Anyone else tired of this? I find that razing an enemy city is almost always the best option. It's a bummer. There's no fun in taking other people's stuff by force if then you don't get to play with it! It is for this exact reason that puppet states are no fun. At first I thought they'd be great....probably because I assumed that they'd be like vassals. You know, independent states in theory being controlled behind the scenes by my government. To make puppet cities "yours" (i.e. they are part of your Civ) but give you no control over them is simply no fun. Go back to Soren's motto that players like to be able to control things and when things are placed out of a player's control they become less fun!*


I know we've known about this stuff for ages and have talked about it fo a while but it has been bugging me more and more recently. Heck, not only is it (somewhat) counter-productive to wage a war of conquest I can't even wage a war of liberation because you can only liberate ONE city from a conquered Civ! In my most recent game Japan had conquered all of the US except for Washington DC. I went in in the hopes of liberating the uS from evil Japanese imperialist control.....but you can't. It's literally not even an option. OK, sure you can take the city and trade it to the US (as I did) but the Civ you're liberating sure won't love you for it or anything!

War is supposed to be the main attaction of this installation....can't they at least make it rewarding and flexible?


* He was talking about the spread of religion but it is true here as well, I think.

I am. I just raze raze raze. Sometimes, I keep a city, annex it, build a few settlers... then raze.

Haven't played with new patch yet, so I'm hoping Puppetting cities is viable with the changes. But still, I think I'll stick to the razing until they have balance the requirements for the courthouse (maintenance and time to build)

Agreed. I think it's quite odd that a civilization game actually incentivizes genocide by providing it as the best option during a military campaign.

Edit: I've been criticized in the past for calling this genocide. But really, what else would you call the real world equivalent of this behavior?

Agreed.

Heck, not only is it (somewhat) counter-productive to wage a war of conquest I can't even wage a war of liberation because you can only liberate ONE city from a conquered Civ! In my most recent game Japan had conquered all of the US except for Washington DC. I went in in the hopes of liberating the uS from evil Japanese imperialist control.....but you can't. It's literally not even an option. OK, sure you can take the city and trade it to the US (as I did) but the Civ you're liberating sure won't love you for it or anything!

THIS really annoys me too. I'm not a warmongerer, but I do like to maintain the balance of power. So if one civ is starting to get too big through conquest, I like to "liberate" conquered cities and restore the weaker civ. However - as you identify - you have to annex, then visit the diplomacy screen and gift them back. And there's no sign of appreciation.

It would be much more rewarding (and convenient) if you were given the option of liberating at the point you take over the city. Why, if you return one worker, are we taken to the diplomacy screen where the leader thanks you, but liberate an entire city and ... nothing. You probably would get some snarky comment about being an aggressor!

I'm getting a bit off topic now, but I also wish you could:

(1) connect a declaration of war with protection of a city state so you don't "lose face" for declaring war on another civ who attacks one of your city states. ie, when the Civ pops up and says "sorry about attacking your allied city state" you should be given the option of threatening war unless they withdraw, rather than the somewhat meaningless "you'll pay for this". If they don't back down, war is declared, but you should suffer less of a diplomatic penalty than just an unprovoked declaration.

(2) gift units to civs like you can to city states. As it is now, you have to actually transport them to the civ's territory and then gift them once the unit is standing on the territory. If you do not have open borders, you just cannot do it. So you cannot wage wars of proxy by gifting units to a weaker civ under attack from a stronger one (if the weaker civ has no open borders with you). I would think that a civ that was "out to win for itself" would willingly accept materiel, even if relations had been cold. The thing I really like about giving to the city states is that you do not have to go through the tedium of manually moving the unit to the city state.

Just my two cents... :)

I'm getting a bit off topic now, but I also wish you could:

(1) connect a declaration of war with protection of a city state so you don't "lose face" for declaring war on another civ who attacks one of your city states. ie, when the Civ pops up and says "sorry about attacking your allied city state" you should be given the option of threatening war unless they withdraw, rather than the somewhat meaningless "you'll pay for this". If they don't back down, war is declared, but you should suffer less of a diplomatic penalty than just an unprovoked declaration.

