First thing to build after you capture it...

[Theov]

long time I've been using/buying a temple to produce culture, so the city won't flip.
But after i've seen a city 4 times in one game, I'm more going towards marketplace, since it makes peeps happy and doesn't get destroyed after a conversion.

 

[creamcheese]

One thing to consider is marketplaces are a lot more expensive. I usually use libraries (I play scientific a lot) for the same purpose, but really a lot of troops to garrison and to keep taking nearby cities, is a much better remedy.

 

[timerover51]

I have not captured that many cities, although that is changing rapidly. I have decided, based on my limited experience, that getting captured cities happy takes precedence over getting cities culture. Once they are happy, I can cash rush culture, barracks, and occupying troops.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

long time I've been using/buying a temple to produce culture, so the city won't flip.
But after i've seen a city 4 times in one game, I'm more going towards marketplace, since it makes peeps happy and doesn't get destroyed after a conversion.

The idea to build a temple is actually not that good as it only insignificantly decreases the chances of flips, if at all. Same goes for any kind of cultural building. Chances are, that the miserable 2 or 3 cpt that these building provide don't even register vis-á-vis the local culture that has been accumulting for dozens and dozens of turns. You are just wasting your money.


If you want something useful, that aids you in a war, settlers are probably best. Or just nothing at all. If the city flips recapture it.

(And don't bother with quelling resistance either, until the war is over.)

 

[Theov]

Yes, that's what I do now. I build a marketplace to get them happy. Or, if the city is big, the land is most of the time developed so I build workers from that city to make it smaller. The pop will grow back, but it will be of my nationality.
Settlers are of their nationality, so I don't find that a good plan.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Settlers are of their nationality, so I don't find that a good plan.

That is not such a big issue. If you use one of these settler to found a town, it will have zero local culture. And there is no chance of a new town with one pop to be unhappy. So, you can forget about two factors for the risk of a flip altogether.

 

[creamcheese]

The idea to build a temple is actually not that good as it only insignificantly decreases the chances of flips, if at all. Same goes for any kind of cultural building. Chances are, that the miserable 2 or 3 cpt that these building provide don't even register vis-á-vis the local culture that has been accumulting for dozens and dozens of turns. You are just wasting your money.


If you want something useful, that aids you in a war, settlers are probably best. Or just nothing at all. If the city flips recapture it.

(And don't bother with quelling resistance either, until the war is over.)

The idea of expanding you borders is the point of the temple, not for the culture as a deterrent in and of itself. A city with less tiles controlled by the other civ in your new city's 20 tile radius has a smaller chance of flipping. Not to mention that they cannot be sneaky and use roads/rails in the gaps to strike deeper behind your lines.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

The idea of expanding you borders is the point of the temple, not for the culture as a deterrent in and of itself. A city with less tiles controlled by the other civ in your new city's 20 tile radius has a smaller chance of flipping.

Just take out the sources of cultural pressure.

Not to mention that they cannot be sneaky and use roads/rails in the gaps to strike deeper behind your lines.

Never had that problem. Units behind my 'lines' are generally sitting ducks.

And anyway it takes a relatively long time for a town to expand its borders with a temple or a lib. Four or five turns (plus) always seem like an eternity to me during war.

ETA: And if there are rails in place, it is not problem to cart in settlers from whereever.

 

[creamcheese]

Just take out the sources of cultural pressure.

And anyway it takes a relatively long time for a town to expand its borders with a temple or a lib. Four or five turns (plus) always seem like an eternity to me during war.



Never had that problem. Units behind my 'lines' are generally sitting ducks.

Well yes, it is generally more efficient to do that, which is why I suggested that solution in my first post, but it is still effective to expand you borders.

I am curious how they can be sitting ducks if they might attack in one turn? Using fast movers or rails, an enemy unit might strike from many tiles away and attack one of your cities or units in a single turn from the "front lines" (however far you have penetrated) you can garrison all of these, but that is a waste of troops when a few culture points can block their routes of attack and free up more units to keep attacking. Then you can also use unprotected workers to improve land you have just conquered without fear of attack in a single turn. With more than one turn to respond you can bombard them to smithereens.

EDIT: If you have enough settlers to spare for gap filling, you should probably just raze and replace anyway...

 

[CommandoBob]

Build a worker or settler. That reduces the size of the city and gives you a free unit. If the city is resisting, disband something old and cheap to rush the worker/settler. Otherwise, just pay cash. Even at 80 shields for a slave, this is cheaper than buying from the AI. Those guys price their workers at around 100 shields.

Once the city is down to size 1 or 2, the flip chances go way, way down. As the city grows, your people will be born and in time the natives will become assimulated into your people.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Well yes, it is generally more efficient to do that, which is why I suggested that solution in my first post, but it is still effective to expand you borders.

