Boss Tweed
Warlord
but why expand on your own when you've got everything there on your own?
Occupy vs Raze
- Thread starter Gaerdraug
- Start date
The conquered city may flip, unless you conquer whole landmass. The worst is when you try to quell resistance in a few turns to actually build something there and city flips anyway. Better raze&replace, since you can choose better place for city and you can hurry something in there immediatelly.
Boss Tweed
Warlord
that's when you make all the inhabitants tax/science men and starve the population down until its the size of 1, or eliminate resistance and hurry settlers to get rid of population.
sometimes this isn't a reasonable goal when you're capturing their second built city with a HUGE population and culture size (but then you just raze them for the slaves)
I don't get that I've already said here that the top scoring Sid HoF games played keep and capture (at least for the most part). But, people here keep talking about raze and replace *instead* of trying to figure out better strategies to play keep and capture. Neither has anyone indicated how those games could have worked better with raze and replace.
To that end of learning to play keep and capture better, you can only quell as many citizens as you have units in a city. In other words, if you have 6 units and 4 resisters in a city, you have 2 more units in that city which won't increase the probability of quelling all the citizens... you have as great a probablility of quelling all those citizens with 4 units as with 6. You also don't need strong units. A 1/2 warrior has as much probability of quelling a resistor as a 5/5 modern armor.
To that end of learning to play keep and capture better, you can only quell as many citizens as you have units in a city. In other words, if you have 6 units and 4 resisters in a city, you have 2 more units in that city which won't increase the probability of quelling all the citizens... you have as great a probablility of quelling all those citizens with 4 units as with 6. You also don't need strong units. A 1/2 warrior has as much probability of quelling a resistor as a 5/5 modern armor.
Thanks! This will speed up my wars quite a bit
Lord Emsworth
Emperor
I am not sure that it follows that the probability of quelling all resistors in a city isn't increased with more units from the fact that you can only quell as many citizens as you have units in a city.
By and large there are two cases to consider. The first is that you are still at war with the mother country of the resistors. In that case each of your units has a given chance 0<p<1 of quelling a resistor. More units in the city means more drawings means overall higher chance of quelling more resistors. It is like buying more lottery tickets.
The second case is that you are not at war with the mother civ of the resistors. You either signed a peace treaty, or you killed off that civ. Now chances of quelling resistance don't apply any more. It is certain that every one of your units will quell one resistor per turn.
So, if you want to capture and keep, make sure that you kill off the civ quickly and only then quell the resistence. At least that is what I mainly do (there are exceptions); capture the towns and let them sit there as they are full of resistors - if they flip back, I'll recapture - and only bother with the resistance once the war is over. Quelling resistance then is easy and can be combined with moving and healing up units.
Boss Tweed
Warlord
it may work that way, but it isn't always the best. I've never fortified more than necessary units in a city as when I placed 3 full armies and a stack of a good 15 cavalry (to quell reisitance REAL FAST, the armies were there for healing purposes) and it flipped the next turn. Not cool.
That's why I often fortify minimum amount of troops inside the city, and always fortify a couple right on the border of the city, just in case it flips.
Lord Emsworth
Emperor
it may work that way, but it isn't always the best. I've never fortified more than necessary units in a city as when I placed 3 full armies and a stack of a good 15 cavalry (to quell reisitance REAL FAST, the armies were there for healing purposes) and it flipped the next turn. Not cool.
That's why I often fortify minimum amount of troops inside the city, and always fortify a couple right on the border of the city, just in case it flips.
I hardly ever bother with quelling resistance during wars at all. But if I do, it is a very concerted effort to quell all resistance on the first turn after capture when the city cannot flip back. Apart from such rare efforts and after the first turn I leave the cities empty, because they are just ticking timebombs. Losing an army and 15 cavs is quite a setback, but any direct losses due to cities flipping back are unnecessary and should be avoided.
When the civ is dead and the war over, resistance quelling is lightning fast and can effectively be combinied with moving and healing up units; the flip risk is gone as well (except there is cultural pressure from a third civ).
Lord Emsworth
Emperor
If you have 12 military units then you can have no more than 12 quelled resistors. [This is absolutely true]
The number (of desired) quelled resistors is 12. [Stipulated, i.e. true]
Therefore there is no point in having more that 12 units stationed in the city. [Bzzzzzzt, does not necessarily follow]
It is the same with the lottery tickets that I pointed out above. Each ticket can win you only one prize. If there is only one prize to win, would it be legitimate to say that there is no point in having more than one ticket? Of course not. There only is no point in having more than one ticket if and only if the one ticket that you have certainly wins you the prize.
Likewise resistance. If there are 12 resistors would it be legitimate to say that there is no point in having more than twelve military? Well, only if each and every one of your military units is successful at quelling a resistor (which is the case, but only at peace time).
ETA:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2852877&postcount=24
Von Naumann
Chieftain
Like many of the other responders, I'd say that it's situational. If you have the ai on the run, and he's (she's??) not likely to counter-attack too heavily, razing is probably the way to go. Sometimes, too, razing will satisfy that good ol' gut-lust for revenge ("There! Take THAT you sonofab**ch!!")
On the other hand, if you're looking at territory denial, then occupy...
An aside to Ethan M.: "Flames Rule!!!" [heheheheheh]
On the other hand, if you're looking at territory denial, then occupy...
An aside to Ethan M.: "Flames Rule!!!" [heheheheheh]
thetrooper
Misanthrope
- Joined
- May 24, 2004
- Messages
- 8,762
I tend to raze them unless they have some 'global' wonders like Leos or Smiths.
thetrooper
Misanthrope
- Joined
- May 24, 2004
- Messages
- 8,762
They won't forgive you if you capture some either.
Yes they do. After time passes they become polite or even gracious as hell
I'm assuming they forgive you cos they have chance to take it back or at least their wonders arent destroyed. Also citizens become assimilated, will forget "cruel opression brought upon them" and everythings good. Also to note, if you mean "furious" then civ will probably get furious when war starts and 1 their unit gets killed.
EDIT: Actually i'm not exacly sure of the amounts of agryness from razing, but i usually try to avoid it. Better to capture and if city is corrupt try to sell back to them, the civ that had it before usually will want it back badly.
Fugitive Sisyphus
Escape Artist
I'm a wimp and always play with culture conversions off. As a result I always occupy.
Camulodunum
Mayan Blowdart Marksman
i would raze it if its not in a place that i want it to be. ex: if its in tundra, desert, jungle, or if im moving it to get specific resource or coastal land
FrozenTitan
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2009
- Messages
- 49
Unless the city is in an awful position, i usually will occupy it due to the simple fact that it's a city that has already been established. Especially if it's a late-game situation, i don't like to build settlers late-game, i prefer to focus on the military and go for a warlike approach.
be.free2pee
Chieftain
I don't understand why is it wrong to fortify an army in such settlement.
Similar threads
