A question to TW and all warmongers alike

[CivNoobie]

Why do you people believe in military might is the solution to everything?

after all, banking establishments are stronger than a standing army. Anyone with a decent historical knowledge would know that most wars that were fought since 1492 in the civilized world were about money and wealth and not about who has the bigger gun

some of you people's strategy on here are so barbaric and medieval that it;s letting me having doubt that i'm communicating with fellow human on civfanatics.

 

[Apricottage]

I'm afraid that although CivIV tries to mirror real life perfectly, it fails in a few regards.

Military might is not one of them. The reason why wealth is important is that it allows you to fund more soldiers. If you want an example, America won the second World War because it was able to field more military on account of its incredible industrial might. Although other things aside from pure military might are important (consider positioning and technology), there is simply nothing that can supersede force. Even in negotiations and contracts and peaceful things like that, the assumption that they will be followed is due to the assumption that force will be brought down upon those who disagree.

Allow me to quote Leonard Nimoy Mao Zedong: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." I'd say we can consider him an authority.

 

[BornInCantaloup]

Military offers map control.
Land offers production.
Tech offers discounts on production.

 

[TheMulattoMaker]

I would submit that we are playing a game, and our decisions and actions in said game would not be the same if we were actually in charge of a nation. In Civ4, I specialize my cities. That doesn't mean that if I were President I would order Detroit to produce nothing but tanks and planes for the rest of eternity, or get irritated at New Yorkers for having Wall Street in the GP farm where it doesn't belong. In Civ4 I whip my people back down to almost nothing over and over and over again, sometimes up into the 20th Century, but that doesn't mean I support slavery in real life. Also in Civ4, many times the best strategy to win the game is to ruthlessly slaughter and subjugate your neighbors- but if I was running America, I wouldn't invade Canada to get the oil in Alberta.

Doubtless there are Civvers who also play GTA. I don't think they make a habit out of throwing people from their cars.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Civ IV is a war game with some economy thrown in, which is why players who know what they're doing play it that way.

 

[rfcfanatic]

I have always wondered what you early warmongers do with the cities after you capture them. How do you sustain them without hurting your economy?

 

[damerell]

I have always wondered what you early warmongers do with the cities after you capture them. How do you sustain them without hurting your economy?

Burn them down.

More seriously, the hurt's not as bad as it looks - the slider will drop, but it's a smaller slice of a bigger pie (and more hammers to boot). Empire rankings are relative, not absolute; it doesn't matter if I half wreck my own empire, if I three-quarters wreck my rivals. Or, vassalise the victim and give the poor cities back.

 

[calibur]

get irritated at New Yorkers for having Wall Street in the GP farm where it doesn't belong.

Clearly LA is the GP farm and NY is the financial capital
Although why they stick to GA's is beyond me

 

[rfcfanatic]

Burn them down.

Yes, that's one possible solution I believe many of you would propose. But besides being unethical and going against the concept of civilization, wouldn't it be impractical? The reasons:

* Creates empty wastelands where barbs can spawn.
* You have to waste time to produce your own settler for resettlement...
* ...or if you don't, another AI will settle the land, becoming bigger (and thus, stronger)

 

[Apricottage]

Yes, that's one possible solution I believe many of you would propose. But besides being unethical and going against the concept of civilization, wouldn't it be impractical? The reasons:

* Creates empty wastelands where barbs can spawn.
* You have to waste time to produce your own settler for resettlement...
* ...or if you don't, another AI will settle the land, becoming bigger (and thus, stronger)

You raze cities if you're going for an immediate conquest victory (keeps you from having to worry about getting your army disbanded from support). Otherwise, it's almost always the best idea to keep the cities you conquer. After a brief period of building culture and military buildings, they're ready to start whipping out troops to support you. If you run into culture problems at the borders, then raze the final line of cities you capture or else capture up to the borders of some third party and then gift the border cities to them.

For Domination, you NEED to keep the cities. There's no two ways about it.

 

[rfcfanatic]

I'm now getting to understand that keeping a city is a favorable option after the conquest. Thanks!

I had this question because I very often have seen people razing cities in multiplayer without any provocation. They raze even capital cities which have wonders. It's a severe violation of Sisiutil's guide (Capitals, holy cities, and cities containing wonders are almost always worth keeping.), but they still do it.

After a brief period of building culture and military buildings

...and courthouses

 

[BornInCantaloup]

Multiplayer is a special case:
It's much harder to defend against a human than it is to defend against an AI.
Also, it's much harder to defend a city you've captured 30 tiles away from your capital and that is 5 tiles away from your opponent's capital.
Finally, many multiplayer games (I believe; especially team games) eliminate players after they've lost 2 cities: raze 2 = kill opponent.


In solo play, maintenance is the determining factor: can you afford to keep the city? Can you sustain it (keyword)?
If the answer is yes, because you're lucky or because you've planned for it (extra commerce already in or incoming), then you should keep the city. No use building a settler to settle the same spot.
In rare cases, one might raze to settle a better spot that is blocked by the razed city but I think that should remain the exception since the Settler is a costly unit.


