What are the benefits/drawbacks to razing or keeping an enemy city?

Keep it and increase your maintenance.

Raze it and you aren't growing.

Both have upsides too.

-abs

There's no one right answer. It completely depends on many factors; location, resources, maintenance. Sometimes I raze cities, other times they are too valuable to burn.

There's no one right answer. It completely depends on many factors; location, resources, maintenance. Sometimes I raze cities, other times they are too valuable to burn.

Can you give examples of the factors you look at and what influences your decision?

For many people there is a simple algorithm you can use for early war that results in possible city-captures.

1. If it's a Holy City, keep it.
2. If it's an AI Capitol, keep it.
3. Else, raze.

You shouldn't apply to a mid, or late-game, war but it works pretty good as a guideline for ancient or classical era warring.

-abs

Keeping a city means 1) it's high quality, and 2) I can afford it.

If either conditions fail to apply, I will raze. If I'm fighting an overseas pillaging war without any intention of capturing territory, then I will raze just about any city, including unshrined holy cities and cities containing unimportant wonders.

My algorithm.

Rule 1. If its a city that I can keep, then I keep it.
Rule 2. If I am at war its to gain cities. If I can't afford to gain more cities then why am I at war?

Very very rarely do I raze a city. Nearly every city can be made profitable and if it can't be made profitable then I probably should finish my war and consolidate my gains.

Cities are way too valuable to raze. They are free hammers from settlers, free trade routes and increased production and science protential. The more the better.

Another factor to consider is whether you are likely to completely destroy the civ to get rid of its culture; or whether you will have to vassalise it or use it as a trade partner. The razing of each one of its cities makes diplomacy -3 and after about 2 razings you will not be able to use diplomacy or trade techs as they will hate you. So if the civ is likely to be around for a long time I keep the city even if it does cost a bit of extra maintenance.

A lot of people don't really appreciate how easy it is to make a city pay for itself, after about 20 turns of losss. If you have CoL and Currency there are very few cities that can't be made to at least pay for themselves even if they're not that spectacular. The research slider might drop lower but often the amount of beakers stays the same or increases. You can always turn hammers to gold or beakers while growing slowly and whip in buildings you need. Then the only reason to raze a city is if it is in a really bad position (like 1 tile inland from a coast) and you want to build a better placed city or two.

My algorithm.

Rule 1. If its a city that I can keep, then I keep it.
Rule 2. If I am at war its to gain cities. If I can't afford to gain more cities then why am I at war?

Very very rarely do I raze a city. Nearly every city can be made profitable and if it can't be made profitable then I probably should finish my war and consolidate my gains.

Cities are way too valuable to raze. They are free hammers from settlers, free trade routes and increased production and science protential. The more the better.

^^^Only acceptable answer.

Well you can be at war because you were attacked and are defending yourself, but you are unlikely to be pursuing cities in that case.

There are also some late game reasons to raze an enemy city. If the city is on another continent and you can't keep it anyway due to the counter attack or oppressive culture that has been long established then a quick naval invasion can steal the city which is razed. Other cases of late game razing is when the other civ is going for a cultural victory or even a space race.

Never had a runaway space racer that I couldn't stop with pillaging. I'll avoid those huge modern city garrisions, thanks.

Never had a runaway culturemonger at all.

If you're fighting a modern war for real, keeping cities is always smart because they give your stack an extra 10% healing per turn.

Double Post :(

It's obviously better to keep cities in the Modern age, if you can, since that increases your score apart from anything else. But in some games that's not always possible due to the strength of counter attacks. Just because you've never had that happen to you yet doesn't mean it can't.

Any medieval or later war tends to have a lot of city keeping for me.

Ancient and classical warfare has a lot of razing, not a lot of keeping.

Rushing, I raze everything except capitols and Holy cities. Pre-pottery, pre-COL, pre-Currency, pre-Writing, you either raze or watch your economy die. There is no recovery from 0% research without at least pottery, libraries, CS, or markets. You just can't pull off a rush if you're keeping cities.

Also, there's only about a million reasons to go to war. To gain cities or land is a fine one, but it's far from the only. I will routinely go to war to simply eliminate an inconvenient AI. Hell, sometimes I'll go to war because I've had a crappy day at work and I have this small army of axemen and I want to watch them kill things.

