Occupy vs Raze

[Gaerdraug]

I'm something of a newbie to CIV3, although I've played quite a few games. I don't delve into the technical issues of gameplay all that much. I was recently wondering, however, if people have a general preference for occupying enemy cities or razing them.

I'm playing as Egypt on a nice "huge" map. I'm settled between Rome and Greece. If I don't attack them and reduce them, they will crush me eventually. So I must strike them first (one at a time, of course). I'm uncertain whether I should attempt to occupy and settle conquered cities or simply raze them.

Your thoughts and advice will be appreciated. Thanks.

 

[Spoonwood]

Occupy them. Just don't fortify an army in them, and make sure to use entertainers/train workers/settlers from captured towns.

 

[vmxa]

Need more information. What is the level, what is the culture relationship between the two nations. What is the size of the place? How far away from the respective cores is the town?

Will there likely be little chance that the place would come under counter attack? IOW will you need to have troops to hold it or can you leave it with a single unit?

 

[Crowqueen]

My instincts say occupy them - then the AI won't resettle at a later date. If I raze someone's cities and don't get a settler out there of my own, then you will have a colonist establish a city there from even a remote civilization, so I try and occupy if it doesn't automatically raze.

In my experience if the front moves on and there is no sizeable counter-offensive you don't need much of a garrison there, but I still play on low levels so I may not be the best expert on this part of it.

 

[Fiddlin Nero]

As usual it all depends, on many things. I've gone around on this one several times, currently I'm usually disbanding (is razing bad for the reputation? I havn't seen any evidence of this) and building my own town for two reasons. Pushing my border for the next attack that little bit can sometimes make all the difference. Having to deal with the citizens is just another headache I don't need to deal with. The only reasons I keep a town is if there is a wonder I want to keep (not too many are worth it!) or I don't have a settler (bad logistics, always have settlers on hand) and to maintain my border integrity I need a town there.

 

[Spoonwood]

If you might lose a town due to a recapture and you have a large stash of cash, or you rule as a Republic, I can see not keeping a town. Otherwise, capture and keep will almost always work better. The top three scoring Sid level games in the HoF even played capture and keep (the 4th one used razed and replace... and that's *part* of the reason why it scored lower). In almost all circumstances, a flip back to the AI tribe probably won't hurt you all that much.

 

[Aramazd]

I would occupy, unless the town is likely to flip or in a bad position.

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

You can play with the culture flip option turned off, which I always do, in this case it makes sense more often than not to occupy a captured city. Even if the enemy can launch a strong attack and retake it, you can always take it back again, and as pointed out, as soon as there is empty land anywhere on the map, trespassing little settlers from a variety of nations will try to get in there and settle a city, denying you the territory anyway. You may even have to go to war with the trespassers just to maintain a strategic avenue thru land you have fought for and conquered previously. There are always things to be gotten even from a "useless" city, you can set food high and use it to make workers, for example.
If you have culture flip turned on, watch out. You can lose a number of units when the city arbitrarily "flips" back to the enemy if they are stationed inside. In cases where you face an enemy with strong culture, razing and resettling can be your best option.

 

[Gaerdraug]

My thanks to all for their responses. I play on the Monarch level (I'm not ready for the leap to Emperor).

Ivan, I woul like to ask how I can turn the cultural flip option off. I've already been burned by that in several other games -- even though I tend to run a high culture civilization.

Thanks again to all.

 

[Spoonwood]

You can lose a number of units when the city arbitrarily "flips" back to the enemy if they are stationed inside. In cases where you face an enemy with strong culture, razing and resettling can be your best option.

If that's the problem, then just don't garrison (many) units inside the city.

 

[Aabraxan]

. . . . Ivan, I woul like to ask how I can turn the cultural flip option off. I've already been burned by that in several other games -- even though I tend to run a high culture civilization.

Thanks again to all.

When you start the game, on setup screen where you pick your civ and your opponents, look at the bottom. There's a check box for "cultural conversions." Make sure it's unchecked. Presto! No culture flips.

