3XXX BC, found an empty capital. Raze it?

[popejubal]

I just came across an empty German capital city in the early early early game. It's in a nice location, so it would be a lovely city to have for my own and it's not so far away that the maintenance would kill me.

Should I raze it now and eliminate a potential rival (and trading partner and AI funded barbarian fogbuster) or let it grow to size 2 when it will surely be defended by an Archer or two and will be much more difficult to capture.

I'm playing this game on Noble (sandbox game) and I haven't found Bronze or Horses yet, so I don't know how easy it would be for me to drum up an army and take the capital once it is defended.

Any thoughts? This has never happened to me before.

 

[Percy]

I'd say it depends on the speed with which you can afford to spit out a settler, and if this turf will be exposed to the greedy little hands of an AI sooner than you can access it yourself.
The safe bet is to raze it and to come colonize it later (but not too late), once you've built one or two cities.

 

[madscientist]

Raze it. Unless you have a very cramped location with other AIs you should be able to get a settler there fairly soon.

 

[MrCynical]

As it's a capital, it will have culture. I'm not sure if they've changed the exact mechanics, but doesn't that mean it won't auto-raze?

 

[Welnic]

As long as the borders have popped once you can capture it and keep it.

 

[Percy]

Oooooh, shiny, even better =D

 

[futurehermit]

always keep capitals

 

[madscientist]

I agrre if you can keep the capital, always keep it. But take the city out immediately, one warrior can eliminate that window of opportunity. I did not realize if the culture border pops once you cna keep teh city even if at pop 1. I have taken several capitals in warlord games this way, but at marathon speed I had 15 turns before the culture popped so I never noticed that.

 

[Percy]

always keep capitals

What's the advantage over just sending a settler to settle there? Aside from the cost of said settler, obviously. In 3XXX, there's little chance any infrastructure is built there, no?

 

[r_rolo1]

^^Time. First turns are the most important in the game and having the double of the cities of the AI ASAP is ,at least, gamebreaking.

 

[Percy]

Yeah, but i was under the impression the dilemma was:
- take, and possibly raze, the city while there is no defender in it,
OR
- wait for it to grow to pop 2 and then have to go through such defense that there is a risk you cannot take it, or at the very least spend some resources in creating a military force.

I think the site of a city is more important than a city itself, in 3XXX BC.

 

[madscientist]

Yeah, but i was under the impression the dilemma was:
- take, and possibly raze, the city while there is no defender in it,
OR
- wait for it to grow to pop 2 and then have to go through such defense that there is a risk you cannot take it, or at the very least spend some resources in creating a military force.

I think the site of a city is more important than a city itself, in 3XXX BC.

Take the sure thing that early in the game. And the first settler built represents the third city, BIG advantage early. It's not like razing an AI border city then building a new one one tile over in teh year 1AD.

 

[r_rolo1]

There is no need of waiting for pop 2. A city only auto razes if:
-pop 1
and
-no border pop ever
With the Palace culture, most likely the city will pop borders soon ( if it still in lvl 1 ), so no risk of auto razing.

Seeing things in this perspective, IMHO capturing city ASAP ( after borders pop) is the best move. And because it is Noble , it's doubtful that the AI already has another city, so one less AI in game....

 

[Hellspark]

Take the city - if it auto razes resettle - why not elimiate a rivel now at 0 repreate 0 cost and risk.

 

[Percy]

There is no need of waiting for pop 2. A city only auto razes if:
-pop 1
and
-no border pop ever
With the Palace culture, most likely the city will pop borders soon ( if it still in lvl 1 ), so no risk of auto razing.

Seeing things in this perspective, IMHO capturing city ASAP ( after borders pop) is the best move. And because it is Noble , it's doubtful that the AI already has another city, so one less AI in game....

Of course, when someone said that, earlier in the thread, it appeared obvious that the city should be kept. Still, i was wondering why futurehermit said not to raze a capital. Apart from the obvious advantage of not having to build a settler and doubling your number of cities, but then, that's not only for "capitals" but for any city.

 

[uncarved block]

Take the city. I've had this happen a bit on (standard) Great Plains maps, and the new city will usually grow fast enough to pay for itself before you realize it. If you're any good at the game, the Barbs on Noble are easy enough to handle, even though you won't be able to shuffle units between cities that easily.

 

[jerVL/kg]

Absolutely keep the city. The maintenance cost will be paid for by the extra commerce & trade route almost immediately, and AI capitals are always excellent city locations. Getting a 2nd city by 3500BC is a huge advantage.

 

[Diamondeye]

always keep capitals

(Land is power, Land is Power, Land is POWER!)

I did this in a MP game as Inca. I won a conq victory against all 4 other players (one at a time) in XXX AD

 

[Percy]

People, the question has NEVER been to keep or raze, it has been "attack now, so auto-raze" or "wait for it to grow so it doesn't auto-raze and take the risks of it becoming defended".

Since it would seem that a culture pop means the city doesn't get razed, then the question is probably answered. We need to hear more from popejubal though.

 

[Azander]

I'd propably just raze it