-abs

Why do people always keep capital cities? They are generally well placed but I've seen some that are quite undeveloped before and worth razing.

Why do people always keep capital cities? They are generally well placed but I've seen some that are quite undeveloped before and worth razing.
The map generator always ensures that the starting settler position of each civilization is somewhat balanced and this generally means Capital cities have more resources in the fat cross than other cities.

I've also heard that Capital cities get a bonus income from trade routes, However, I'm not positive whether the city retains this bonus when captured or come to think of it if a palace is built elsewhere and the capital moves peacefully. Also does the bonus move to the new capital or maybe it gets duplicated? Can anyone answer this?

I don't think capitals get any special bonusses for trade, they do benefit from being bigger (and captured capitals usually grow bigger) and the best foreign trade routes usually go to bigger cities. I think that is all there is to it.

I only raze them if:
1) I can't afford to keep them, because they are too expensive or far away;
2) because they are really small desert cities or places they just founded so they won't be destroyed;
3) if they will just be retaken;
or 4) if I am very, very angry!

Usually I keep them because in most cases the more cities the better.

I usually go to war to gain land so I keep most of the cities. If there is a lot of overlap between cities I sometimes raze the small ones whose tiles can be worked by other cities.

Usually I rush so early that there are only capital cities to take and they are usually worth the money (in my last game the city I took was better than my own capital in research, gold and hammers) but if I happen to stumble on other cities during such an early rush I raze them. I can always build a new one there once me economy recovers.

Keeping a city means 1) it's high quality, and 2) I can afford it.

If either conditions fail to apply, I will raze. If I'm fighting an overseas pillaging war without any intention of capturing territory, then I will raze just about any city, including unshrined holy cities and cities containing unimportant wonders.

How can you tell if you can afford it? Maybe an explanation of city cost is necessary for me to understand fully.

Can you give examples of the factors you look at and what influences your decision?

I tend to raze if:
Distance makes maintenance costs too high
too many cities overlapping (increases maintenance but limited potential)
Too many coastal tile, but the city is not on the coast (means limited use sea tiles)
Other bad locations, little or no resources, or little food potential meaning I could not use it as an effective SE city.

Otherwise, I will keep the city.

Edit: I should add if I am pissed at a particular civilization, I will raze cities as part of a scorched-earth vengeful policy. Perhaps not smart, but can sure be fun!

Just wanted to add that another disadvantage of razing is the possibility of partisans.

Heathen

The more Cities you have the higher your CIty maintenance is. Not sure of the figures mind.

I try to keep any I conquer, but will raze if it won't enhance my Empire.

One thing I found to my cost recently, everytime I razed a City, half a dozen partizan defenders sprouted up and attacked my invading force.

The more Cities you have the higher your CIty maintenance is. Not sure of the figures mind.

The maintenace cost of a city has two components, one due to distance from palace and the other due to number of cities. The problem you get at the start of the game, and this is why people fear maintenance costs so much, is as you add cities the maintenance costs of all your existing cities is increased regardless of their distance and size. Fortunately, the number of cities component is capped at 6 gold in all cities (at Emperor level) and a courthouse reduces that to 3. Once that cap has been reached (at about 14 cities, IIRC) you only need worry about the actual cost of the actual city you're keeping as other cities are no longer affected by the decision to keep the city. A city will then cost 3 + distance cost (depends on city size and distance). In the late game the distance cost can be removed entirely by running State Property so the cost then simply becomes 3 per city.


One thing I found to my cost recently, everytime I razed a City, half a dozen partizan defenders sprouted up and attacked my invading force.
A good reason not to raze :lol: I have to admit, I have not intentionally razed a city in BtS yet :blush: so I guess I'm not exactly well qualified to comment in this thread.

Cities with a lot of grassland or floodplain tiles are good choices to keep, especially if they are fairly good size. They will eventually pay for themselves and contribute a good amount of science/espionage/hammers towards propelling you to victory. Cities on ice, desert, and tundra I tend to level as they will just kill your maintenence costs. Cities on plains, or with a lot of ocean tiles are on the bubble depending on resources present.

