Consequences of Razing

[gamemaster3000]

What exactly are the consequences of razing, specifically for the raze-ee, other non-allied players, and allied players.

I'm running away with my second game and am considering a bit of a...cleanse...to make the game go faster. But I don't want to lose all my trading partners in the process.

Also I might make a separate post about this, but at difficulty 4 of 6 the other civs have been declaring war on me for little to no reason...then giving me their largest cities despite the fact I wasn't remotely anywhere near them, much less threatening them. Although maybe Gate of All Nations is helping me with that?

 

[MutilationWave]

What exactly are the consequences of razing, specifically for the raze-ee, other non-allied players, and allied players.

I'm running away with my second game and am considering a bit of a...cleanse...to make the game go faster. But I don't want to lose all my trading partners in the process.

Also I might make a separate post about this, but at difficulty 4 of 6 the other civs have been declaring war on me for little to no reason...then giving me their largest cities despite the fact I wasn't remotely anywhere near them, much less threatening them. Although maybe Gate of All Nations is helping me with that?

You get -1 war support in every war for every settlement razed, until the the of the age. It does not seem to affect your relations with other civs, and the one you're razing is already going to be maximum negative.

Gate of all nations is extremely unlikely to affect your second thought.. It's just what they do. They do it on deity.

I raze a lot, also on deity. I don't need their badly placed city with badly placed buildings. I'll keep about half of those I conquer and raze the rest. That little bit of war support isn't much, especially with Gate (always build) and the +1 war support attribute (always take). Don't forget it resets on age, even though in game it says it's for the "rest of the game".

 

[vorlon_mi]

In Modern, I've noticed that I take a hit on my influence accumulation when I raze cities. Is that your experience as well?

That has an effect on the ability to send the Great Banker around the world to win the Economic victory. Each branch that you want to create in the capitals requires both gold and influence.

 

[Krikkit1]

In Modern, I've noticed that I take a hit on my influence accumulation when I raze cities. Is that your experience as well?

That has an effect on the ability to send the Great Banker around the world to win the Economic victory. Each branch that you want to create in the capitals requires both gold and influence.

There is an influence hit when you conquer cities... (and if you give the city up in a peace deal or it gets reconquered it goes away). Possibly the penalty Doesn't go away if you raze the city.

 

[MutilationWave]

In Modern, I've noticed that I take a hit on my influence accumulation when I raze cities. Is that your experience as well?

That has an effect on the ability to send the Great Banker around the world to win the Economic victory. Each branch that you want to create in the capitals requires both gold and influence.

There is an influence hit when you conquer cities... (and if you give the city up in a peace deal or it gets reconquered it goes away). Possibly the penalty Doesn't go away if you raze the city.

Wow thanks folks. I honestly never noticed the influence penalty, and I do a lot of war! Wish we could get some kind of breakdown of every yield other than "other penalties -51" or whatever it exactly says.

As I've min maxed my play even more I've started doing something, especially in exploration, where I take 2++ cities on the last turn of the age so I can get the most done. This way the ones I choose to keep have no real in-game period of unrest and the ones I raze just go poof in the next age.

Maybe that's why I never noticed.

 

[CliffCo]

This article gives a good explanation of how negative influence can accrue. In addition to this if you declare a surprise war then the person you declared war on will receive a bonus to their influence, so it's generally better to be in a hostile relationship prior to declaring war.

 

[MutilationWave]

This article gives a good explanation of how negative influence can accrue. In addition to this if you declare a surprise war then the person you declared war on will receive a bonus to their influence, so it's generally better to be in a hostile relationship prior to declaring war.

I honestly had no idea about the influence penalties of conquest. I have thought hey I was getting 100+ per turn, what happened? That's what happened.

Thanks.

 

[CliffCo]

I honestly had no idea about the influence penalties of conquest. I have thought hey I was getting 100+ per turn, what happened? That's what happened.

Thanks.

i'm far from being a warmonger and rarely declare war on anyone unless there's a settlement that i really need, once i get it i go defensive and wait for them to offer me a peace deal so i can gain another settlement. if they don't offer me one that's very close to my existing borders i usually decline and wait until i get one i want. my last game was an exception where i was at war with 4 civs at the same time and took a town in the deal that was far away and i knew i'd end up giving away at some point. I ended the game with 23 settlements without conquering any.

While it's nice to receive free settlements i would like to see that change where we get offered gold and resources instead of towns sometimes. One of the patches helped a little by making adjustments to which settlements they agreed to give us but i feel more changes are needed.

 

[MutilationWave]

i'm far from being a warmonger and rarely declare war on anyone unless there's a settlement that i really need, once i get it i go defensive and wait for them to offer me a peace deal so i can gain another settlement. if they don't offer me one that's very close to my existing borders i usually decline and wait until i get one i want. my last game was an exception where i was at war with 4 civs at the same time and took a town in the deal that was far away and i knew i'd end up giving away at some point. I ended the game with 23 settlements without conquering any.

While it's nice to receive free settlements i would like to see that change where we get offered gold and resources instead of towns sometimes. One of the patches helped a little by making adjustments to which settlements they agreed to give us but i feel more changes are needed.

I'm a huge warfighter but not much of a warmonger if that makes sense. I have only declared a couple, maybe three, times. I let my opponents decide for themselves when they want to get slaughtered.

 

[Krikkit1]

i'm far from being a warmonger and rarely declare war on anyone unless there's a settlement that i really need, once i get it i go defensive and wait for them to offer me a peace deal so i can gain another settlement. if they don't offer me one that's very close to my existing borders i usually decline and wait until i get one i want. my last game was an exception where i was at war with 4 civs at the same time and took a town in the deal that was far away and i knew i'd end up giving away at some point. I ended the game with 23 settlements without conquering any.

While it's nice to receive free settlements i would like to see that change where we get offered gold and resources instead of towns sometimes. One of the patches helped a little by making adjustments to which settlements they agreed to give us but i feel more changes are needed.

I think sticking to settlements and Maybe influence (if no settlements are exchanged) is good.

 

[gamemaster3000]

There is an influence hit when you conquer cities... (and if you give the city up in a peace deal or it gets reconquered it goes away). Possibly the penalty Doesn't go away if you raze the city.

Glad I made the post, I would have never learned this otherwise most likely