Conquered cities: Keep 'em or torch 'em?

[Roxtar]

When at war & capturing enemy cities, which action do you choose:

1. Keep 'em--quell resistors, rush temples/libraries, dare enemy to retake cities?

Or 2. Torch 'em--take remaining citizens as workers?

 

[NeonInfusion]

TORCH. of course. i don't like have revolting citizens. I just settle my one.

 

[farting bob]

if there is a direct path to my empire with no enemy cities in the way then i keep it and use it to move troops into the heart of there empire quciker, but if it is surrounded by enemy cities then i raze it.

 

[MadScot]

Very, very rarely will I raze an enemy city (except when forced by the size one rule).

If it's small it isn't *that* likely to flip.

If it's big I went to all that effort to get it, I'm going to hang onto it. I will starve and clown the locals, but the city itself I'll keep.

My attitude may be biased because I tend to finish my wars - even if the AI starts them - and tend to war late in the game, too, when there are quite a few cities worth keeping - wonders and such.

 

[Punkymonkey]

I keep them unless they are taking up resources for a city i built befor or if they're really far away

 

[Ordep]

Depends upon how I'm playing. If I want the other civs to like me I'll either keep the city for myself or take it and give it to a weak ally. If I'm warmongering and don't care if everyone hates me, the city's toast.

 

[FlakJacket]

Nearly always keep unless they're completely untenable. I'm a late warmonger so I find a couple armies worth of infantry put down the hoi polloi nicely.

 

[baldeagle]

I don't want a rep hit, so I always keep them, unless they are in a hopelessly bad location.
I may later get rid of a badly placed city, but I'll wait "until the foreign blood has vanished". AFAIK, I won't get a rep hit by doing that.

 

[Roxtar]

Originally posted by Ordep
If I'm warmongering and don't care if everyone hates me, the city's toast.

That's exactly how I'm playing in my current game. I do as General Sherman did--torch 'em all. Muahahahahahaha!

 

[general_kill]

By the time I start my warmongering I will be prepared to take on the world!!! Just kidding, the only reason i would ever keep a city is if its in a chokepoint, i need it to heal troops, or if I'm launching a continental war and that city is the launching pad for my attack. I'll just disband a few units to build an airport and all hell will break lose upon my foes.

I don't really care about my rep because if I'm gonna goto war with everyone anyway who cares if they call me a lying cheat. Besides, free workers from razing big cities!!!

 

[WickedSmurf]

If I've got a strong enough culture and can put a temple rather quickly, I'll keep 'em. It also of course depends on its strategic importance and other factors.

 

[warmonger]

Always, always keep them.

I'm a happy little warmonger right from the start - rarely get past monarchy as rep or dem can't handle a thousand years of warring.

Each new city gives me at least 2 free units for my war machine.

I usually pick up Suntzu along the way so a new city gives fast healing

Rarely do I lose one to a flip because back in the home counties culture is as high as possible.

 

[Darkness]

I keep 'em, unless I'm really lagging in culture...

 

[Qitai]

Keep them. I have so far only raze in one game - GOTM22 due to rushing to get an early conquest victory and don't want to waste any troop staying behind to secure cities.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I raze in basically two circumtances; 1) I've taken a city I've got no hope of keeping - I may have captured a city from a more powerful enemy, hoping to shock him into accepting peace, but the bastard insists on continuing the fight - or 2) as part of a late-game conquered-the-world offensive, when I don't want to bind troops to defend captured cities.

But the vast majority of cities I take, I keep. I usually conquer cities because I want them.

 

[Smellincoffee]

I usually keep all of my conquests, rushing/drafting defense for it. Unless, of course, I have a personal vendetta against that Civ, where I raze every other city.

 

[Turner]

Depends. If it's in a good location, I keep it. If it's the usually Stupid AI Placement, torch it. Rep hit? Who cares?

 

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by Turner_727
If it's the usually Stupid AI Placement, torch it. Rep hit? Who cares?

Attitude hit actually! Razing city do not damage your reputation! There is such a thing as honorable tyrant, you know. In another word, a chaotic lawful ruler.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Oughtn't that be lawful evil?

 

[PresidentMike]

It depends. If I don't gain some kind of advantage by keeping the city, or if it's too much time and/or trouble to assimilate it, I'll torch it. But if I do gain some advantage by holding onto it (a wonder, for example) I'll keep it and starve it down to size one.