I am curious how they can be sitting ducks if they might attack in one turn? Using fast movers or rails, an enemy unit might strike from many tiles away and attack one of your cities or units in a single turn from the "front lines" (however far you have penetrated) you can garrison all of these, but that is a waste of troops when a few culture points can block their routes of attack and free up more units to keep attacking. Then you can also use unprotected workers to improve land you have just conquered without fear of attack in a single turn. With more than one turn to respond you can bombard them to smithereens.

Behind your lines and in the gaps between your cities is never really a problem. Because even with fast movers, this takes several turns before units become a threat to anything.

Frontal assaults on the other hand, i.e. attacks that directly come from AI territory and go against your 3x3 boxes of towns, are quite problematic if the AI has fast movers. But this kind of threat exists straight away when you capture a town. And it would/will continue to exist for all the time it takes to build up culture (or you otherwise take out the threats). So, supposing you capture a town, then quell the resistance, rush a temple, wait for the borders to expand, it still takes six long turns until the temple helps you against frontal fast mover attack. Six turns where you have to wing things with other means.

And chances are, when you eventually get your cultural expansion, the threat does not exist anymore because your war moved on. So that, when you need the expansion, you don't have it, and when you have it, you don't need it anymore.

EDIT: If you have enough settlers to spare for gap filling, you should probably just raze and replace anyway...

You'd lose the population that was in the cities. That can tally up to a lot population that you'd have to regrow over the course of several turns.

 

[King of Anshan]

don't forget one vital point for a bit of culture in a new city...

The (world)map just looks somemuch better if all the gaps are filled.

(And I usually build temples/libraries for that reason)
Conquered cities usually tend to be quite far away and quite corrupt so marketplaces seem to me as a waste. If you fear culture flips just depopulate the city, either before or after capture.

 

[Raliuven]

One thing to consdier - after you build that temple, you will pay a 1gpt price to maintain it until you sell it - wasting the shields/gold it took to build with only a small return - or until the end of the game. The 1 happiness it provides is a joke. It does expand your boarders but if it is in a corrupt neighborhood, you are going to ICS it for farms anyway. If it is going to be part of your productive core, build a market or library - better investment IMO.

The cost of rushing 'slave' workers is the base cost of the shield rush/gold. Then the slave is free and useful forever. Make enough of them and you can disband your native workforce and that actually saves money.

There are some exceptions based on chosen VC where a temple rush may make sense.

 

[Ataxerxes]

One thing to consdier - after you build that temple, you will pay a 1gpt price to maintain it until you sell it - wasting the shields/gold it took to build with only a small return - or until the end of the game. The 1 happiness it provides is a joke. It does expand your boarders but if it is in a corrupt neighborhood, you are going to ICS it for farms anyway. If it is going to be part of your productive core, build a market or library - better investment IMO.

The cost of rushing 'slave' workers is the base cost of the shield rush/gold. Then the slave is free and useful forever. Make enough of them and you can disband your native workforce and that actually saves money.

There are some exceptions based on chosen VC where a temple rush may make sense.

I agree. A lot of people starve down a captured city to get rid of resistors and homeland unhappiness anyway. Whey not get something useful like a Settler or free Worker while you're reducing the size? Also, the AI usually packs the cities in close enough that the ordinary city borders are enough.

That said, you do need to get rid of the surrounding culture from those other cities that are in an ugly color (all colors except mine are ugly and an affront to the natural order).

 

[vmxa]

One reason you may not do that is the level. You may be risking a flip. The other is you already have all the slaves you really want to manage anyway.

 

[Theov]

I agree. A lot of people starve down a captured city to get rid of resistors and homeland unhappiness anyway. Whey not get something useful like a Settler or free Worker while you're reducing the size? Also, the AI usually packs the cities in close enough that the ordinary city borders are enough.

That said, you do need to get rid of the surrounding culture from those other cities that are in an ugly color (all colors except mine are ugly and an affront to the natural order).

Sure, the best answer would be "don't want a flip? Take out the entire civ!"

 

[Raliuven]

One reason you may not do that is the level. You may be risking a flip. The other is you already have all the slaves you really want to manage anyway.

There is a limit to how many slaves I want?

Of course, destroying the city would supply a lot of slaves too . It just a matter of rounding up enough settlers to patch things up. And at least this way I can place those ICS cities properly. The AI is very inconsiderate when it comes to settling cities in an ICS friendly pattern.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Sure, the best answer would be "don't want a flip? Take out the entire civ!"

That is the best answer.

 

[Theov]

That is the best answer.

and I answered my own question with it!
Ok so the consensus seems to be that when you get a city, build workers.
It is much like the forcing labour in communism.