As for me, I play at Emperor and I tend to run a very low culture civ, but I don't have many fips, so it's apparently enough to avoid them most of the time. At any rate, I still tend to raze lots of cities. I get the slaves faster than starving down (though not as many, I realize) and I don't have to worry about flips as much. There are exceptions to that, of course, like cities that have very useful wonders in them.

 

[ville-v]

When you start the game, on setup screen where you pick your civ and your opponents, look at the bottom. There's a check box for "cultural conversions." * Make sure it's unchecked. Presto! No culture flips.

* If you have Play the World or Conquests expasion.

 

[Boss Tweed]

I occupy them almost every time, when its late in the game and I'm too lazy to build new cities. When its early in the game, and its an adjacent civ, I typically raze for the slaves (but thats in Conquest only)

 

[CommandoBob]

I'm uncertain whether I should attempt to occupy and settle conquered cities or simply raze them.

Let me address just a part of what you ask, which you only hint at.

If you keep the city and do nothing to it, you are asking for latter trouble with flipping and War Weariness the next time you go to war with that civ.

So, when you capture a city, in order to make it yours, you need to starve it down to size 1, so that when it grows again, all the new citizens will be yours. You can make everyone specialists and let the city starve due to lack of food. Or you can build workers, which will take 10 shields, but they will be Workers of a different nationality than yours (i.e., a slave) and will need no per turn upkeep. It is better to rush these builds if you can, or set the city to zero growth, so that the new worker will be a slave.

A captured city is a source of good cheap labor, which helps your economy, and in the process of getting that cheap labor, it makes the city easier to control.

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

You can also build foreign nationality settlers from the city and keep them around for emergency cities later on (away from the parent civ of course), these units will not cost any upkeep either.

If your captured cities experience high corruption, you can set food levels high, let the city grow, and later use it to make taxmen specialists which will gain you more gold.

If you are playing Conquests, don't neglect the policeman specialist. These guys can reduce corruption substantially, and can really help if you can get a city into WLTK day.

 

[Spoonwood]

Generally scientists make for better specialists than taxmen.

 

[zerksees]

Below deity I think you get to pick - raze or keep. In general I like to raze big cities to get workers and reduce flip risk. A size 5 will get you two workers IIRC - this is IMO the minimum raze size to get free workers. Smaller cities tend to have less culture and are also less of a flip risk. Sometimes its hard to pass up a big city as it increases the number of free units (not needing gpt upkeep) If you can recolonize right away then you need to have a bunch of settlers with your attack force so the AI does not resettle the land you just cleared off.

If a big city has a wonder I like (Smith's Leonardos Pyramids for instance) I'll try to keep it, or if its near the end and I need the land to make a victory condition. In this case I'd probably starve it down as Commando Bob pointed out to reduce the flip risk.

I might also keep the last city (when I wipe out a civ) to see if it has a barracks to heal my troops quick before the next war.

If you want to keep them bring your old junk units to serve as MP (or make some) so you don't lose your best units when it flips back. Leave a small contingent of good units to retake any cities that flip.

At deity and above I generally recommend the raze and replace because the cost of flipping is too high, the free labor is valuable, and the AI will attack a city relentlessly, whereas if you are just standing around under your army they generally will let you be (assuming they have no bombers). I still try to keep good wonders, the last AI city, and maybe a few smaller AI cities.

 

[JonathanStrange]

To raise or raze? At Deity and above, I too usually level the city - we're talking the advanced big cities here. The smaller cities early on, I usually keep but that's very situational: I'll raze the city if it's too hard to defend and out of the way. Cities with Wonders I rarely destroy 'cause that's barbaric! Raising a new city requires a little planning and ready colonists but like many, I'm usually prepared for the possibility.

 

[Taras Bulba]

I'd say its situational. I'll raze the city in certain circumstances, but overall, I like to keep what cities I can. I guess my overall opinion would be to occupy that city, but I have no problem what-so-ever razing a city (especially when you get a good sized pocket of slaves to steal)

 

[Ethan Moreau]

I usually raze the cities unless they have wonders. I can always expand with my own.