capturing cities

[KinesongPayaso]

do you raze old cities? or do you occupy it?
most of the time, when I capture, there are no buildings in it anymore
would there be any benefits on placing a settler there yourself?(after razing)
i think you just retain the population count

 

[cabert]

if you want to settle in the exact same spot, it generally better to keep the city.
Settling another one is only good because :
- no revolt, it's your city!
- no ancient culture, it's your city!

It's not good because :
- you need a settler
- it starts at 1 pop, 0 culture, 0 building, 0 religion
- negative relation modifier to the settler of the city you razed (even if it's not the civ you took it from)

 

[malekithe]

- no ancient culture, it's your city!

Technically, the culture accrued in the surrounding tiles by the previous civ will never actually go away.

 

[cabert]

Technically, the culture accrued in the surrounding tiles by the previous civ will never actually go away.

right, but on the city itself, you have 100% culture so you can draft as soon as you hit size 6

 

[KinesongPayaso]

thanks for the replies

anyway, why is it that sometimes there are buildings, and sometimes there are none?

unless the AI just doesnt like making buildings sometimes? it was an old city, I believe.. so the AI had a lot of time to construct buildings

 

[UncleJJ]

anyway, why is it that sometimes there are buildings, and sometimes there are none?

Buildings are destroyed by the attack. Some buildings that produce culture such as a monastry and library are automatically destroyed when you capture the city. There is a % chance they will survive for each other building, such as granary and market. So either the AI did not develop the city or you might have been unlucky and destroyed the buildings. In the late game I often capture as many as 10 buildings in a city.

 

[KinesongPayaso]

alright thanks

 

[Bradlius]

Could it also be that the AI somehow senses that you're going to capture the city and implements a "scorched earth" policy, destroying its own buildings just to spite you?
I remember in Civ I, there was a way to "sell off" your own city buildings and improvements, either because your polluting Coal Plant wasn't needed once you had built the Hydro Plant, for example, or because you wanted to deny the enemy the use of certain buildings if your city was in danger of imminent capture. Does anyone know if this is still possible in Civ IV? It was a favorite tactic of mine, but maybe a little micro-managementy for most people.

 

[Pogel]

The main reason for selling off cities in previous civs was because buildings cost cash to maintain. That's not the case in Civ 4 as maintenance is based on number of cities and distance from capital. No need to sell off buildings apart from to cripple a city that's about to be attacked. I guess you could interpret some buildings being destroyed as a spite on the side of the loser.

 

[smeiter.de]

can I raze a city, lets say 10 rounds after I have conquered it? Is this possible, or do I have to raze directly after marching into it when the military advisor askes me?

 

[Beamup]

You can only raze as you capture it. Once you choose to keep it, you've lost your chance.

 

[Andorim]

You can only raze as you capture it. Once you choose to keep it, you've lost your chance.

This can be a problem. Try to examine the city as closely as possible before capturing it. That way you can see if there are any wonders or shrines. I really wish that the player had the chance to examine the city before deciding to keep or raze.

=====

Another reason to raze a city (don't think it has been mentioned yet) is to give a city some cultural breathing room. Sometimes a new, or newly captured city, won't have much space to expand because another city is exerting too much cultural pressure. Eliminating the second city will make things better for the first.