City elimination option --> too good?

[Razor1952]

Perhaps early on enslavement or occupy is ok but mid to late game elimination is fantastic....


Get rid of your squalor and unruly population, keep the level of your settlement without the hassles and make a ton of money. Too good to be true!..

IMHO this option should at least reduce all buildings down one level , then I would at least have to pause before slaughtering everyone......

[Didz]

I must admit I have now adopted a policy of systematic city population extermination in most of my outlying cities.

It reduses city populations back to manageable levels and gives a real boost to income from those cities for years. Doesn't seem like a realistic tactic for city management though.

[andrewt]

It reduses city populations back to manageable levels and gives a real boost to income from those cities for years.

It doesn't give a boost to income. It just shifts the unit upkeep costs and wages to other cities you control. If you mean you need a smaller garrison and don't need to keep using low taxes, then I agree with you there.

The reason exterminate is so good is because you have high unrest and culture penalties when you get newly conquered cities. The population boom bonus, decreased squalor and higher garrison bonus counters both unrest and culture penalties. By the time those bonuses are gone, unrest and culture penalties are mostly gone or completely gone.

[The_Emperor]

I think what he means by a massive income is the vast amounts of cash you can gain from the mass looting that Exterminate allows.

Enslave only produces about as much looting as occupation, but exterminate can give you a massive finincial boost when you sack a major city.

[Bob the Insane]

I love it when after a hard siege battle where you only have 500 battered troops left, you can still go through a city of 30000 people and butcher over 20000 of them and nick (steal) all their stuff.... And they will be happier afterwards tah if you had left them alone...

[Longasc]

The "WAY TO GO":

Occupy or Enslave early conquered cities.

Enslave cities during your expansion phase.

Exterminate population after already having a healthy and strong core. No need to add more people, as taking the money and killing the buggers causes less unrest due to population and the money you get nets you more as the probably largely corrupt population mass of a city in a state of already being able to produce anything could achieve in decades.

[LittleRaven]

Exterminate is too good, but also necessary to keep a city under control.

But the middle ground here is obvious.

Keep exterminate working the same way it does now. However, unless a city has the requisite population to construct a building, that building will not function.

That way you can keep cities on your borders pacified, but not pumping out top military units after feeling your loving touch 3 times in a row. It will also encourage empires to form a 'center' of powerful cities where most of the troops come from, which is pretty realistic. Right now, especially on the higher difficulty levels, I can frequently make more advanced units on the frontiers than I can in my capital, because the AI growth bonuses mean their cities grow faster. I just massare the population and start using the buildings. And that's just silly. (the fact that I can take advantage of it in this fashion, not the fact that the AI gets bonuses)

[LordKhaine]

Exterminate is too good, but also necessary to keep a city under control.

But the middle ground here is obvious.

Keep exterminate working the same way it does now. However, unless a city has the requisite population to construct a building, that building will not function.

That would solve a lot of issues. Would be nice if population drops for any reason also made buildings "inactive". That way a plague could cripple a city in the same way. Right now I'm pretty glad a plague hits. It keeps the population down, and rather oddly the city seems to get happier.

I also wouldn't mind seeing negative vices for generals who slaughter a lot. Right now you just seem to get a bonus trait if you slaughter thousands of civilians. I'm pretty sure you'd get some fearsome rep if you slaughtered thousands like that.

[Razor1952]

Some great replies thank you. Obviously there is a balance issue here to address, exactly how remains to be seen, but I think the suggestion for inactive buildings till the population recovers is not a bad one though its exact implementation is still unclear to me.

In all this IMHO I think the game needs to make the player think twice before he automatically presses that button. At present "exterminate" .."exterminate".. brings back echoes of Daleks!

[Didz]

My own view is that extermination should generate negative penalties for all other cities of the same culture. Thus the more often you slaughter men, women and children from that culture the more likely they are to revolt against your rule in the future and the more determined their soldiers are in future battles. A sort of hatred index.

However, that leaves us with a problem about how to deal with unruly cities.

My personal preference would be to boost the value of spies and assassins by giving them a role in quelling unrest and preventing the formation of People Front of Judea style organisations in your city.

Controlled slavery would also be easier of peasant units contained more than the nominal 200 people. One could then load them on ships and sink them in the middle of the Med.

[Een_Gekke_Nederlander]

2 bad you cant eliminat those cilivilatians in combat than rather the computer do it for you