Which do you prefer? To take your enemies' cities, or just burn them all down? When playing the 'regular' game of 'only victory matters'. The former requires insane number of garrison units and raises maintenance costs. The latter brings about armageddon, at least on big maps.
Conquest or obliteration victory?
- Thread starter zup
- Start date
Well, for me it depends on who I am Roleplaying as.. if I am the Order Bannor, I burn all the heathen cities to the ground... same as if I was the Lanun ((Under Hannah ((Raping and pillaging...)))), or if I was any of the barbaric races. But if I am a more... civilized society I conquer the cities.
Valkrionn
The Hamster King
I go for conquest, unless I'm playing someone like the Legion.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
I typically capture all cities except those the AI built in really dumb locations (like 1 tile away from a coast or river or 3 away from a unique feature, where it cannot bet the benefits but still blocks other cities from getting them.)
Fafnir13
King
I'll raze specific cities that have certain holy cities (Nox, Ashen), cities that are poorly placed or too close to a better one, or cities that I just don't have the army to hold or commerce to support. That last one usually factor in the most to the decision. I played a game recently where I landed a small group of Dwarven axemen on a distant shore and annihilated the Bannor. Didn't keep a single city as the cost would have been crippling and I was more interested in wiping out a rival before they got stronger or vassalized.
Opera
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2008
- Messages
- 4,643
This. And depends on the civilization I'm playing too... and of the whole direction of the game. If I'm at war with an heathen civ and if they have the holy city, I'll burn it down. However, I won't raze other cities just because of the religion... I usually feel pity towards the citizen. Razing the Holy one is more an act of 'strategy' than of evilness. I also like to keep newly conquered cities, especially if that means I can get a new outpost for the war.
BenjaminEmbarec
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 161
Except VERY rarely if I'm playing a specific civ, I raze them all. Litterally, all. I'll sometimes send settlers to take their orriginal spots if it's a good spot, but that's it.
far_wanderer
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2008
- Messages
- 454
I play one-city-challenge a lot, so I'm kind of forced into razing a lot of the time. Even when I'm in a normal game, I dislike managing a whole lot of cities, so I generally employ one of the following strategies:
1 - Form an alliance with someone (or summon Basium) and give all conquered cities to them. The AI gets all the hassle of managing and defending a bunch of cities, while I get to go back to making war. As an added bonus, this seriously beefs up my ally for future wars.
2 - Quite often I end up destroying nearly all of an opposing army before I start actually taking cities, which is what makes this strategy work. I keep all the cities (unless there's a holy city that needs to be dealt with) but don't defend them, and allow barbarians to creep in behind my lines. So when the battle is done, my opponent is either removed or severely weakened, and anyone else will have a lot of trouble moving in to the vacant space. I've also occasionally pulled this off with just Shadows without actually declaring war.
1 - Form an alliance with someone (or summon Basium) and give all conquered cities to them. The AI gets all the hassle of managing and defending a bunch of cities, while I get to go back to making war. As an added bonus, this seriously beefs up my ally for future wars.
2 - Quite often I end up destroying nearly all of an opposing army before I start actually taking cities, which is what makes this strategy work. I keep all the cities (unless there's a holy city that needs to be dealt with) but don't defend them, and allow barbarians to creep in behind my lines. So when the battle is done, my opponent is either removed or severely weakened, and anyone else will have a lot of trouble moving in to the vacant space. I've also occasionally pulled this off with just Shadows without actually declaring war.
At times when a city is in a very good location, I keep it, mostly to get a city there before AI settles again. I rarely conquer cities, unless I have guild of the nine and a chunk of cash. Building and moving garrisons is kind of tedious, especially since I cannot build the whole three archers in the same city in one turn. Sometimes I intentionally aim at domination victory, and go through the work of expanding my empire. However, in general, I use direct methods of growth control.
cyther
Lord of the Dance
I raze at lot of stuff. Elven cities are amazing but other than those I will normally raze any city without tons of developements or a good unique feature.
MasterofDisasta
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2008
- Messages
- 355
I'm almost always a "keep it" person. I just hate losing the fruits of my victory, and I feel like I'm giving something up each time I raze.
Usually it is completely illogical and unrelated to the city's actual usefulness. So I end up keeping lots of very weak cities that just had interesting positions in the game - like the iceland border city that Basium used to seige my newly spawned infernal empire for 100 turns, or the Kuriorate settlement that my culture has been slowly encroaching upon for centuries.
They may not be particuarly useful, but they are sometimes interesting enough to keep and rename.
Usually it is completely illogical and unrelated to the city's actual usefulness. So I end up keeping lots of very weak cities that just had interesting positions in the game - like the iceland border city that Basium used to seige my newly spawned infernal empire for 100 turns, or the Kuriorate settlement that my culture has been slowly encroaching upon for centuries.
They may not be particuarly useful, but they are sometimes interesting enough to keep and rename.
cvlowe
King
I almost always raze rhe veil holy city also. But Nox is way too useful- makes all your units invisible- to ever raze.
In fact my last game against the balseraph- after being annoyed by his invisible stacks I sent my army wandering through his territory randomly ignoring every other city until I founf and captured Nox for myself (and razed every city around it to keep it from culture-flipping)
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
These days, I keep all cities and then decide whether I want to raze them or not, as I made a spell for that (which still gives the diplomatic penalties but classifies it under "past events have..." instead of city razing. I think I have it so that Angels/Manes are given properly, but I'm not quite sure of that).
I recently changed it to 2 spells (one that grants a promotion that allows the spell that actually destroys the city), after accidentally razing my size 38 capital city with a dozen wonders. I could figure out how to make it have a popup like world spells do, but having a 2 stage razing spell with the 2 spells far apart in the file has a similar effect.
I recently changed it to 2 spells (one that grants a promotion that allows the spell that actually destroys the city), after accidentally razing my size 38 capital city with a dozen wonders. I could figure out how to make it have a popup like world spells do, but having a 2 stage razing spell with the 2 spells far apart in the file has a similar effect.
cyther
Lord of the Dance
The new examine captured city popup is usefull too. When .41 is stable I'll have to check that out.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
Is that in 0.41? I thought it was only in FF.
Similar threads
- Sticky
