If you capture many low pop undeveloped cities in early wars do you raze or puppet?

[Artifex1]

Basically when you capture undeveloped cities in early wars what do you like to do them?

 

[Helmling]

Puppet.

In the long run you can surround them with trading posts and make them pay for themselves. The only drawback to puppeting is the minor happiness hit. The city will usually produce enough culture buildings and happiness buildings to make it pay for itself.

Now, that said, I usually only target cities with luxuries or other goods I can sell right away--to make it instantly worthwhile.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I generally don't raze, but if they're pretty useless cities, there's less harm to it. Things like population, improvements, and border expansions are nice. If they're not there, I have less reason to care.

 

[muhtesem insan]

I don't raze unless AI founded cities too close to each other.

 

[Nlmh71]

I always raze, although I have never used the trading post tactic. Settlers are much cheaper than courthouses, and regular cities don't create as much unhappiness. Also, I like to actually control what my cities produce, personal preference I guess.

 

[crossmr]

I always raze, although I have never used the trading post tactic. Settlers are much cheaper than courthouses, and regular cities don't create as much unhappiness. Also, I like to actually control what my cities produce, personal preference I guess.

settlers require you pay gold/tie up production in an existing city vs getting a courthouse built in that city.

Does an annexed city with a courthouse create any additional unhappiness over a regular city?

 

[Greatsword]

Basically when you capture undeveloped cities in early wars what do you like to do them?

Depends:
a) surrounding area/ressources
b) excess happiness
Most of the time I have to raze them. It's one of the reasons why I hate Alexander; for his countless (empty) cities.

Does an annexed city with a courthouse create any additional unhappiness over a regular city?

No, it actually creates less unhappiness. For some odd reason there is no "number-of-cities" unhappiness (3 less unhappiness). Combinend with the "Police State" SP you can get an additional +3 happiness. In that case the annexed city would give you 3+3=6 more happiness then a regular city (for a Maintenance of 4 gold and the increase in SP aquisition)

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I don't raze unless AI founded cities too close to each other.

So you always raze ?

I used to puppet, but with the latest patch I have started to mostly raze and replace enemy citites with my own three to one.

 

[muhtesem insan]

So you always raze ?

not always but mostly though. If a city has plenty of space keep I'll keep it, if not but well placed then open place for it by razing other cities.

 

[TM Moot]

Depends:
a) surrounding area/ressources
b) current unhappiness

This.

I'm an Empire builder at heart, so i like to retain as much land/cities as possible.

In my last game, i conquered the other 2 civs on my continent and for the first time ever i actually built Trade Posts on every farm surrounding the puppets.

For the rest of the game i was alot better of for happiness and had loads of cash.

 

[Wezqu]

I usually have razed all the other cities that I can raze exept those that have wonders. I might do some annexing and puppeting in the next game I play to test out how it works.

 

[Uberfrog]

In my last game, I puppeted two nicely-placed cities (in terms of luxury resources) with a view to making them trade post cities.

The conquest and rebellion produced in both cases in a 1-population city. However, in both cases, the gold-focussed governor, in his inifinite wisdom, worked a 3 gold tile with no food output. So without annexation (or indeed razing-and-rebuilding) I would've been left with two perpetually 1-population cities, unless I forked out on food buildings.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Depends on what kind of mood I'm in.

 

[qyll]

The closer it is, the less likely I am to raze.

 

[turtlefang]

I trend to raze the cities. It does depend a little on the point in the game and how many building survive the conquest but I usually prefer my own cities. I dislike paying for the courthouse maintenance cost - even though it actually helps on happiness.

Now, if the city has a wonder or a is next to a great lux I will keep it.

 

[pspboy7]

I always puppet, more upsides than downsides to it. Plus, razing even a useless city just gives more space for an AI to expand unless I actually plan to build there later on. Having a city should be better than not having one, even if it's not a good one.

 

[Roghar]

puppet if happiness can afford it

 

[Shawouin]

You forget a third choice, selling them.

Instead of razing them, I sell them to AI to put some more trouble in the region, mostly for gold to upgrade my troops. This AI I sold to will be guarded, so I sold, or give them sometime, to low AI I already kicked. I don't mind doing it again if I have to. These small civ fight each other while I try to put some on my side for further research and ressource agreement. Meanwhile, I go after the biggest one. That's what I do at emperor.


Catherine offer me peace with maybe 10 cities, I couldn't clearly keep them all, so I sold some and give other to form a buffer.

 

[Louis XXIV]

If you want to increase SP cost for short term gold gain, knock yourself out.

 

[Bezurn]

I puppet most of the time. If the city is 1 off a coast and has sea resources its raze 99.9% of the time. Also if the city would interfere with a city spot that is more optimal for my layout I'll raze.