ever move it in the first place except to cheese your way out of losing.

[Sugam]

Originally posted by Unferð:

Originally posted by Sugam:

you should be able to raise the capital city. its a lazy way to deal with where the palace ends up at. Its simply really, just have the option to rebuild it as if a national wonder and have its hammers based on the age of the civ. instead, they throw thier arms into the air and just make indestructable citys instead. makes no sense. Kinda like the requirments for civ 6 wonders. I dont think the devs are in touch in reality. Would explain the cartoons lol.

In Civ V capitals are a victory condition. That's why they can't be razed or moved. Since the bonus the palace gives is tiny and, unlike earlier games, there is no penalty based on the distance to the capital, there's really no reason to ever move it in the first place except to cheese your way out of losing.

yes thats true but destroying them can do the same. last capital standing(origional) for an example.

[Rhudda]

Originally posted by Sugam:

Originally posted by Unferð:

In Civ V capitals are a victory condition. That's why they can't be razed or moved. Since the bonus the palace gives is tiny and, unlike earlier games, there is no penalty based on the distance to the capital, there's really no reason to ever move it in the first place except to cheese your way out of losing.

yes thats true but destroying them can do the same. last capital standing(origional) for an example.

And how, pray tell, would a civ be able to recapture their capital in order to deny the conquering civ's victory?

[Steven]

Originally posted by Unferð:

Originally posted by Sugam:

yes thats true but destroying them can do the same. last capital standing(origional) for an example.

And how, pray tell, would a civ be able to recapture their capital in order to deny the conquering civ's victory?

it would happen just like all other civ games.

conquering would be reverted back into conquest as it should be meaning u just wipe every one elese out and domniation would be reverted back to taking over a precentage of map.

so you deny someone the vicotry by not getting your citys destoryed in frist place.

like in civ 1 2 3 and 4 civ 5 conquest change sucked balls honestly.

[Rhudda]

Originally posted by Steven:

Originally posted by Unferð:

And how, pray tell, would a civ be able to recapture their capital in order to deny the conquering civ's victory?

it would happen just like all other civ games.

conquering would be reverted back into conquest as it should be meaning u just wipe every one elese out and domniation would be reverted back to taking over a precentage of map.

so you deny someone the vicotry by not getting your citys destoryed in frist place.

like in civ 1 2 3 and 4 civ 5 conquest change sucked balls honestly.

To you, maybe. To me, not so much. It makes for shorter games if you're not ready. While city spamming isn't as bad as it was in Civ IV, having to destroy every single one just gets tedious.

[Steven]

Originally posted by Unferð:

Originally posted by Steven:

it would happen just like all other civ games.

conquering would be reverted back into conquest as it should be meaning u just wipe every one elese out and domniation would be reverted back to taking over a precentage of map.

so you deny someone the vicotry by not getting your citys destoryed in frist place.

like in civ 1 2 3 and 4 civ 5 conquest change sucked balls honestly.

To you, maybe. To me, not so much. It makes for shorter games if you're not ready. While city spamming isn't as bad as it was in Civ IV, having to destroy every single one just gets tedious.

that made no sense.

I think you are confused with differince of conquest and domination

domination you didnt have to kill everything you just capture precentage of the citys

conquest taking control or wiping out all citys.

it dosnt matter if your playing civ 5 or any other civ game coqnuest always requires same amount of time to take all citys. only differince was in civ5 it was more annoying you had to hold dam things for ever.

if anything civ 5 drew out the conquest victory way longer.

its also the first thing that was moded into civ5 abilty to raze all citys

[Rhudda]

Originally posted by Steven:

Originally posted by Unferð:

To you, maybe. To me, not so much. It makes for shorter games if you're not ready. While city spamming isn't as bad as it was in Civ IV, having to destroy every single one just gets tedious.

that made no sense.

I think you are confused with differince of conquest and domination

domination you didnt have to kill everything you just capture precentage of the citys

conquest taking control or wiping out all citys.

it dosnt matter if your playing civ 5 or any other civ game coqnuest always requires same amount of time to take all citys. only differince was in civ5 it was more annoying you had to hold dam things for ever.

Er, no. Domination in Civ V has replaced conquest. Sure, if you want to hunt down every single city and spare your last enemy's capital until you're done, you're free to do so, but it's not a victory condition anymore. Therefore it is legitimate to say that conquest in the previous titles was tedious and it being replaced with domination was a good thing. Not only does it make the whole process go faster, it also makes it so you can't just salt the earth and move on, forcing you to make strategic decisions about your forces, like splitting them up to attack and/or defend multiple cities.

Look, you liked the old way, I like the new way, and the new way is not compatible with being able to raze capitals. Which way is better is down to personal taste and I'm not going to argue about that any longer.

[Steven]

Originally posted by Unferð:

Originally posted by Steven:

that made no sense.

I think you are confused with differince of conquest and domination

domination you didnt have to kill everything you just capture precentage of the citys

conquest taking control or wiping out all citys.

it dosnt matter if your playing civ 5 or any other civ game coqnuest always requires same amount of time to take all citys. only differince was in civ5 it was more annoying you had to hold dam things for ever.

Er, no. Domination in Civ V has replaced conquest. Sure, if you want to hunt down every single city and spare your last enemy's capital until you're done, you're free to do so, but it's not a victory condition anymore. Therefore it is legitimate to say that conquest in the previous titles was tedious and it being replaced with domination was a good thing. Not only does it make the whole process go faster, it also makes it so you can't just salt the earth and move on, forcing you to make strategic decisions about your forces, like splitting them up to attack and/or defend multiple cities.

Look, you liked the old way, I like the new way, and the new way is not compatible with being able to raze capitals. Which way is better is down to personal taste and I'm not going to argue about that any longer.

and they should add both domination and old conquest back to the game and give players option to play ether one.

i never played domnation in old games did not like it dont like it now.

but you cant call conquest domination its not.

its domination if they wanted to do that they should just removed conquest and kept domination in game.

[Steven]

and that is the problem they removed conquest from game - and forced every one into domination style game and then called it conquest.

games need to have options and to allow players chance to play how they want and not force play styles down peoples thoarts.