Razing cities/capitals

I thought of this idea when thinking of ''scorched warfare'' where you burn down a city so the enemy doesn't control it and its resources, why don't we apply the same concept to atWar?! Raze your city to make it have 0 pop therefore 0 income and 1 reinforcement, this could add more strategy to the game. It does and should have a cost though.

EDIT: The cost to raze could be the number of reinforcements x100 and for cities that have 1-3 reinforcements it will be number of reinforcements x150. If you hit a city the turn it is being scorched then the city is ''saved'' , suffers a 1/2 effect of scorching.

OR

Kirjutas Grimm, 17.01.2014 at 13:36

Kirjutas The Tactician, 17.01.2014 at 08:52

Replying to Grimm, elaborate more please do you mean you want to raze cities with units?

Yes, I think it would make more sense that actual units be used to raise cities. Here's my updated proposal:

Units assigned to raise a city would deal collateral damage to the city. The amount of collateral damage dealt is the unit's attack rating (could be adjusted for balance like: atk x 0.5 or atk - 2). Collateral damage would have the same effect on population & income that it does in the current game mechanics.

These conditions would need to be met for successfully raising a city:
1) Only units remaining in city after battle phase is completed actually deal damage to the city. Units killed defending the city do not participate in raising.
2) You can't raise the city if you have used it to built units during the same turn.
3) Militia can't raise cities. When you capture a city, you get free militia. You can't use the locals to sack their own town! It also makes sens balance-wise. Either this, or make militia raising damage very small (ex.: atk - 2). This way, GW can still use its loads militia to some effect.
4) (optional) To make raising a city more difficult, units could be required to remain in the city for 2 turns.

Why I think using units to raise would work better than $:
1) You couldn't just raise a city you capped with 1 mili by spending some cash.
2) It addresses the issue Arbitrator raised with stealth units. Marines would need to "camp" for 1 turn in the captured city to raise it, making them vulnerable to attack.
3) It removes a potential problem where cheap strats like IMP, PD & GW could raise more easily as they have more money on hand. With this system, high attack strats like RA would probably be the best at raising. Defense strats, although not as good at raising, might use it more often though since their units tend to camp in cities.

Tell me what you think,

Cheers

Hmm, interesting. That would be cool

A massacre to kill the whole population? Thats too cruel for an online strategy game.
Nice idea though.

Sounds good

Iinteresting but will be bored + we cant change the AW way of playing

It sounds cool bt it will a disaster for poor countries like eastern eu

Kirjutas InnateWonder, 15.01.2014 at 09:19

A massacre to kill the whole population? Thats too cruel for an online strategy game.
Nice idea though.

Excuse me, but this strategy game is already cruel. You can basically kill the whole population of a city.
I approve Tactician's idea of razing, but it should be more costy than the city income.

Sound's good since bombers make biggest casualties haha. Well good idea

Having an idea is good but you have tell exactly how it will be used. Income of the city is usually not as much as income of the country so for most cities less than 100 will let you scorch the cities. That is not quite fair to the opposition who depend on the cities. If you are scorching cities with 8 reinforcements it will play a very important part.

Imagine turn 4 of world war 2 germany takes gb with america heading on the way. What germany will do is scorch all the english cities except London(assuming you are not allowed to scorch all cites of the country). Now all germany will have to do is defend london with everything and england dead.

One option is making scorching cities expensive, 1000 upwards in cost but in lot of games it will not be a problem. Also what are the rules of scorching ? What happens when you hit a city that is being scorched that turn. Will it be scorched or not. All that and many more things will have to figured out before the idea can be tried and implemented.

I didn't liked the idea .. javascript:addtext('message_body', ':nogood:')

I Do like that Idea One: Because higher ranks know more to Atwar they're good strategists if the lower ranks could scorch city like lets say you scorch a capitol when someone has 20 infantry to attack it with well hell you leave to save manpower and scorch the city Then you could comeback with tanks to retake it This would be Good in a zombie Apocalypse game when 500 Zombies are coming and you gotta leave hell i Support it Fully

Secondary Legionaire Commander Warman323
The Roman Empire

May the Red Flag Fly Over Our Enemies!!!!!!!!!!

SPQR

This would buff rushes and ninja attacks... why not!

I like the idea. I think something similar has already been proposed - a strategy with higher collateral. But this seems neat too.

Kirjutas The Tactician, 15.01.2014 at 09:14

The cost to raze could be the number of reinforcements x100 and for cities that have 1-3 reinforcements it will be number of reinforcements x150. If you hit a city the turn it is being scorched then the city is ''saved'' , suffers a 1/2 effect of scorching.

I'd suggest it work like this:

New option in the city menu: "raise city"
Units deal collateral damage to city equal to their attack/2 (could be less or more). Only units remaining in city after battle phase is completed actually deal damage to the city.

This way, you need units to raise a city. Also, raising a city wouldn't be an all-or-nothing thing; you could still do a little damage even if you have a fewer units.

I don't think this is a good idea, it's realistic sure but, in games you can just take your enemy's land, raze it, then if they recapture it, it's completely worthless and it's just gg.
In gameplay terms it gives you an unfair advantage if you take your enemy's land first, and we can't all resort to using PD for cheap Infantryspam.

As a stealth player - this would be op

Replying to Grimm, elaborate more please do you mean you want to raze cities with units?


replying to Pyrrhus, this costs much, even if you got your hands on enemy land it would be costly. You can't do it much.

