Burning Atlanta?

[Owl]

In EU 1 & 2 there was no way of accidentally or deliberately damaging cities in war. So for example once fortifications reached level 3 (or whatever) they stayed at that level for the rest of the game even if the city was besieged continually and battered by cannon for 400 years. And the population never went down (although further growth was affected by various factors including looting). This was presumably becasue the cities were just representations of the level of population and infrastructure in the province as a whole.

I was reading various threads where the American Civil War was mentioned and suddenly thought about the burning of Atlanta .... and wondered how the cities would be represented in Victoria - whether they would be capable of being sacked, burned, razed to the ground etc ...

 

[Habbaku]

It'd certainly make sense to be able to sack/loot/burn cities, even if not to the ground. Also, I think it should be possible to loot your own cities, a la Russian tactics, at a heavy penalty to growth/economic development, but would give you a small monetary bonus...and deprive your enemy of the city.

Personally, though, in Atlanta's case, I'd give that an event all its own. But, then, I'm a biased Georgian.

 

[cthulhu]

I suspect that cities will be handled like in EU2.

 

[unmerged(13394)]

Originally posted by Owl
In EU 1 & 2 there was no way of accidentally or deliberately damaging cities in war. So for example once fortifications reached level 3 (or whatever) they stayed at that level for the rest of the game even if the city was besieged continually and battered by cannon for 400 years. And the population never went down (although further growth was affected by various factors including looting).

Actually when siege is succesful, it is possible that fort will downgrade one level... At least that's what I have seen couple times... But it's rare though... And the growth modifier often goes negative when province is sieged.

 

[Habbaku]

Re: Re: Burning Atlanta?

Originally posted by JouniL
Actually when siege is succesful, it is possible that fort will downgrade one level... At least that's what I have seen couple times... But it's rare though... And the growth modifier often goes negative when province is sieged.

Yeah, but the province tends to up losing a whopping twenty citizens. That's definitely peanuts compared to the thousands that moved/left/died in Southern cities.

 

[unmerged(12746)]

This is a great point. I feel though that it falls under a military tactic and from the looks of Victoria, and other Paradox games the focus is a broader mix of gaming elements. Burning cities is a viable and oft used military in history but how do you get it into a game?

I used to play a game called Romance of the Three Kingdoms, in version 3 your army could besige the gate which had a defense value, and your troops had an attack value. Once you broke through the gate you could attack the defenders, and raise the city. The cities had specific zones and you could set fires to them that would decrease the value of say the "Market" and decrease the revenue from the market to the owner of the city.

So it can be done, but the focus of that game was centered on the cities. They were the life blood of your empire. Paradox games are more territory driven and many cities can be in one territory, so raising a city dosent seem to be an option based on the effects of the action to the owner of the city. Having the fortification level drop 1 isnt a real representation of what happens when a city is raised, and because of the paradox gaming model I dont think it can be done with a good depiction of its effects to an economy.

Unless the game changes its province focus from EUII I dont think its going to be a big factor, save for a fortification loss for the province.

Odin

 

[Habbaku]

Ah, but, as you've probably noticed, there are many more provinces in Victoria...That may mean that razing a single, large city would be possible... *shrug*

 

[unmerged(14393)]

*Lol* I hope they don´t implement this feature in CIV-style...where one could wipe out an entire mega city in just one turn... Silly Civ.

 

[Habbaku]

Oh, I firmly agree that wiping out a city shouldn't be possible, but heavily reducing/rendering the city useless should definitely be possible.

 

[Tim O]

Destroying infrastructure, ie. tearing up rail tracks should definitly be possible.

 

[crazy canuck]

Originally posted by Timothy Ortiz
Destroying infrastructure, ie. tearing up rail tracks should definitly be possible.

No doubt about it. As you and I discussed ealier, not only did the rails provide the necessary transportation for armies and goods in Europe, it also was critical to settling the west coast of North America.

Which brings me to the discussion about guerrila warfare. Imagine rebellious native Americans ripping up the tracks and cutting the telegraph wires and then vanishing back into the wilderness.

 

[Tim O]

I don't need to imagine it, that really happaned.

 

[crazy canuck]

And here I thought it only happened on the speghetti westerns

 

[unmerged(9563)]

I think it should have -population, infra, ect., but it should also cause a little BB? People would be mad if Paris was raized to the ground, I think. (Though I may be wrong, but a little BB or whatever they're using may make players more reluctant to lay waste to entire countries).

 

[Tim O]

The Germans considered doing it with phosphate incendiary bombs in 1918. The longer the war went on and the worse things got the bigger and more vengefull German war aims became.

 

[unmerged(1973)]

Originally posted by Habbaku


Personally, though, in Atlanta's case, I'd give that an event all its own. But, then, I'm a biased Georgian.

Well, the burning of Atlanta was off course nothing compared to the burning of Columbia, SC. Shermans bummers really took off their gloves as soon as they crossed into south carolina

 

[Owl]

Originally posted by Frodon
Well, the burning of Atlanta was off course nothing compared to the burning of Columbia, SC. Shermans bummers really took off their gloves as soon as they crossed into south carolina

I expect you're right, but I was just going on the basis of that set of American Civil War cards I had thirty-odd years ago.

 

[unmerged(1973)]

Originally posted by Owl
I expect you're right, but I was just going on the basis of that set of American Civil War cards I had thirty-odd years ago.

Well, Atlanta got a lot more publicity afterwards. Mostly because of "Gone with the wind"

 

[unmerged(15764)]

then it should be possible to first destroy your opponents infrastructure industry everything then sign a peace agreement... muahaha imagine your opponents reaction when he sees his destroyed cities im evil....

 

[unmerged(6448)]

My great great grandfather had a home in a part of Atlanta that didn't burn (it was actually outside the city a bit). His family had evacuated on the last train out of the city before Sherman got there (he was fighting in Virginia at the time). The home didn't get burned but a cannonball was left on the diningroom table as some sort of message.

I am against the burning of Atlanta, btw. But I am all for an event burning New York City.