To take this a step further, I think that proper and clear ultimatums IN GENERAL would be really interesting. "If you do not pull your troops out (or make peace with) of Russia in 1/3/5 turns we will declare war!"....that sort of thing. Not this, "demand silk...or else". Make it specific. doesn't have to be too complicated, really, and would be pretty fun, I think.

If you disagree with that idea, remember....

OUR WORDS ARE BACKED WITH NUCLEAR ARMS!!!!

;)

To take this a step further, I think that proper and clear ultimatums IN GENERAL would be really interesting. "If you do not pull your troops out (or make peace with) of Russia in 1/3/5 turns we will declare war!"....that sort of thing. Not this, "demand silk...or else". Make it specific. doesn't have to be too complicated, really, and would be pretty fun, I think.

If you disagree with that idea, remember....

OUR WORDS ARE BACKED WITH NUCLEAR ARMS!!!!

;)

Take your finger off the button: I think that is a GREAT idea. I suppose, at the moment, when we make demands it is implicit that war is a possible outcome. But an explicit threat is always good.

I wish that the UN was an actual peace-keeping body too...

I turned off city razing for my current game. It was too easy for the AI to bulldoze through a weaker civ and then breed their own cities on the ruins of the old.

jjkrause84:

Generally speaking, I don't raze cities. This is because, like you, I like to keep the cities I conquer. I have not found it to be prohibitive to keep annexed cities.

Liberating Civs generally makes them quite friendly to me, giving me favorable trades and giving me open borders and what not. They even vote for me on the UN. I'm not sure why every AI in your game hates you so much.

I find that razing an enemy city is almost always the best option.

Puppet, then annex at your convenience. If you can manage your happiness and economy well, there is no reason to raze your conquests. The new patch should make this easier since you can now completely halt the growth of cities with the 'avoid growth' option.

Hardly ever raze now.. Just puppet then annex it later.. I tend to find I have just wasted time Razing and have to settle the area anyway..

To be fair the razing thing is partially a personal problem as I LOVE collecting SPs so every city that I add is a detriment to my overall aspirations.

That said it does take a very long time for captured cities to 'turn around' which is a little frustrating.

Roxlimn:

When I want to liberate Civs I don't want to liberate a single city.....I want to liberate an entire nation! Otherwise, though yes....that one city empire is generally pretty friendly to me (votes for me for the UN, etc.)

To be fair the razing thing is partially a personal problem as I LOVE collecting SPs so every city that I add is a detriment to my overall aspirations.

The new patch took care of the problem of puppets building barracks and other military buildings, so there is no real detriment to just leaving them as puppets throughout the game.

No detriment but no enjoyment either. I want to CONTROL MY EMPIRE! That's the whole foundation of the game, is it not?

get'n cash

look'n at someth'n perty

and raze'n cities

of these i never tire


the evidence is clear- City Razer in the Moebius Loop Eternal

Puppet, then annex at your convenience. If you can manage your happiness and economy well, there is no reason to raze your conquests. The new patch should make this easier since you can now completely halt the growth of cities with the 'avoid growth' option.

The new puppeting system may make puppeting easier, but annexing is still a chore. The courthouse is the problem here. The upkeep is too prohibitive, and the build times are atrocious. For me, it creates a new system of puppet forever or just raze and get it done with. I especially do the later if the city is a production powerhouse or is strategically important militarily.

The new puppeting system may make puppeting easier, but annexing is still a chore. The courthouse is the problem here. The upkeep is too prohibitive, and the build times are atrocious. For me, it creates a new system of puppet forever or just raze and get it done with. I especially do the later if the city is a production powerhouse or is strategically important militarily.

