Conquering a city

[maddskillz]

I guess there are pros and cons to conquering a city involving both razing it or establishing a new gov’t. Which tends to work better for you and why? I like the idea of getting “free buildings, as far as labor cost, although you pay the maintenance”, but dislike having to man the city with units when you need them to continue your assault. I like the idea of getting workers at no cost when you raze a city. Of course you keep a city if it has a wonder.

2 main questions:

1) Does a wonder give you both culture and the benefits if you take the city over?
2) Is there a ratio of soldiers to populace in order to keep them in check and avoid being overthrown?
3) Raze or establish gov’t, which is better and win?

Thanks!

 

[Zant]

1) yes
2) there isn't one. but keep in mind that 2 units normally give a smily so just put in 2 units. other than that just start in the newly "liberated" city by building a temple.
3) really depends on the situation. is it far off? is it in a strategic location? is it next to luxuries/resources? I normally take them over but when the corruption get's too bad and I don't really need the city I just raze it.

 

[eyrei]

Actually, a captured wonder does not provide culture points, though you will still reap the benefits if it is not obsolete.

 

[Cerryl]

Usually I like to capture the capitol, and will raze a couple of the nearby cities to reduce the Culture around the capitol, so it doesn't revert back to them quickly.

 

[Moulton]

I 've never had a capitol revert. nor any city revert after I took the capitol. seems like they get so demoralized they just slink away. Of course, Joan won't even speak to me now...
I have looked at captured wonders, and never seen culture points from them.

 

[Zant]

I never noticed you didn't get cultural points from them. ah well my bad

 

[Scoobs]

I only keep cities if they fit into my overall city layout, or are strategicly important. Early on I'll keep most cities, in the late game, I dont need em, and holding them becomes more hassle then its worth. I always keep tundra cities, and use em to rush buy settlers, which also dispands the city. Every major ocean crossing invasion should have a settler in it, to found and rush buy barracks, airport, walls, for base of operation. Dont keep the first costal city you take, It will revert, and losing all those units sucks.

 

[markv]

I always have a very high culture, so when I lose cities to other nations it's usually because the natives of a conquered city would rather be ruled by their own kind. So, I do the following:

1. Deplete the city's population as much as possible using some sort of artillery.
2. Starve the city's population for several turns in a row to kill people off.

Doing these two things allows the city to fill up with your ethnic group, making them less likely to leave the empire.

Another thing I sometimes do is raze the foreign city, then quickly settle the area, and use nearby workers to populate it.

 

[Bugg]

I usually keep the city, if i have enough units I will try to stop the resisting. I believe that if you have four resisters than four or five units will end the resistance on the next turn. After the resistance is ended I withdraw all units except for one defender and keep attacking. If it reverts i've only lost one unit( if I can't afford a couple of units I have no business attacking) I build a library as soon as I can. Once that is complete I treat it like my other cities.
The other reason i dislike razing is it seems like it takes forever for me to get peace.
I WILL ALWAYS RAZE IF I WILL BE SURROUNDED BY THE A.I.