Razing/Disbanding Question

[KGB]

SnotlinG,

First, I think the Development Blog section needs to be split into more than one thread. I'd suggest one thread per beta. So you could split the current single thread into 3 parts, Beta1, Beta2, Beta3 and then when you start on Beta4 create another thread. This would help new players jump to the latest stuff easier.

Now to my question. In your latest post today you mentioned having the razed graphics continue to look like the the city of the previous owner. So I in Beta3 are we getting the ability to self-raze and disband units? Both these features are really needed, especially the disband units for when you start running low on gold. I haven't seen mention of whether it's going to be working in Beta3 or not.

KGB

[SnotlinG]

Hello,
No self-raze and no disband in Beta3.
What I mean in my post is that if I conquer one of your cities, and raze it (choosing raze instead of occupy/plunder), the city will then have your color/graphic of a razed city, since it was your city that got razed.

Not sure if we will add self-raze, maybe as a hosting option later. I think it adds some strategy that you need to decide when you take a city if you think you can hold it or not. Otherwise you would always plunder and then raze.

As for disband, I think we will put this in Beta4. Beta3 is already delayed and nothing new will most likely be added at this point. However Beta4 is planned to be a much quicker upgrade than Beta3 (beta3 has the whole new structure + the whole new mapeditor, so it has taken a few months just to complete these parts)

[KGB]

SnotlinG,

I think it adds some strategy that you need to decide when you take a city if you think you can hold it or not. Otherwise you would always plunder and then raze.

I agree with what you say. But you can easily counter that by making it so you can only self-raze cities you've held since the start of your turn. So then you can't plunder-raze.

Self-razing is important when you know you are going to lose a city and want to deny it to your opponent as you retreat (scorched earth policy). In addition to denying your opponent the city it also helps prevent your gold from being stolen which can be more important when you have only a few cities (4-5) and lots of gold (2-3K).

KGB

[SnotlinG]

Yepp, will think about that.
Maybe we will add something like this, but that it costs some money to raze also.
Not in beta3 though

[bras]

I think giving the opportunity to self-raze a city is not a good idea. It would make a lot less interesting attacking a city with a lot of defenders, if you know that once you've killed 30 out of 32 armies there but failed to kill the last 2 on your turn, the opponent might just self-raze it and all your efforts come to nought. I would strongly oppose the self-raze option.

On the other hand disbanding your own units in my opinion is a very needed functionality.

[KGB]

Bras,

The situation you describe will almost never happen.

What happens *far* more often is that an enemy hero/strong stack comes into your area and you can't defend 2-3 cities with the 12 men you have there. So you end up losing all 3 cities. What you could do though is put 12 men in one city and raze the other 2 and defend 1 city. That's smart strategy.

Because right now what happens is once you fall behind your opponent in cities, even slightly say 12-8, you can never catch up because those 4 cities just keep pumping out men. So the first side to take cities from the other side wins in 90% of the cases. With the self-raze option you can simply raze anything you can't defend. This prevents you from giving the enemy valuable production.

This feature was one of the keys to DLR being a successful multi-player game.

Obviously it should be a game option as it was in DLR. But in 90% of games I played in DLR it was always used.

KGB

[bras]

I do agree that the use of the self-raze option would form part of certain smart strategies - no question about that. However in my opinion the net result would be to make the games more drawn out. Basically it's a nice tool to sabotage a player who's gained an early advantage and to protract the game. But from reading the forum, I had the impression that the general attitude was that nobody likes tedious long campaigns where both players just sit and wait afraid to attack each other. I think that the net result of the self-raze option would be to create exactly such campaigns.

Of course it's tough to argue against giving it as an option on game creation - I mean, obviously that's the most democratic solution. Still I suspect that most people don't have these very deep considerations when they create a game and in many games the option will be selected one way or another without much thought.

[bras]

Also, if there is self-raze, who would ever raze? You would always plunder and THEN self-raze.

[Pillager]

Is there currently a rebuild city option? If players can self raze, there really needs to be.

Razing immediately (when prompted after a city conquest) should give the player gold, as if he had pillaged the city.

[kenc80]

im not sure if i agree about razing giving a player gold. isnt that sort of a fundamental theory that if you raze (burn) the city to the ground that includes all the loot? Ive always thought razing was the opposite of pillaging in a way.