How do you prefer conquering?

[BlanketofFlame]

I'm getting ready to fight a two fronted war on the AI in early Modern Age, and need some advice. I need to know if it is better to pillage everything in your path and raze cities, or if it is best to just capture the cities intact.

 

[superslug]

If you raze, your diplomatic rating will get flushed down the toilet. I'm not saying don't raze, just make sure you never plan on having friends again.

 

[Inter4]

I'm a builder..I conquer only if it's necessary

 

[wilbill]

Even assuming you're going to raze the cities, why pillage everything? You can certainly use the roads/rr's and you may want to build you own cities in the wake of your devastation. Why rebuild all the tile improvements?

 

[puglover]

I capture everything. I almost never raze or pillage.

 

[Puzzlinon]

why pillage everything?

Early in a big war (while the enemy still has lots of troops) I pillage rail&road ahead of the main force, to slow down the enemy forces so more of them are left in the open and vulnerable.

That's one of my main uses for cavalry after Tanks are in play; three movement means they can pillage and jump back to safety. Little squads of a few cavalry and a bit of infantry can cripple the enemy logistics.

I'd leave the mines and irrigation if that were possible, but it isn't. I don't know why they chose to have pillaging take out railroads in one step, but mines&roads together in one step. I'd rather it were railroads, roads, agriculture/mining.

I usually only raze for narrative effect. If you're a religious civ, for instance, and you capture the city with TOE in it, out come the flamethrowers.

 

[Japanrocks12]

Like Puglover I'm a capturer...

I love to see my empire build, It's a good feeling

 

[Turner]

If the AI has screwed up again in city placement, then I will raze a city. But generally, unless I really don't like where the city was placed, I leave the AI cities intact. I also leave the trade network intact, as I can use it once I've taken the City. Which generally allows my lux's to be attached to the new city, and rarely do I get a city flip back. Oh, it happens, I've just never had a problem with it.

 

[Sentoa]

I never really liked the conquest idea. I think its unrealistic that any civilization would be able to rule the world.

That said, I generally raze and destroy all improvements. Although I'm a builder, and don't like to grow beyond 6-7 cities, all my wars (and plots to keep the AI civs fighting each other) are geared to making sure that I am not wiped out by virtue of my small size.

So generally, when I go to war, I don't hesitate at all to raze the enemy's cities and return the area to pristine countryside while helping keep opponenets to about the same size as my civ.

There should be bonus points for helping stop sprawl. That's practically all I do.

 

[Perfection]

When I conquer I take out the whole civ in 3 or 4 turns, so there's no point in burning bridges

 

[Mark Young]

I raze and pillage, and capture the cities. It all depends on what is happening at the time.

For example, in one SG game I'm playing, the spanish declared war on me unexpectantly as I wasn't prepared for an attack. So I razed the closest row of cities to my borders which made my borders expand, I then quickly stocked up on units over the next few turns and launched a 4 prong attack.
During which I sent cavalry deep into the spanishs territory to pillage their only source of rubber and coal which greatly limited their unit making options.

I only capture cities if it is either strategically important or if their is a resource that I want. I generally pillage the remaining unwanted infrastructure and if I have lots of workers doing nothing they go and plants trees.

 

[The Last Conformist]

When conquering, I leave tile improvements alone. Why waste firepower on platry RRs when it could be used on enemy troops?

 

[JonathanValjean]

The way I conquer is to build up overwhelming force and to strike quickly and fiercely, leaving the infrastructure intact. By striking quickly (finishing the war in 2 or 3 turns), I am able to stay in either Republic or Democracy without war weariness having a chance to set in. I never raze cities, that's just not my style. My culture is generally the dominant one, and therefore I have no trouble keeping all cities.

 

[Leha]

I'm a builder type . If I go to war I never raze . Of course captured cities sometimes flip - I recapture them . But I try to
make war quickest and with little damage to enemy's infrastructure ( after all it's soon-to-be mine land )

 

[Grille]

I've played some "Ring-City-Placement"-style games recently. In most cases, ai cities were not in the right place - so I razed them and got some slaves.
As for pillaging, if I'm comparably weak to start a massive invasion into enemy territory, I try to establish a static, well defended front line and send out defensive SODs w/ explorers for mass-pillaging purposes. Then, I have some time to build up my forces while enemy's economy (and eventually their reputation due to broken resource deals) goes down the drain.
But, of course, there's no point in pillaging when you conquer (or even raze) your way through ai's territory.

 

[Mriswith]

One little trick I like to do shortly after a war starts is to sneak some troops in around the enemy capitol and blow the roads all the way around it. With the road connections gone, it does not matter how many resources or deals they have, they can't use a damn bit of it. This will severely cripple the enemy as well as all the units parked around their capitol will make them much more likely to come to the bargaining table with you. For some reason, they seem a bit bothered by having their capitol surrounded while the rest of their empire falls to the sword.

 

[dojoboy]

If I've got US, I like to pillage a while then bombard starving cities.

 

[Xavier Von Erck]

I get a few troops in enemy territory and take out their resources as best I can. Any luxuries and resources and I pillage the heck out of them. It's the same thing the AI does with bombers, and it's really effective if you can take out that last piece of oil, or saltpepper, etc, etc.

If you pillage only resources and luxuries, you can stop their production of advanced units and easily conquer everything quickly.

 

[Grille]

Originally posted by Xavier Von Erck
I get a few troops in enemy territory and take out their resources as best I can. Any luxuries and resources and I raze the heck out of them. It's the same thing the AI does with bombers, and it's really effective if you can take out that last piece of oil, or saltpepper, etc, etc.

If you raze only resources and luxuries, you'll take the rep hit, but it won't be as bad as completely laying waste to the countryside.

I think you meant "pillaging" instead of razing. If so, you won't ever get a rep hit when you pillage a tile containing a resource the ai is currently trading away. The ai would be blamed for breaking the deal. At least if that deal hasn't reached its 20 turn limit - but that's somewhat difficult to tell since I'm not so sure if ai-to-ai deals would always have exactly the 20 turn-safe-termination limit.
The same rule applies if you trade a resource to a neutral civ and your enemy pillages the road on that tile or blocks/destroys the whole trade route. Your reputation is trashed then (if deal is younger than 20 turns), though it was not your fault.

Razing (a city) could be considered as an evil act (attitude drops), but pillaging certainly not (assuming you don't start your war by pillaging, i.e. have units in enemy territory when you declare war).

Also, if the road connections around an ai capital get pillaged, the ai could still produce resource-dependent units in other cities that still have access to an own resource. But again, trade with other civs would then be impossible - that's good to stop import of luxs and rubber, for example. May be a good move.

 

[Xavier Von Erck]

Sorry, I don't have my terminology down. I'll edit. Thanks though.