Kirjutas Goblin, 17.01.2014 at 10:00

This is not realistic jesus! XD ...how would an army exterminate couple of milion people ,all does bullets and shit ...not to mention could you do this wit 1 militia or would you need 10 tanks or what ...and please people only dude in history ever that has done this to a whole empire is gengis ...romans didnt do this , hitler didnt do this for god sake ...in short jesus some of you are worst then adolf :p

huehueue

On a serious note though, i got this idea when reading about the Russians burning down Moscow so Napoleon couldn't get it. Also, razing a city doesn't necessarily mean killing all the people in it, people just leave before it gets burnt :p I mean you don't have to be that cruel to kill the people in it.

Kirjutas The Tactician, 17.01.2014 at 08:52

Replying to Grimm, elaborate more please do you mean you want to raze cities with units?

Yes, I think it would make more sense that actual units be used to raise cities. Here's my updated proposal:

Units assigned to raise a city would deal collateral damage to the city. The amount of collateral damage dealt is the unit's attack rating (could be adjusted for balance like: atk x 0.5 or atk - 2). Collateral damage would have the same effect on population & income that it does in the current game mechanics.

These conditions would need to be met for successfully raising a city:
1) Only units remaining in city after battle phase is completed actually deal damage to the city. Units killed defending the city do not participate in raising.
2) You can't raise the city if you have used it to built units during the same turn.
3) Militia can't raise cities. When you capture a city, you get free militia. You can't use the locals to sack their own town! It also makes sens balance-wise. Either this, or make militia raising damage very small (ex.: atk - 2). This way, GW can still use its loads militia to some effect.
4) (optional) To make raising a city more difficult, units could be required to remain in the city for 2 turns.

Why I think using units to raise would work better than $:
1) You couldn't just raise a city you capped with 1 mili by spending some cash.
2) It addresses the issue Arbitrator raised with stealth units. Marines would need to "camp" for 1 turn in the captured city to raise it, making them vulnerable to attack.
3) It removes a potential problem where cheap strats like IMP, PD & GW could raise more easily as they have more money on hand. With this system, high attack strats like RA would probably be the best at raising. Defense strats, although not as good at raising, might use it more often though since their units tend to camp in cities.

Kirjutas Grimm, 17.01.2014 at 13:36

Kirjutas The Tactician, 17.01.2014 at 08:52

Replying to Grimm, elaborate more please do you mean you want to raze cities with units?

Yes, I think it would make more sense that actual units be used to raise cities. Here's my updated proposal:

Units assigned to raise a city would deal collateral damage to the city. The amount of collateral damage dealt is the unit's attack rating (could be adjusted for balance like: atk x 0.5 or atk - 2). Collateral damage would have the same effect on population & income that it does in the current game mechanics.

These conditions would need to be met for successfully raising a city:
1) Only units remaining in city after battle phase is completed actually deal damage to the city. Units killed defending the city do not participate in raising.
2) You can't raise the city if you have used it to built units during the same turn.
3) Militia can't raise cities. When you capture a city, you get free militia. You can't use the locals to sack their own town! It also makes sens balance-wise. Either this, or make militia raising damage very small (ex.: atk - 2). This way, GW can still use its loads militia to some effect.
4) (optional) To make raising a city more difficult, units could be required to remain in the city for 2 turns.

Why I think using units to raise would work better than $:
1) You couldn't just raise a city you capped with 1 mili by spending some cash.
2) It addresses the issue Arbitrator raised with stealth units. Marines would need to "camp" for 1 turn in the captured city to raise it, making them vulnerable to attack.
3) It removes a potential problem where cheap strats like IMP, PD & GW could raise more easily as they have more money on hand. With this system, high attack strats like RA would probably be the best at raising. Defense strats, although not as good at raising, might use it more often though since their units tend to camp in cities.

Good idea!

Full support.
I strongly believe that AW needs improvement in order to become more interesting and this feature would add a lot of fun and strategy into the game. Very nice idea especially that it doesn't add neither absolute advantage nor disadvantage for anyone using it, it depends on where and when it's used in order to fit the situation.

This idea is pretty cool and would add an interesting new element to the game. I would say I only somewhat support though. Reason being I would rather eventually benefit from the reinforcements of a city when I take the country's capital than raze it. Personal preference though, and I could see how this idea could potentially add some extra strategical element.

If it were implemented, I would have to go more with Grimm's version than your money version though. Less wealthy nations that utilize their troops efficiently and are still able to win in the current game shouldn't be punished for lack of funding. Should definitely be based of the attacking units' attack strength (like mentioned) so that the razer will have to sacrifice valuable troops that could be used elsewhere to stay in a city to raze it.

Read the date.

Read the date!!!
If you make a topic and the idea already exist ...suggested before!!! xD

What i want to say ...nothing wrong with someone bumping an old idea if he likes it ...better then making another thread dedicated to the same idea.

Kirjutas Dethpickle, 06.07.2014 at 16:00

This idea is pretty cool and would add an interesting new element to the game. I would say I only somewhat support though. Reason being I would rather eventually benefit from the reinforcements of a city when I take the country's capital than raze it. Personal preference though, and I could see how this idea could potentially add some extra strategical element.

If it were implemented, I would have to go more with Grimm's version than your money version though. Less wealthy nations that utilize their troops efficiently and are still able to win in the current game shouldn't be punished for lack of funding. Should definitely be based of the attacking units' attack strength (like mentioned) so that the razer will have to sacrifice valuable troops that could be used elsewhere to stay in a city to raze it.

To obtain similar effects in a game, map/scenario makers can establish units with high collateral: "scorched earth warfare".

Bump

Mfw i forgot i even proposed this. anyway ya bump