Do you pillage cottages?

[karadoc]

I pillage when I'm on the back-foot in a war. The gold certainly helps me, and the loss of income hurts the enemy, and it's typically much easier to run around pillaging stuff than it is to capture cities. So if I'm struggling in a war, that's what I do. If I'm stronger than they are then I don't pillage - I just capture the cities instead.

 

[6K Man]

No. I might if I was in a situation where I was up against an AI I had no hope of conquering. But if that was the case, I doubt that it would be cost-effective, anyway (transport + spies/pillagers, the latter of which will likely be killed, versus the loss of 3-4 AI towns)

As I'm sure is the case with most, I tend to pillage strategic improvements and seafood tiles.

 

[Airefuego]

Sure, pillaging a town which is in the way of necessary irrigation makes sense. It's funny: late in the game, I tend to focus on more than . While a kingdom needs both, it's not too hard to get a production city up and running fast after capture. Commerce cities are rarer and should be protected, imo. Sure, you often need to rebuild some infrastructure in them, but that's simpler (particularly if you run US) than growing new cottages and more productive in the long term than converting cottages into farms and workshops.

Your points are good Except that you suggest it's "more productive in the long term". We are talking about "late in the game" - where long term no longer matters.

The production or commerce of any late-game captured cities is mostly irrelevant to the outcome. (We may have different definitions of "late" of course!)

The many turns of revolt, plus the time taken to pop borders and build up the infrastructure, means you will wait a long time to get any return on the cost and effort of "civilising" (if at all) and it will slow you down. (An exception might be a massive shrine city which can pay its way as soon as it comes out of revolt).

Basically I think your empire's core needs to power your win. The only reasons to capture enemy cities late game are to stop an opponent winning (burn the spaceship or stop the culture monster) , or obviously because you are going for conquest / domination . In all such cases, to try to "civilise" your captured cities just distracts valuable time and gold from your end goal. All you need is a few troops to hold them, and run a few artists or something to pop borders, while you keep rolling. Build a courthouse, so at least you aren't losing money, if you need to.

Also: be careful about using US to buy infrastructure - it's mostly uneconomical. Buying a courthouse is almost always more expensive than paying the extra maintenance while you build one, unless the city has no production at all. Buying a library costs a fair chunk of gold - figure out how many turns it will take you to make back the money in beakers. You may break even after several dozen turns, yes - but is it worth it? What else could you use that moeny for? Obviously it depends, a city with 15 fully-operational towns is going to be a much better case for buying a library than is your average AI city with a random mix of villages, farms and coast tiles.

But overall I'd rather save the money and apply it more directly to achieving my victory condition (pump the science or culture slider up instead, or boost my military).

 

[katipunero]

yes, i pillage cottages with a fast unit intended for that purpose. i do this while i send my full stack on a city i don't intend to keep.