The other thing in favour of keeping a city as a puppet, rather than annexing and building a courthouse, is the increased cost of social policies, an extra 30% on standard maps. That can significantly affect the time when you get the next SP and the one after that and so on. Puppets hold territory, useful for military purposes, grab resources and can produce science and culture for you at the cost of happiness. I raze bad puppets and keep the good ones.

I often puppet and see how the city behaves. If it builds a monument and then a colosseum (even if this takes 30 turns) then it is probably worth keeping for a long time if you keep it small.

A puppet controls the tiles it originally had (including those the AI purchased with gold) and then usually builds another monument and starts with your culture reset to 20 for a new hex. So 25 turns after the monument is built you get 2 new tiles under control, not a big factor but not useless either. If you raze and replace you can lose control of a lot of tiles including those with luxuries in the 2nd and 3rd ring. It costs a lot of gold to buy those back or a long time for culture to get them.

In one of my first games I puppeted a city and it grew to size 13 :lol: It built a university and an observatory and was bashing out loads of science and then suddenly as I was trying hard to generate another GP to continue the golden age I needed to build the Apollo program and space factories it popped out a GS. I was pleased :)

jjkrause84:

I have liberated entire Civs. They generally stay friendly, as long as you keep their nearest cities away from your own borders. If they grow large, they generally then behave as they normally would.

LegioCorvus:

The upkeep is nothing that's prohibitive. It can seem steep, but sustainable if your Civ is twice the size of any normal Civ. If anything, I think it's the documentation that's keeping people from actually trying annexation and just concluding preemptively that it can't be done. It can.

jjkrause84:

I have liberated entire Civs.

This is not possible. It is literally not possible. You can gift cities back to a Civ and thus kind of, sort of liberate them but you can't just click "liberate" and have it instantly liberate as you should be able to do.

jjkrause84:

Aside from a purely interface difference where you can't feel good about pressing a "liberate" button, what's the big deal? The AIs are generally good about appreciating gifts, I notice, even more so when you gift them their old cities back.

No detriment but no enjoyment either. I want to CONTROL MY EMPIRE! That's the whole foundation of the game, is it not?

...then stop conquering cities. Or annex them and take the hit to your social policies.

There is another thread on the general discussion forums discussing the lack of important decisions in Civ V. Well, here you have a series of important decision to make and priorities to figure out.

Do you conquer, or do you focus on developing your small empire. Do you puppet for the sake of your social policies or do you annex for finer control? You seem to want it all, unless I am misreading you. If control and social policies are your main priorities, the best path for you would probably be to forgo conquest in the first place.

jjkrause84:

Aside from a purely interface difference where you can't feel good about pressing a "liberate" button, what's the big deal? The AIs are generally good about appreciating gifts, I notice, even more so when you gift them their old cities back.

It really has nothing to do with them being grateful as far as I'm concerned. If I liberate a civ it is in my own interest. Firstly they must vote for you in a Diplomatic victory, so that's one good reason to liberate a few cities. They are as good as a liberated CS in that regard.

But the main reason is once a few civs have been eliminated and you're hated and in wars with the others you have no trade partners. Liberate a city and gift them another and they quickly gain a ton of gold (all those TPs and no army = big profit). Then I sell stuff to this reinvigorated empire. I sell them the spare happy resources and strategic resources I have; I even sell them their old cities :lol:

There's a lot of gold in the liberation business and of course they're a buffer state that the AI will try to conquer again so another excuse to go to war on their behalf even if they are not grateful.

They have to be grateful, or the trade gold won't be as high as it normally is. The fact that we can make tons of money out of them points to the fact that liberated Civs are usually very, very, very grateful indeed.

If I conquer then puppet a size 1 city and then decide to annex it when it's a size 5 city, is the unhappiness penalty for occupation the same as if I conquered a size 5 city and decided to annex it? In other words, the size 1 city that I conquered and let grow to size 5 as a puppet had 4 of it's 5 population grow while it was part of my civ; the size 5 city that I conquered grew it's population to 5 as part of another civ.

