do you keep conquered cities?

[vanollefen]

Unless you wipe the enemy civ out, they keep revolting back to the original owner. ITs a pain. I've taken to raizing the cities, and sending settlers in behind my armor.

Is there a way to keep them from revolting?

 

[princeofamber]

You have to garrison military units in the city to quell the "reisistors," which is a pain. I raze them b'c I like to start fresh with my own people. Less chance of disorder, revolts, etc. Plus I probably want to change the location of the city a bit, anyway. There really is no downside to razong the city - the other civ is going to hate you anyway, and other civs don't really care. The only time I keep a city is if I capture a wonder. Of course, you can starve off the popualtion as well - but why waste time....RAZE IT.

 

[SKILORD]

you must develop a supreme culture so that not only will the cities not go back to their original owners but also sometimes you're enemies cities will flock to you. i perfer having a diverse civilization so i like to keep enemy's former cities..... also saves me the cost of the settlers.

 

[MrMulan]

I use four cities at the corners of my capital as worker/settler/even defender producers. I will have extra settlers. and the cities will never get above pop3. When I conquer a city, I raze and use a settler not in the same spot, but in a nearby position that won't overlap with my nearby cities.

Even when an ai city flips to me, I've noticed that the culture is 0, so I produce the pop down with settlers or workers and move the city ever so slightly outwards.

 

[Warlord Sam]

not since my second game have I had a conquered city revert. I've learned the infinite importance of culture, and usually lead the world in that arena. And for that occasional city that you can't keep due to a) not enough culture or b) too far from your civ, Instead of razing it I just trade it for ungodly amounts of techs/money/luxuries/units to a neutral country. Unless of course there is a resource I want that the city has, in which case the raze and settle thing might be a last resort. /shrug

 

[MrMulan]

Originally posted by Warlord Sam
I just trade it for ungodly amounts of techs/money/luxuries/units to a neutral country. /shrug

I thought you cant do that with the patch

 

[brgatesjr]

I don't have too much trouble with cities reverting. When I capture a city that is larger than say size six 1) I reduce the work force until there is a shortage..this causes starvation and increases the rate of removing resisters. This works very well on larger cites. 2) Garrison large amounts of troops to quell the remaining resistors. Once the resistance is quelled I will rush the temple....then the cathedral...then the library or marketplace(to improve luxury rate)...then library...ect. 3) keep growth rate a Zero until city have enough happiness to support more growth. 4) Always keep as many units as you can afford in a captured city. If a unit attacks and still has a move left return it to a city to wait till the next turn if possible. 5) turn up you lux rate. 6)never draft from these cites or despot rush either.
this seems to work for me very well. Of course if your opponent has way more culture than you then you are screwed. In my experimentations with save and reloading the main way to save a city from revolting even after the above is to increase entertainers and military units in the city.
FWIW,
Bruce

 

[HIEROPHANT]

I always burn the emeny cities to the ground unless they have a wonder. I use the best weapon culture so I dont lose units. I even build a town right one outside their boundry and quick build a temple so my boundry forces theirs back.

 

[Natel]

RAZE IT. And only keep them if a wonder exit!!.
You may as well consider if you want to save the cost of the settlers.

 

[cafka]

If the city doesn't fit in my Expansion Plan, its a go-go.

But sometimes I make a exception; if it holds a wonder or something.

 

[MrMulan]

If a conquered city hold an obsolete wonder, is there any reason to keep it? Ive noticed it doesn't give you ant cultural points. Please enlighten me.

 

[YoungEagle]

Here's another question about flipping...

I conquered the Egyptian capital at Thebes, and there were a few resistors. A few turns later, I took their last city - Cairo and the game said I had just eliminated the Egyptians.

Is there any chance the resistors in Thebes could oust me, since I have destroyed the Egyptians?

 

[Ripley]

Originally posted by YoungEagle
Here's another question about flipping...

I conquered the Egyptian capital at Thebes, and there were a few resistors. A few turns later, I took their last city - Cairo and the game said I had just eliminated the Egyptians.

Is there any chance the resistors in Thebes could oust me, since I have destroyed the Egyptians?

Yes. It obviously won't flip to the Egyptians but it might well flip to another nearby Civ if their culture is strong enough, and their capital nearer than yours.

 

[Allemand]

I sometimes give them a chance, but if they flip then they're dead on the next turn.

 

[Doomsday]

I keep them, becasue if I don't some other civ will take that land. Even if it is a curruption riddled town, I just build cultural improvements and then set it to wealth.

I also starve every city I take down to the lowest it will go to. I don't have to worry about resistors then

 

[BillChin]

I keep most cities if I can take more cities within the next few turns. Flipping is a minor issue because I station troops just outside of the city and retake it immediately if it flips. I do not like having settlers with the army, as they can not keep up with the fast units and sometimes get captured by the enemy's fast units. Settlers are one more thing to babysit, along with the artillery. I find it much easier to station a few troops outside of a captured cities than keeping settlers around.

There are a few exceptions. I like to build the Forbidden Palace in a city that I have settled. This is one city that is worth a lot so flipping is a disaster as the Forbidden Palace is lost when recaptured. This way I can also pick a real nice location, nicely centered with food and hills. I will raze cities if they are going to flip right away and I can not take another city in the next few turns.

 

[amadeus]

I move my troops in like crazy, and I give them a peace treaty along with the captured city. If they attack me again, I'll literally blow them all to hell. Bismarck found this out quickly...

 

[Troyens]

Originally posted by Doomsday
I keep them, becasue if I don't some other civ will take that land. Even if it is a curruption riddled town, I just build cultural improvements and then set it to wealth.

I also starve every city I take down to the lowest it will go to. I don't have to worry about resistors then

Ironic that Civ III over emphasizes culture to such an extent it forces us to act like Nazis exterminating huge populations to prevent flipping.

 

[holyman]

i usually keep them for trading... in deity level ai's tech advancement was too fast. i had 3 civs next to me and 4 others on other continents. so i attacked and trade cities among the 3 closer ones and do science/map broker with the faraway ones, to maintain my cashflow. but i dont make more than 2 enemies at the same time.

 

[RAL2000]

I used to try all this hokey garrisoning and starvation and high culture and blah blah blah. But it just is not worth the aggravation IMO. I lost cities with huge garrisons, dwarfing the population, and even though I was ahead on overall culture. Once I lost an entire airforce in a tight level game, all in one fell swoop. Don't forget that once the AI gets espionage, they can take a shot at any 'weak' city and flip it!

Now the only cities I don't raze are ones with active top wonders, or small cities with population 1-2 that help me invade because they provide an efficient pathway into the enemy's interior. I keep the garrison minimized on them, and never station planes/artillery etc in them if possible.

I find routinely razing has increased the game enjoyment immensely.