Good rush requires either that:
1- Conquered land is juicy enough to pay for itself;
2- Homeland has the commerce potential to sustain expansion;
3- One's blocked in and will suffer an horrible death if he doesn't rush out (not optimal situation).
1&2, along with available resources, should determine the type of rush one executes. In turn, the type of rush determines the desired number of cities, of research, commerce and production, maybe Great Persons as well. Also determines timing of buildings (Libraries, Barracks, maybe Wonders).

 

[CocoIsKing28]

Also, if you've razed a city, you could send your troops off somewhere else instead of fortifying it. I've done this a few times if a civ has a huge SOD that is some distance away; A speedy crushing of that enemy is always some times better than taking one city and having it taken back.
EDIT: I must remove the word always. Being that each strategy is really case specific, you must way your options. As stated before, if someone like Joao is sitting next to a freshly razed plain, he will start pumping the settlers.

 

[Apricottage]

Oh, the other big reason to NOT raze cities is the diplo penalty. It can mess things up sometimes, especially if it's a Holy City.

Not that you'd ever really want to raze one of those anyway.

 

[damerell]

Wouldn't it be impractical? The reasons:
* Creates empty wastelands where barbs can spawn.
* You have to waste time to produce your own settler for resettlement...
* ...or if you don't, another AI will settle the land, becoming bigger (and thus, stronger)

You don't mind if barbs spawn there. They will attack your rivals as well as you - and you have military superiority.

Another AI may settle the land eventually, but we started by observing that sometimes it is a long time before a newly conquered city pays off. How much longer before a newly settled city pays off (assuming you are not playing on a level where the AI gets truly obscene bonuses)? For many turns, they'll be paying more gold to maintain it than its modest output of beakers - a net loss.

Oh, the other big reason to NOT raze cities is the diplo penalty. It can mess things up sometimes, especially if it's a Holy City. Not that you'd ever really want to raze one of those anyway.

There are two penalties there. One is vs. the owner of the city for any razing - but who cares? You were planning to squash or vassalise them anyway. The other is for a Holy City, but... well, if some clown builds the AP (or UN) in a Holy City, I might well be setting fire to it any time.

 

[damerell]

For Domination, you NEED to keep the cities. There's no two ways about it.

No, you don't, although it may well be useful. Gain the military upper hand by not leaving garrisons around now and sort out domination once you have crushed your enemies. (I'm not advocating routine razing, but "domination" doesn't imply "never raze".)

Also, if you've razed a city, you could send your troops off somewhere else instead of fortifying it. I've done this a few times if a civ has a huge SOD that is some distance away.

The other obvious case is where you have ground superiority but your opponent has gained naval superiority, perhaps by teching Combustion or you not having any Oil. You can't keep sending reinforcements across the water; garrisons will represent a significant reduction in your attack force; and you really have to finish off the enemy before they exploit the naval advantage.

 

[elmurcis]

Don't like military game - go for culture/space/diplo victory All you need there is very good defense and *great* diplo strategy

 

[damerell]

For Domination, you NEED to keep the cities. There's no two ways about it.

No, you don't, although it may well be useful. Gain the military upper hand by not leaving garrisons around now and sort out domination once you have crushed your enemies. I'm not saying "always raze", but "this is domination so never raze" is equally invalid.

Also, if you've razed a city, you could send your troops off somewhere else instead of fortifying it. I've done this a few times if a civ has a huge SOD that is some distance away

Or if you are fighting on another continent and it is difficult or time-consuming to bring reinforcements.

As stated before, if someone like Joao is sitting next to a freshly razed plain, he will start pumping the settlers.

No bad thing if it means he is spread a little thinner when you finish off the previous inhabitant of the plain and look for the next target.

 

[shakabrade]

America won the second World War

Lol. America didn't win the war. It was on the winning side.
Russians did the most of the dirty job. Even Japan capitulated not when A-bombs made greatest crime against humanity (nuclear weapons are frowned upon even on the forums here), but when Russia turned their attention to their eastern neighbour.

Less Hollywood, Call of Duty, MoH and more actual history.

What America did do is reducing Russian influence. Russians wouldn't stop millions of their troops in Berlin but would probably devour Germany and Central and Southeast Europe. With Americans around, that wasn't diplomatically correct.

@OP

Anyone with a decent historical knowledge would know that most wars that were fought since 1492 in the civilized world were about money and wealth and not about who has the bigger gun.

I never warred for any other reason but wealth of my people of Wadiya.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Even Japan capitulated not when A-bombs made greatest crime against humanity

Erm, what about, I dunno, the millions of deaths by building up infrastructure in the USSR, or THE FREAKING HOLOCAUST!? Really, antiamerican propaganda is bad enough even when it's not about devaluing the American participation in the defeat of fascism.
Yes, of course the USA didn't win WW II on their own, and yes, the Soviet Union did most of the work, but that does not mean you can just ignore the American war effort.