So does it matter at all (for happiness) that 4 of the 5 "citizens" of the city I conquered and puppeted at size 1 were "born" while the city was part of my civ? Thanks in advance

Puppet, then annex at your convenience. If you can manage your happiness and economy well, there is no reason to raze your conquests. The new patch should make this easier since you can now completely halt the growth of cities with the 'avoid growth' option.

But you don't have the 'avoid growth' option for puppets. So, either you annex it right away, when you may not have enough of a happiness buffer to do so comfortably, or you wait 'till it's a size 14 puppet, and as soon as you annex it you suffer a *huge* happiness hit.

Personally, I think it would be nice if there were a low priority for puppets to build courthouses, so if you have them in your empire you can eventually assimilate them without all the ugly unhappiness.

Anyone else tired of this? I find that razing an enemy city is almost always the best option. It's a bummer. There's no fun in taking other people's stuff by force if then you don't get to play with it! It is for this exact reason that puppet states are no fun. At first I thought they'd be great....probably because I assumed that they'd be like vassals. You know, independent states in theory being controlled behind the scenes by my government. To make puppet cities "yours" (i.e. they are part of your Civ) but give you no control over them is simply no fun. Go back to Soren's motto that players like to be able to control things and when things are placed out of a player's control they become less fun!*


I know we've known about this stuff for ages and have talked about it fo a while but it has been bugging me more and more recently. Heck, not only is it (somewhat) counter-productive to wage a war of conquest I can't even wage a war of liberation because you can only liberate ONE city from a conquered Civ! In my most recent game Japan had conquered all of the US except for Washington DC. I went in in the hopes of liberating the uS from evil Japanese imperialist control.....but you can't. It's literally not even an option. OK, sure you can take the city and trade it to the US (as I did) but the Civ you're liberating sure won't love you for it or anything!

War is supposed to be the main attaction of this installation....can't they at least make it rewarding and flexible?


* He was talking about the spread of religion but it is true here as well, I think.

How is razing a city the best option? Puppet is always a better choice then to raze it and get absolutely nothing from it. Only thing smart about razing a city is if there is no way you can hold on to it and they will retake it. My last game I had 22 cities and all were puppets except 2.

How is razing a city the best option? Puppet is always a better choice then to raze it and get absolutely nothing from it. Only thing smart about razing a city is if there is no way you can hold on to it and they will retake it. My last game I had 22 cities and all were puppets except 2.

Um, because there is a huge Unhappiness hit for Puppets. And the Courthouse that deals with the problem is too expensive. I am still struggling to figure out how to have a larger empire that is not Unhappy. I hover around the zero point for Happiness all the time on Prince difficulty.

A vast majority of the problem is the unhappiness factor. Really - let me get this straight - I am winning the war - kicking names and taking ass and my population gets more and more pissed off???
It is like the USA going into anarchy in April 1945. :rolleyes:

Rat

Can someone tell me how to raze a city? I can't seem to find the damn raze button in the UI.

Can someone tell me how to raze a city? I can't seem to find the damn raze button in the UI.

When you conquer a city, it is one of the options. You can't miss it.

I dont understand people and this game. I have never razed a city or left it puppeted. A puppet is not meant to be had for a long term, its a short term solution. If you leave it puppeted you are doing it wrong.

Keep a 0-5 happieness buffer and as you get more smileys annex one at a time. If you cant keep a 0-5 buffer, lower the difficulty on your games or think of another way. There still is some strategy in this joke of a game you know. Just my two cents.

Puppets are sweet now. They focus on Gold improvements and avoid military/defence buildings. They're almost as good as me now, except of course micromanagement and build orders. Considering the increased SP cost with raze/resettle, I almost always puppet now.

Raze/resettle will always have a place though, because Courthouses are expensive and the happiness hit while annexing is large.

So, in summary: both strategies have uses for different purposes. It's actually one of the more balanced game mechanics ATM.