Annex, build settler, raze and then repopulate

[player1 fanatic]

Let's say you took and annexed city early.

City has not much culture, so it has little or no tiles claimed.
No wonders.
But gives occupation penalty to unhappiness.
Build courthouse?
But that's 5gold upkeep!

Better build settler in it.
It uses food as hammers so it's quick to build.
It's even faster if having that liberty policy that increases settler production by 50%.

It also stops city growing, so razing will be quicker.
Yes, razing. After settler is done, raze the city, and build new one with same settler.

And while settler was being built, you could improve tiles around city. Not an option, if razed first, and then settled later. Not to mention a risk of settling by someone else.

 

[Teodosio]

It also stops city growing, so razing will be quicker.
Yes, razing. After settler is done, raze the city, and build new one with same settler.

Interesting idea. I have to try that.
The only problem I can see is if the annexed city has a large border. By razing it and building anew wouldn't the new city have a single-tile border? The could be a disadvantage in many cases!

 

[yanner39]

So you can annex a city, build a settler, and raze the city after you annexed it? Seems like a flaw in the game?

 

[player1 fanatic]

The only problem I can see is if the annexed city has a large border.

Well, don't do it for cities with large borders (if those extra tiles are really valuable).

More choices is never bad thing. Should I keep borders and get 5gold upkeep for courthouse (which takes long time to build), or should I "rebuild" the city as new.

So you can annex a city, build a settler, and raze the city after you annexed it? Seems like a flaw in the game?

It could be. It's just weird to build settler at all in occupied city. After all, it's hostile foreign population.

 

[coe]

This seems to be much superior tactic compared to annexing cities or making puppets out of them, as annexed cities lose so much population/buildings and generate unhappiness / inbuilt 5g penalty, it could be best just to raze right away and bring settler with the army to repopulate.

Its just another flawed balance in the whole global happiness scheme. Same way as ignoring happiness completely is one of the best tactics out there.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Just go back to the Civ3 style. Bring settlers with you on the warpath and repopulate. In all honesty, this game has made that tactic less viable, since you lose the culture border and don't get free workers, but it's been a tactic for two games. Sure you could build a settler from the city, but you'll have to spend all that time killing resistance and waiting for the settler to build (with probably less production than a city back home).

 

[juijin]

with all the money from war and razing improvements you can buy a settler in that city

 

[JaeChunDaeSung]

Since there's no relation or diplomacy points for this, razing seems like a more viable option now doesn't it? To me, it just seems like other civs won't hold it against you if you raze their cities, since building over them makes more sense in economic terms.

 

[coe]

with all the money from war and razing improvements you can buy a settler in that city

You can't buy units from cities just annexed before they calm down. That takes too many turns. By far easiest way is to raze right away and bring couple settlers with the army. You anyway want to repopulate only if there is resource you lack, happiness or strategy one as you get no real benefits from more land, just more trouble.

 

[vranasm]

actually interesting idea

I just don't understand the intentions with the new system in a lot of ways...

 

[Silver44Guy]

How do you raze a city that you own?

 

[Tomice]

The biggest problem with the puppet system is that you can't sell buildings. You have to stick with the choices the AI made. The same goes for buildings left from the previous owner.

That's one of the first things that makes razing & rebuilding an often better choice.

 

[alj]

This seems like the way to go, I always preferred razing AI cities in Civ IV anyway because they were never very good at optimally placing them. I think the courthouse could really do with being a LOT cheaper, at least in terms of hammers (20+ turns on standard? Really? )

 

[dannythefool]

How do you raze a city that you own?

There is a button in the city info screen, but it only appears for cities that you did not found yourself, that are not an original capital of a civ, and that aren't a former city state.

(But if you capture a former city state you're better off liberating it anyway.)

 

[funny.man]

This seems to be much superior tactic compared to annexing cities or making puppets out of them, as annexed cities lose so much population/buildings and generate unhappiness / inbuilt 5g penalty, it could be best just to raze right away and bring settler with the army to repopulate.

Its just another flawed balance in the whole global happiness scheme. Same way as ignoring happiness completely is one of the best tactics out there.

I wouldnt say its much superior but its definitely a good idea if city has small borders and no wonders inside. I still dont know if when you conquer city you conquer it with all buildings, I know for sure that wonders stay, but if buildings stay too its way better to pay for courthouse taking into consideration time you have to invest to build even say 3 buildings. So if its small city with nothing in it its better to resettle otherwise courthouse seems to be much better solution.

 

[DalekDavros]

I think the courthouse could really do with being a LOT cheaper, at least in terms of hammers (20+ turns on standard? Really? )

In real-world terms, the courthouse is an abstract representation of "legibility" more than it is a building. To effectively control a population, a government needs to know a lot about them. Does it have accurate lists of land titles and incomes? If not, taxation is tricky. Do the people use a naming system that makes relationships transparent (e.g., patronymics)? If not, the government is probably going to have to impose one on them. Does it have a good understanding of the transportation systems? Don't forget that the road signs are probably in a foreign language and that angry locals are probably going to take them down. So, say that the gov learns that an anti-imperialist riot is taking place at such-and-such an address. Before they can try to suppress it, they need to figure out exactly where that is, exactly how to get there, etc., while the locals who already know this stuff can rapidly respond to outflank them.

cf. James Scott's Seeing Like a State and Domination and the Arts of Resistance and Gene Sharp's The Politics of Nonviolent Action and Social Power and Political Freedom.

I wouldnt say its much superior but its definitely a good idea if city has small borders and no wonders inside. I still dont know if when you conquer city you conquer it with all buildings, I know for sure that wonders stay, but if buildings stay too its way better to pay for courthouse taking into consideration time you have to invest to build even say 3 buildings. So if its small city with nothing in it its better to resettle otherwise courthouse seems to be much better solution.

IIRC, buildings have a 65% chance of being destroyed, unless they produce culture in which case it's 100%.

 

[funny.man]

You are right.
From manual p. 76:
The city’s culture and military buildings (temples, barracks, etc.) are always destroyed when
the city is taken. All other buildings have a 66% chance of being captured intact.
So there is a good chance that few buildings will stay alive.

EDIT: So is in case you conquer naked city with no buildings, there is absolutely no point in occupying it.

 

[cembandit]

Cant you make a lot more then 5 per turn with a city? Build a few trade ports and the city pays for itself, plus keeps the borders and some citizens.

The real cost for a conquered city is time. For a short time it hurts your empire. So dont take in too many at once. For an early small city, yea, your idea is more then sound.

For a 20 pop mega city, not so much, course that pop is going to really dent the happiness for a time.

 

[Lacerda]

Just go back to the Civ3 style. Bring settlers with you on the warpath and repopulate. In all honesty, this game has made that tactic less viable, since you lose the culture border and don't get free workers, but it's been a tactic for two games. Sure you could build a settler from the city, but you'll have to spend all that time killing resistance and waiting for the settler to build (with probably less production than a city back home).

This meaning, to raze, then use the settler to create a new town ;

or, in my newbie mind, is it possible to annex it, then put a settler on top of it, and it kinda makes it all good?

 

[Morthis]

I raze small useless cities, but good cities that have nice borders with developed land, I don't know why you'd ever raze them. It'll take a new city forever to pop borders to work all the new land and a courthouse would probably only take 10-15 turns at most to build.

You can't buy units from cities just annexed before they calm down. That takes too many turns. By far easiest way is to raze right away and bring couple settlers with the army. You anyway want to repopulate only if there is resource you lack, happiness or strategy one as you get no real benefits from more land, just more trouble.

More land has plenty of benefits. More research, more production cities, more gold, etc.