Destruction

I can't think of a single WWII example of such an occurrence as someone razing their own city before it falls to the enemy.

With the exception of blowing bridges (infrastructure)...Can you?

well, In that case let me give you a clear example

with Napoleon and Hitler it happened, when they both attacked Russia, Russia destroyed every food supply, burned the villages, poisoned the water, and burned the fields, so that the Germans, and before them the French army wouldn't get any food, water, and shelter against the inhospitable environment

Yet both the attacks you mentioned made it right to Moscow, or to the dorstep (in WWII),

I would say the current game mechanic of attacking a province (city included), and damaging it's buildings and dropping it's Moral accurately reflects what happened when armies advance.

Adding an ADDITIONAL game mechanic which mimics an existing mechanic which is quite accurately depicts what happened is... adding more work to something that's already working fine.

I just don't see how that improves the game.

it gives the opportunity to destroy for example a fortress that you now that the enemy sooner or latter would take

the Botton of destroying would only appear if you click on the configuration

generally speaking it would be quite the good idea with all due respect

Weather it's a good idea or not is irrelevant... has it actually happened... is there a historical precedent for such a feature making into the game.

This to me doesn't have any real world justification for making it into the game.

It never happened, to the point where it was a common or frequent military tactic used by any side during WWII.

guy, I have already told you, I will repeat it again , IT HAPPENED

I don't know why but I fell like we have talked about this before

it is what the soviets did when Napoleon/Hitler attacked them, destroying everything beforehand , this destruction was an important fact that lead to the downfoald of both the German and France army

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that WE should not be doing your research for you... you should present your Idea well though out..

But I will give you a hint here... What you are describing.. sounds to me as

Scorched Earth Tactics

If that's what you are referring to... you are welcome.

The one and only example I could find any reference to (based on my exhaustive and diligent 32 second check on my Google Machine) was Soviet Union doing this ahead of the German advance.

Do you really think a One Off event is so important, strategically significant, and tactically decisive that it needs to be an available option for every nation on the map...?

first of all, they aren't 1, they are two historically important time

the first one was the cause of the France forces, which were till then, imparable

second, I think Hitler was an important dictator, If you think Napoleon and Hitler weren't important , whatever, have a nice day , but I don't understand a point

first I gave my idea, you told me to link to it a historical moment, I gave you too, then you tell me they aren't enought important while they sure are

I don't know what do want me to say now...

I guess I'm trying to get you to explain how current Moral dropping to 25%, and city upgrades taking a hit, do not reflect via current and existing game mechanics... a Scorched Earth "occurrence", when a province/city changes hands.

What additional realism would this proposal bring to the game which is currently missing or understated?

Simply put, your suggestion is already represented quite accurately in the game right now. What do you think is missing?

you know, I was playing like one month ago with France, and I had an ally (Germany) who fortificated all his country to stop the Asian invasion but when he sow that he could not stop them himself because the asian country who attacked him had many commands(I am not sure If this is its right name) then he largely arged with me about this aspect and I thought about righting it down in the forum, later on I tried to reconquer Germany(he had a colony so he survived) and

it took me almost twice as long as I thought it would take because of its many fortresses. It is the reason of why I think it would be a good idea, the is too the option of seeing the countries on many colors, it does have a use but many people said it is useless, I do agree that you don´t use it to often , but I think its the same case for this one too

Whenever anyone writes an article about destroying buildings... it is always about, how good it would be to not have the enemy use your buildings, and you should be able to destroy them before being taken over. Not ONCE is anyone considering how good it is, as an attacker, to have some spoils of your conquest, and how GOOD it is that when you conquer something, you get some profit from it...

Current destruction rate of taking over an enemy city is REALLY bad enough... really no need to have petty vindictive losers take more out of your well-earned spoils...