Who is ready to Cut more Crap? - Page 12

Matrix · 30-09-2009, 01:22

I think it's sufficient to disallow razing after an amphibious attack, as barbu1977 suggested. Attacking from sea gives you so many targets at the same time, that's the only problem I have with city razing. You just can't defend yourself against that (as I have proven in the last pitboss on Earth, against Darkness and IanDC).

Robi D · 30-09-2009, 03:41

If we don't have barbs on then their isn't an issue with their city placement.

As Stapel said earlier in the previous game with city razing off it added a bit more strategy to warfare since you could not just raze a city and move on to the next one.

Also Stapel took out three of us in the last game, if city placement had been an issue i'm sure he would be against city razing being off. Since he isn't i'm assuming he was happy with the cities he got.

Azza · 30-09-2009, 08:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matrix

I think it's sufficient to disallow razing after an amphibious attack, as barbu1977 suggested. Attacking from sea gives you so many targets at the same time, that's the only problem I have with city razing. You just can't defend yourself against that (as I have proven in the last pitboss on Earth, against Darkness and IanDC).

I think that's definitely the most important reason for having a rule against city razing.

Stapel · 30-09-2009, 09:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matrix

I think it's sufficient to disallow razing after an amphibious attack, as barbu1977 suggested. Attacking from sea gives you so many targets at the same time, that's the only problem I have with city razing. You just can't defend yourself against that (as I have proven in the last pitboss on Earth, against Darkness and IanDC).

And then what? Allow Amphibious attacks until one unit is left? People will find ways to work around any rules. I think we should keep things simple: either allow, or don't allow it.

The way I see it, disallowing city razing gives some very good extra options to the strategies we pick.
However, if this is going to be a 16 player map, not being able to burn cities might be a bit daft. That's, imho, the choice we have to make.

NHJ · 30-09-2009, 10:48

I think I like the extra deterrent of people not exterminating me because they have to pay for my cities

And naval attacks can probably be countered by a navy of your own, can it not? Or, at least by having enough ships that you can at least spot the invasion fleet and move additional troops to the city where it is going, before it gets there. Naval invasions appear to be the price you pay for not having a sufficient navy of your own.

But then again, I don't have much experience with late-game multiplayer. But I would rather have a clear rule of razing either on or off, none of this in-between stuff like a maximum city level where razing is allowed, because that complicates things way too much.

Azza · 30-09-2009, 11:50

It's almost impossible to stop a foreign navy transporting enough troops to raze a coastal city.

EG, I build 20 galleons. Lets say that you've invested considerably in your navy, and have 30 frigates. However, it's likely that you have multiple sea routes to your civ, so only half of your frigates can stop the galleons before they reach their destination. That's 15 units on the 5 remaining galleons that can still be used to raze a key city.

Matrix · 30-09-2009, 14:01

Well, I'm fine with no city razing at all. I just wanted to extend a hand to those opposed to it.

NHJ · 30-09-2009, 17:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azza

It's almost impossible to stop a foreign navy transporting enough troops to raze a coastal city.

EG, I build 20 galleons. Lets say that you've invested considerably in your navy, and have 30 frigates. However, it's likely that you have multiple sea routes to your civ, so only half of your frigates can stop the galleons before they reach their destination. That's 15 units on the 5 remaining galleons that can still be used to raze a key city.

But the hammers needed to build 20 galleons full of units is probably enough for a very sizeable land war as well. If someone is investing that much production to a single strategy, isn't it kind of normal that they would accomplish their goal? It doesn't seem to be worse than an opponent building a large cavalry army when you share a long land border with him.

Anyway, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here; I'm fine with either option.

Wosret · 30-09-2009, 17:53

@Shabba: thanks for the explanation ^^

About city razing:

I prefer razing cities as a simple option, but it could be cool to have an off game agreement about it. At least I wouldn`t mind if its off.

One asked some posts ago... will civs be random? O_o.

Stapel · 30-09-2009, 19:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wosret

One asked some posts ago... will civs be random? O_o.

Well, why not? Or possibly all play with the same treats?

30-09-2009, 01:22	#111
Matrix Administrator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Tampere, Finland Posts: 4,828	I think it's sufficient to disallow razing after an amphibious attack, as barbu1977 suggested. Attacking from sea gives you so many targets at the same time, that's the only problem I have with city razing. You just can't defend yourself against that (as I have proven in the last pitboss on Earth, against Darkness and IanDC). __________________

30-09-2009, 03:41	#112
Robi D King Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Adelaide, Australia. Posts: 2,060	If we don't have barbs on then their isn't an issue with their city placement. As Stapel said earlier in the previous game with city razing off it added a bit more strategy to warfare since you could not just raze a city and move on to the next one. Also Stapel took out three of us in the last game, if city placement had been an issue i'm sure he would be against city razing being off. Since he isn't i'm assuming he was happy with the cities he got. __________________ "I'm altering the deal, prey I don't alter it further" Darth Vader "We shall defend what is ours. We shall never surrender" --Kosovo is Serbia!

30-09-2009, 10:48	#115
NHJ Chieftain Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: . Posts: 214	I think I like the extra deterrent of people not exterminating me because they have to pay for my cities And naval attacks can probably be countered by a navy of your own, can it not? Or, at least by having enough ships that you can at least spot the invasion fleet and move additional troops to the city where it is going, before it gets there. Naval invasions appear to be the price you pay for not having a sufficient navy of your own. But then again, I don't have much experience with late-game multiplayer. But I would rather have a clear rule of razing either on or off, none of this in-between stuff like a maximum city level where razing is allowed, because that complicates things way too much. __________________ Supreme Ruler of Nicodemia \| Cave Canem

30-09-2009, 14:01	#117
Matrix Administrator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Tampere, Finland Posts: 4,828	Well, I'm fine with no city razing at all. I just wanted to extend a hand to those opposed to it. __________________

30-09-2009, 11:50	#116
Azza Chieftain Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Victoria, Australia Posts: 48	It's almost impossible to stop a foreign navy transporting enough troops to raze a coastal city. EG, I build 20 galleons. Lets say that you've invested considerably in your navy, and have 30 frigates. However, it's likely that you have multiple sea routes to your civ, so only half of your frigates can stop the galleons before they reach their destination. That's 15 units on the 5 remaining galleons that can still be used to raze a key city.

30-09-2009, 17:53	#119
Wosret Chieftain Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Brazil. Posts: 194	@Shabba: thanks for the explanation ^^ About city razing: I prefer razing cities as a simple option, but it could be cool to have an off game agreement about it. At least I wouldn`t mind if its off. One asked some posts ago... will civs be random? O_o.