Checks and balances should exist to make sure this isn't abused to deny invaders a juicy city at the 11th hour: Abandonning a city could take several turns, can't be done under siege, or have other reasonable restrictions.

+1

I agree, this is very much needed.

Also, I agree that some wartime balance is needed. Possibly, it should not function while ate war.

Bankipriel wrote:

I agree, this is very much needed.

Also, I agree that some wartime balance is needed. Possibly, it should not function while ate war.

The only time I think it should be stopped is in the middle of a siege, maybe if there are enemy units in the territory. (right now you can ransack the city in 1 turn outside of a siege)

Another reason why this feature is very much needed: the AI doesn't know the ransack-rebuild trick so when they get many cities thru conquest and end up way over cap they get crippled with -5000 influence per turn. Adding this feature and let the AI use it in those situations would increase AI competitiveness which is very much needed

Bankipriel wrote:

I agree, this is very much needed.

Also, I agree that some wartime balance is needed. Possibly, it should not function while ate war.

It could be use as a scorched earth strategy, it was pretty effective against Napoleon, so why not

Super idea! I was looking for this since the game release. It feels wired that a feature like this one was not included in the base game. Hope this will be transformed in a base game mechanics!!

Too powerful, I disagree with this suggestion.  You've basically just said - make it WAY more advantageous to capture cities without thinking about the strategy.  For one, population should NOT be distributed.  Since population is the cost of raising an army this is WAY too powerful. There already is an option which incurs a correctly difficult penalty for making this strategic decision - ransack it.

I agree with the this, ransacking and rebuilding  is way too complicated and feels like a no needed feature, it gives nothing to gameplay, so +1 to this idea of downgrade

+1 

Wald

RedSirus wrote:

[...]

1. The city's infrastructure is lost.  Yes, that's the cost to abandoning the city instead of merging. [...]

I'm unsure if this is that much of a cost in the end. If your intent is to merge the abandoned territory with a city, it will have all the infrastructure of the city you are merging it with, so I don't think anyone would care that the original infrastructure of the abandoned city is lost. It would be lost anyway if you were to merge them without abandoning (unless the newly captured city had more infrastructure than yours). Otherwise I think it's a great idea and a very nice way to make something that's already happening less jarring and more inmersive.

Morgawr wrote:

Another reason why this feature is very much needed: the AI doesn't know the ransack-rebuild trick so when they get many cities thru conquest and end up way over cap they get crippled with -5000 influence per turn. Adding this feature and let the AI use it in those situations would increase AI competitiveness which is very much needed

Agree that the current situation is a real handicap to the AI.

Also, have you noticed that when you capture enemy cities during a war, sometimes they will upgrade their outpost to a city. That's another thing that can put them over the cap when the war is over (if you don't take their cities)

And to the OP, the one part I disagree with is turning districts to ruins. I think RUINS should be eliminated from the game. They add nothing but an annoyance. They serve no purpose except to mess up the exploitation mechanic.

Oddible wrote:

Too powerful, I disagree with this suggestion.  You've basically just said - make it WAY more advantageous to capture cities without thinking about the strategy.  For one, population should NOT be distributed.  Since population is the cost of raising an army this is WAY too powerful. There already is an option which incurs a correctly difficult penalty for making this strategic decision - ransack it.

I don't see why this would not "require thinking about the strategy" to be honest.  Depending on the situation, you may not get but 1 or 2 population from a city of 15+ people if it's not near your territory.  Also, as others have mentioned -- the A.I. is not capable of calculating a ransack, so adding this sort of feature would allow the A.I. to play more competitively -- which is needed FOR sure.