One thing to keep in mind is if you have repairable relations with the civ, and you think you might need them to be an ally later on and you're fighting them, then you might not want to attack any cities you would have to raze. As razing a city gets a -2 penalty on diplomacy and this does not go away with time. So if you go in and burn down 3 border cities, and sign a peace treaty, you've still got a permanent enemy that will (depending on the AI) go after you any chance they get.

I'm surprised nobody else has mentioned this yet:

If you're pursuing a Conquest Victory, raze all but the "best" cities to keep yourself adequately beneath the land area %.

Just wanted to add that another disadvantage of razing is the possibility of partisans.




Partisans? Haven't come across them yet in Civ 4.

I always keep. I do it for the territory, and have fun renaming something like Tokyo or Moscow after tiny villages in my area when I'm playing England.

Mostly when I am conquering I am doing so in the modern era, so I have upwards of +100/+200/+300 gold per turn so I can afford the upkeep.

I'm surprised nobody else has mentioned this yet:

If you're pursuing a Conquest Victory, raze all but the "best" cities to keep yourself adequately beneath the land area %.

Or just vassalize your opponents without taking much land. They contribute only 50% towards domination but 100% towards conquest.

There are also some late game reasons to raze an enemy city. If the city is on another continent and you can't keep it anyway due to the counter attack or oppressive culture that has been long established then a quick naval invasion can steal the city which is razed. Other cases of late game razing is when the other civ is going for a cultural victory or even a space race.


Late game culture sabotage is a very good reason to raze. Probably the only one I ever use. You don't want to garrison and risk the city going back into AI hands in that case. Razing the city totally acheives the objective in one hit.

Space race I am not so sure - maybe if you know where their iron works city is and its very close. But losing one city doesn't dent their space ambitions too much. Unless they are mainly coastal then a full scale thermonuclear war might be the best option. That usually slows down the space race a little.

But in any other case of intercontinental invasion I will keep the cities. By the time I can do an intercontinental raid I can easily afford the maintenance either by building FP, running state property or just setting up a colony. Any of these is better than razing.

Partisans? Haven't come across them yet in Civ 4.
<snip>

I do not raze often. But in some games where I have razed the cities, partisans have appeared. They can definitely slow the advance. Sometimes they appear around the razed city; sometimes in the capital. They are not a specific (weak) unit as in previous versions, but are units of the era and can be a real hinderance.

Heathen

Or just vassalize your opponents without taking much land. They contribute only 50% towards domination but 100% towards conquest.

In a recent Warlords game I killed everyone but my vassals and did NOT win a conquest victory.

CK

Suggestion on razing: It's all about CoL. Before, keep what you can afford; after, you can afford almost any city.

Q: Razing makes them hate you, but does it affect the threshold at which they will capitulate?

In a recent Warlords game I killed everyone but my vassals and did NOT win a conquest victory.


If all your vassals are from capitulation you will win a conquest victory. You are only prevented if one of your vassals volunteered to become your vassal.

@InvisibleStalke
I won a Conquest victory (Tiny, Prince) with a voluntary Vassal (Wang Kon). Hannibal attacked WK. The turn I finished researching Feudalism WK offered to vassalize to me. I then attacked Hannibal and captured all of his cities. When Hannibal's last city fell I received a Conquest victory.

didnt won any prince or harder level games... but considering keeping or razeing, i tend to keep most of them especially if they are on the good spot (lots plains/hills/resource tiles). if two or more cities are overlapping i'll keep one (best location) and raze the others.
razing is problematic if you're after conquest or domination (my favorite) cause after some time enemy will found city on the same location if its possible, so sometimes ill keep even those cities that are on very poor locations.

maybe razing and leaving some army on the spot would not be a bad idea :)

I have very rarely deliberately razed a city unless it was a situation where it just wasn't practical to keep it.

I rarely raze cities. Even when I raze cities in the ANCIENT era I get partisans every single time...anyone know how to stop this?

I rarely raze cities. Even when I raze cities in the ANCIENT era I get partisans every single time...anyone know how to stop this?

Yeah I would like to know what makes this trigger. I've had trouble with this in every era this current game I'm playing. That can be a big deterrant to razing a city.