Conquered cities: Keep 'em or torch 'em?

[Superevie]

I always keep the cities I capture. One of my first priorites in any type of game I'm paying is culture. Every city HAS to have a temple at least. I also build great wonders whenever I can. In every game I've played every rival is (to quote my foreign advisor) "in awe of our culture." This way, the countries won't flip back. A couple garrisons to quell resistors works and you can turn there crap-tacular cities into gold-makin' machines!

Superevie

 

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by The Last Conformist
Oughtn't that be lawful evil?

You are absolutely correct! Sorry, it has been awhile since D&D (Dungeons & Dragons). Anyway, razing cities seems like an evil thing but it's lawful according to the Art of War.

 

[JonathanValjean]

I almost always keep the cities I capture. In fact, I generally build up overwhelming force so as to not only take over the city, but also have all buildings that have been built (besides cultural improvements) and the infrastructure intact. Except for on deity and emperor, my culture is generally dominant enough that I don't have to worry about cultural flips. Even on emperor and deity, I take my chances, keeping all cities that I capture.

 

[RegentMan]

It mainly depends on the situation. Perhaps you should have added that poll option?

 

[KELLO]

Totally 100% depends on intended victory condition for me.

If i'm playing domination, there are virtually no circumstances under which I would raze. Only circumstances are
i) if I have no hope in hell of keeping the city (too strong enemy culture),
ii) Autoraze on size 1 (but I'd normally wait till they grow before attacking, or try to get their size 1's when signing peace)

On the other hand, if I'm playing conquest I'd only NOT raze the city under the following circumstances:
i) If the city is close enough to my core to defend adequetly and contribute to my mfng output
ii) If important strategic resources are in the immediate 9 square around the city.
iii) If keeping the city would help surpress enemy culture and allow me to pass along roads/railroads more easily for further warmongering.

In general for Space Race or Culture I'd keep em though... they tend to add something even if they are totally corrupt. Esp in Monarchy or Communism, where they can help a lot with adding to total number of supported units.

 

[MCueball]

It all depends on the mood I'm in and the placement of the city. If they've done something to piss me off or the city doesn't fit into my placement plans, it's gone.
The only times I'll keep a city that doesn't fit into my plans is when it has a wonder or a large population.
By the time I go on the warpath, I have a large number of units for attack and settlers ready to fill in to keep those pesky barbarians away / expand my area with less worry about the cities flipping.

 

[Krayzeenbk]

Late in the game, I almost always keep them, and pop rush a temple if I can. With the wide borders, enemy counterattacks really slow down.

I keep them early in the game too, because I need territory and cities for production, and I don't want to interrupt my war machine for settlers.