KnightsTemplar
Chieftain
What are the benefits or destroying a city instead of keeping it? I could only imagine one, scaring others into submission.
After conquering a city, what does razing it do for me??? Benefits?
- Thread starter KnightsTemplar
- Start date
well it won't revert back,thats for sure.
Depending on city size,you get X# of foreign workers.
Depending on city size,you get X# of foreign workers.
Panda
Metal head
Remember that captured workers (citizens from razed citys included) require no upkeep. On huge maps, where you later easily have 100+ workers, this is a huge bonus as you save 100+ gold / turn in upkeep.
And as mentioned, you won't have to fear a 'culture-switch'
After all, most you might get out of a conquered city is a harbour or aqueduct. During a 'Blitz' campaign, where you have fast-moving troops advancing, you don't necessarily want to commit your troops to guarding captured cities.
Also very useful if your oponent builds a crap town in a place you don't want it to have one (taking production space from your cities etc).
And as mentioned, you won't have to fear a 'culture-switch'
After all, most you might get out of a conquered city is a harbour or aqueduct. During a 'Blitz' campaign, where you have fast-moving troops advancing, you don't necessarily want to commit your troops to guarding captured cities. Also very useful if your oponent builds a crap town in a place you don't want it to have one (taking production space from your cities etc).
...and adding another 1 sheild corruption center doesn't always seem worth the benefit.
BigBirdZ28
Fundamentalist in a Z28
I always descimate cities, the sole reason being that I like reforming the city where the tiles wount overlap & wasting as little space as possible.
Peteus
All good things...
The afforementioned "culture flips" are my #1 reason for razing. I started off playing a typical Civ II world domination game, but far too often when I capture enemy core cities they flip despite
A) an ovewhelming cultural advantage;
B) an overwhelming garrison;
C) 1000 gold worth of rushed happiness/culture/corruption improvements.
The model is badly flawed, and makes an expansionist strategy much less fun. So I changed my style of play from Roman to Mongol!
Oh, my #2 reason is corruption. If I'm getting close to the "catastrophic corruption limit" for the map size, I can't afford to have more cities (unless, of course, it's a lot more cities!)
#3 reason is not wanting to have to defend the city/surpress the resistors, either because I'm busy blitzing or because the city is in peril. A bunch of captured workers is lots better than nothing!
Reasons to keep a captured city:
#1: Strategic resource (to obtain it or deny it)
#2: Pilfer a wonder. I'd hate to burn down Sun Tzu or the Pyramids. But why don't I get culture from my capured Wonders?
#3: Empire growth. This is #1 in the early game, but much less important later, when your empire is already big enough.
#4: Culture bubble. In enemy territory, it can be very important to control a stretch of roads/rails so that your troops can move through quickly and the enemy are slowed.
A) an ovewhelming cultural advantage;
B) an overwhelming garrison;
C) 1000 gold worth of rushed happiness/culture/corruption improvements.
The model is badly flawed, and makes an expansionist strategy much less fun. So I changed my style of play from Roman to Mongol!
Oh, my #2 reason is corruption. If I'm getting close to the "catastrophic corruption limit" for the map size, I can't afford to have more cities (unless, of course, it's a lot more cities!)
#3 reason is not wanting to have to defend the city/surpress the resistors, either because I'm busy blitzing or because the city is in peril. A bunch of captured workers is lots better than nothing!
Reasons to keep a captured city:
#1: Strategic resource (to obtain it or deny it)
#2: Pilfer a wonder. I'd hate to burn down Sun Tzu or the Pyramids. But why don't I get culture from my capured Wonders?
#3: Empire growth. This is #1 in the early game, but much less important later, when your empire is already big enough.
#4: Culture bubble. In enemy territory, it can be very important to control a stretch of roads/rails so that your troops can move through quickly and the enemy are slowed.
SvenSlayer
Berserkr
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 184
I think I've got quite a simple reason to destroy a city: to stop your opponents from taking it back. Often you don't have enough money and/or units to keep an extra city, and you don't want your opponent to take the city and use it against you.
Another good reason (which has been touched on) for razing a city is so that you don't get an over-populated piece of ground where the city in question is going to intrude on another city's borders.
But I never raze cities, anyway.
Another good reason (which has been touched on) for razing a city is so that you don't get an over-populated piece of ground where the city in question is going to intrude on another city's borders.
But I never raze cities, anyway.
J Fred Muggs
Warlord
I think I'm now a "raze city" player. The city flop is not right even if you do it right. Easier to have a bunch of settlers along with your army. You don't have to wait while starving down a captured city, don't tie up as many troops in guarding the city from the evil city folk. Hell I've lost more troops to the citizens then the enemy armies some times.
As far as the captured workers go. I can stay out of wars pretty much. By the time I do get involved I've switch to auto workers. Since I play the French, a captuered worker on a pollution square is a waste. Takes forever to clean it up, not good. Rather pay the money and be efficent. The only time I like captured workers is improving areas near a front line, then I don't care if they get captured, let em be someone else's problem.
As far as the captured workers go. I can stay out of wars pretty much. By the time I do get involved I've switch to auto workers. Since I play the French, a captuered worker on a pollution square is a waste. Takes forever to clean it up, not good. Rather pay the money and be efficent. The only time I like captured workers is improving areas near a front line, then I don't care if they get captured, let em be someone else's problem.
Later in the game though, if you have the money and can keep a city from reverting, keeping a couple cities that you capture in a war is great. In my German game I had airports with a lot of Panzers at home. I was in a war with the English on the far other side of the map, where it took 10+ turns to get a Transport there. I took a city and garrisoned about 3 Panzers and a couple of bombers there to keep it from flipping and when my resistors were quelled, I rushed an airport. Which makes wars a lot easier, since I could airlift my Panzers from home across the map in 1 turn. Anywyas, I kept about 4 or 5 cities of the English so I have a front line for my war against the Egyptians as I'm down to them, Japan, and Greece. They'll be fighting a two front war on their continent now against me.
So, keeping a few cities can help in a war, but I generally razze 75% of cities, if not more.
So, keeping a few cities can help in a war, but I generally razze 75% of cities, if not more.
Buecephalus
Bolo Mark XXV
I like razing cities and "piggy backing" in my own settlers and defensive units. That way I'm increasing my territory, impinging on the enemy's borders and using my own people to populate a (hopefully) well-developed area (i.e. it's already got roads, mines, etc.) that's ready-to-go. Make sure you build walls and put in veteran defenders to keep the horde out.
"do or do not, there is no try."
"do or do not, there is no try."
Zouave
Crusader
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 1,603
Razing cities is the way to go. It prevents flipping and no city needs no garrison - a garrison that might strangely disappear if it flips. Better to just have a settler begin a new one, perhaps where you want. You won't have to rush a Temple at exorbitant cost.
I do not like this reality with Civ III. Historically, razing cities was quite rare: Carthage, Nineveh. Hattusas, for instance. The closest anyone came to it in Modern Times was Warsaw in 1944.
A PATCH is needed to make this less necessary by lowering the number of unhappy citizens, accelerating assimilation, and making culture flipping less likely.
I do not like this reality with Civ III. Historically, razing cities was quite rare: Carthage, Nineveh. Hattusas, for instance. The closest anyone came to it in Modern Times was Warsaw in 1944.
A PATCH is needed to make this less necessary by lowering the number of unhappy citizens, accelerating assimilation, and making culture flipping less likely.
