Keeping or burning cities?

[Kartik]

Im wondering which tactic is more important and why? (im talking about after you capture a city you have the choice to destroy it or keep it)

 

[Delta]

If the city holds a valuble resource nearby then its normaly a good reason to keep it. If the city is of a good size and has good land then it may be worth adding to your empire.

If it has nether then it may be better to raze it. If you keep citys you need to defend them, and if all your trying to do is take a bite out of an oponent, then razeing it will free up units that could go on attacking other cities.

Thats the way I see it anyway.

 

[Sisiutil]

Remember you also usually want to keep a city if it's a holy city, or if it contains a world wonder (the latter is often difficult to determine).

 

[Rathelm]

Cities are only worth keeping if they are needed. I determine need by 3 factors. Holy City/Wonder, Excellent Prod/Comm/Research city, or Strategic reasons. For example cutting off resources culturally from another empire. If you don't need the city you really should consider razing it.

 

[jimbob27]

Remember you also usually want to keep a city if it's a holy city, or if it contains a world wonder (the latter is often difficult to determine).

No it's not. You just look on the wonders list in the info screen.

 

[a4phantom]

Remember that keeping cities is very expensive, but razing cities gives you diplomatic penalties with their founder even if that's not who you took it from. (The Chinese conquer Warwick. You take it two thousand years later and raze it, and the English are pissed at you.) Still I'd say raze when it doesn't meet one of Rathelm's criteria or piss off an ally, because otherwise the maintainance cost on rebellious junk cities will smother you.

 

[cabert]

if you want to go for conquest, raze everything

 

[MosquitoE]

No it's not. You just look on the wonders list in the info screen.

Actually the wonders list tells you which civilization built a particular wonder, not which city it is located in.
Wonders will show up on the map if you look closely. Some of them are easy to see on the map (pyramids for example) than others.

 

[Sisiutil]

No it's not. You just look on the wonders list in the info screen.

Er... not always. Check the screenshot below and tell me which Egyptian city contains Angkor Wat:



The info screen only tells you which Civilization has built the wonder; it doesn't, unfortunately, tell you which city it's in unless it's one of the top five cities. This screen really should tell you the location of the wonder--previous versions of Civ did. It's not like it should be a big secret.

I keep hoping, in vain, that Firaxis' next patch will fix this...

 

[Pitboss]

Remember you also usually want to keep a city if it's a holy city, or if it contains a world wonder (the latter is often difficult to determine).

There is that, and the fact that it does or does not fall into the proximity of one of your cities. I'm always trying to give each city the biggest city radius they can have, and if it takes raizing a enemy city ... all the beter

 

[a4phantom]

Er... not always. Check the screenshot below and tell me which Egyptian city contains Angkor Wat:

The info screen only tells you which Civilization has built the wonder; it doesn't, unfortunately, tell you which city it's in unless it's one of the top five cities. This screen really should tell you the location of the wonder--previous versions of Civ did. It's not like it should be a big secret.

I keep hoping, in vain, that Firaxis' next patch will fix this...

Yeah, I think the announcements of when construction begins and nears completion and in which city were fair, that would be the stuff of news and legends.

 

[Draino]

You should be able to veiw whats in the city before you make your decison. As a new-comer to the game I was getting confused to which resources where which, you can't even see what the resource is when the raze or occupy screen is up.

 

[voek]

If you have a good eye you can actualy see the wonders in the city without zooming in (for example: a small colosus standing at the coast of your city). Or better look at Athene in the screenshot posted above. You see the Pyramids lying next to the river. But I agree, it should be possible to check/know in which city they are, that's why it are world wonders.

 

[Sisiutil]

If you have a good eye you can actualy see the wonders in the city without zooming in (for example: a small colosus standing at the coast of your city). Or better look at Athene in the screenshot posted above. You see the Pyramids lying next to the river. But I agree, it should be possible to check/know in which city they are, that's why it are world wonders.

Exactly--I shouldn't have to come to the info screen to see what the teeny-tiny Angkor Wat graphic looks like, then zoom in on the city I'm attacking to see if it's there.

How hard would it be for the info screen to say "ANGKOR WAT, Pi-Rammeses, Egypt, 1600AD?

 

[a4phantom]

You should be able to veiw whats in the city before you make your decison. As a new-comer to the game I was getting confused to which resources where which, you can't even see what the resource is when the raze or occupy screen is up.

Civ3 told you which wonders were in the city when you captured it. Since Civ4 denies you the ability to destroy a city except at the moment you conquer it, it should expand on the information given at that time, not eliminate it.

Sisiutil, your quote makes me think of the Devil's Dictionary:

CANNON, n. An instrument employed in the rectification of national boundaries.

 

[Nicci]

in Civ3 you could destroy any city, anytime. that's what's bothering e about Civ4. the instant you take the city, you have to decide wheter you keep it or not.