Puppets vs Annex

[UWHabs]

Puppets are way too strong IMHO. I think a puppet should only provide 1/2, at most, of everything. So if it would give you a new +10 coins, +10 science, and +2 culture, as a puppet it will only give you 5/5/1. That would encourage you to annex any important cities to get their full output. I'd also give a penalty to wonders in puppet cities so that if you wanted the full effects of the wonder, you'd need to annex it.

 

[diz2]

Man, the way I see it there is just no reason whatsoever to Annex a city that can be razed

In the late game raze and replace is a waste of time and effort.

In my typical game (continents) there are two eras of war. An early war on my own continent, and a late war on the other continent. For cities captured in the early war I raze and replace. These are generally small cities with relatively few buildings that can regrow quickly without the 5gpt penalty.

In the modern war, the cities are quite developed, and the game will be over relatively soon if I am doing my job right.

I lean toward annexing late game captured cities after the unrest has died if I can afford the happiness for the following reasons:

1) I can buy units in them
2) I'm not that worried about getting more SP at this point in the game (I'm rolling across the 2nd continent)
3) It's often easy to get the 5gpt cost of the courthouse back. Destroying 1 or 2 unwanted buildings and setting production to wealth will usually get more than 5gpt for a decent sized city.
4) I can set pop not to grow above happiness building levels
5) I can manage the specialists myself
6) I can build the buiding I want when I want it
7) These cities are big enough that they can usually build a courthouse in 5 to 10 turns, or I have enough cash to just buy it.

 

[basta]

dlz2^is right. Late-game annexation of major puppeted cities will actually reduce unhappiness and add production. The SP hit by then doesn't do much.

You can set the city to production focus and build the courthouse in 5-6 turns or just buy it for an immediate happiness boost of 4 or 5 points. You can sell off the useless AI-built buildings, reducing maintenance costs, and build units or whatever you need.

 

[diz2]

And I forgot:

8) I can sell resource consuming buildings (like a nuke plant or a hydro plant) and not only get myself ~3gpt maintenance back but a resource that will be more valuable to the war effort elsewhere. I have had strategic resources go negative in the mdst of a conquest binge because of this.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

Puppets are way too strong IMHO. I think a puppet should only provide 1/2, at most, of everything. So if it would give you a new +10 coins, +10 science, and +2 culture, as a puppet it will only give you 5/5/1. That would encourage you to annex any important cities to get their full output. I'd also give a penalty to wonders in puppet cities so that if you wanted the full effects of the wonder, you'd need to annex it.

I suggested that wonders not work in cities in this thread about how to reduce power: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=402739

 

[WeaselSlapper]

Overall I don't think puppets are as overpowered as most people think because of the happiness hit they bring. In my last game most of the cities I took over and puppeted didn't have a coliseum already and never wound up building one. And the unhappiness from a puppet isn't three, it's the same as a normal city (two for the city and one for each population) and an annexed city is double unhappiness for population (Courthouse brings that back to normal and is only 3 GPT maintenance now, not 5). Even in a puppet does build a coliseum that only covers a size two city. The only reasons to keep puppets are if you can't raze the city, if it has some useful wonder and it's a low production city not worth annexing (but that normally wouldn't have a wonder), you want to keep you SP cost down, or are trying to get a national wonder.

In my last game I kept way too many puppets and struggled with happiness the whole game despite having every luxury resource available. Every time I was able to positive happiness the puppets quickly grew (despite me removing all their farms) and ate up all my happiness. I was eventually able to get positive happiness because I took the city that had the forbidden palace and got the order policy that cut unhappiness from the number of cities.

Overall puppets are positive for GPT and CPT, but very negative for happiness so they are fairly balanced.

 

[swordspider]

dlz2^is right. Late-game annexation of major puppeted cities will actually reduce unhappiness and add production. The SP hit by then doesn't do much.

You can set the city to production focus and build the courthouse in 5-6 turns or just buy it for an immediate happiness boost of 4 or 5 points. You can sell off the useless AI-built buildings, reducing maintenance costs, and build units or whatever you need.

I guess my main issue is none of my opponents ever make it to the late game.

 

[Monthar]

@Bibor: As far as I know once you build a courthouse the wil disappear and Theocracy will apply. And I believe it works for puppets too. Can anyone confirm this?

You are correct. This has been confirmed before.

 

[diz2]

I guess my main issue is none of my opponents ever make it to the late game.

If you have a strategy to win continents domination games without late game fighting I'd like to hear it...

 

[basta]

Me too, anything clever to shorten the endgame slog is more than welcome.

 

[vexing]

As I understand it, puppets will build market/bank/stock exchange first, science buildings second, culture buildings third and defenses last. They'll only build the happiness buildings if your empire is unhappy and these will take priority over other buildings once the current building finishes.

they go more in order of production cost. they almost always start with monument if they don't have a culture building.

 

[Treso]

I think "puppeting" is somewhat "mehh"...

I really didnt like it. I think razing and re-settleing if you really need the city is better.

 

[Airey]

Overall puppets are positive for GPT and CPT, but very negative for happiness so they are fairly balanced.

Not exactly....if you can time the puppet's coming out of revolt well...put yourself into -1 to -9 unhappy, they'll build happy buildings from turn 1. If you keep the cycle going, you'll get fast policies after finishing warring on your own continent.

To extreme, ppl also leave AIs on the same continents with 1 little city, and use them as RA partners. After, warring the 2nd continent would be very efficient...it shouldn't matter if you puppet or annex over at the other continent.

In the late game raze and replace is a waste of time and effort.

In my typical game (continents) there are two eras of war. An early war on my own continent, and a late war on the other continent. For cities captured in the early war I raze and replace. These are generally small cities with relatively few buildings that can regrow quickly without the 5gpt penalty.

In the modern war, the cities are quite developed, and the game will be over relatively soon if I am doing my job right.

I lean toward annexing late game captured cities after the unrest has died if I can afford the happiness for the following reasons:

1) I can buy units in them
2) I'm not that worried about getting more SP at this point in the game (I'm rolling across the 2nd continent)
3) It's often easy to get the 5gpt cost of the courthouse back. Destroying 1 or 2 unwanted buildings and setting production to wealth will usually get more than 5gpt for a decent sized city.
4) I can set pop not to grow above happiness building levels
5) I can manage the specialists myself
6) I can build the buiding I want when I want it
7) These cities are big enough that they can usually build a courthouse in 5 to 10 turns, or I have enough cash to just buy it.

For captured cities on other continents, an other alternative would be selling the city to another AI to put everyone at war.
Recapture the city and resell it to another AI to join the war.

If you have a strategy to win continents domination games without late game fighting I'd like to hear it...

Beeline Astro, put everyone at war early on the other continents (then they won't RA with each other). By the time you clean out your own continent, you'll have a huge tech lead over them. But even Normal size map usually have too much room for them to expand. Late game warring is still required, but would be easier.

 

[Civsassin]

I think "puppeting" is somewhat "mehh"...

I really didnt like it. I think razing and re-settleing if you really need the city is better.

This is an OK strategy in the early game when a city hasn't had time to grow much or build infrastructure. On the other hand, in late game, the city will have infrastructure and some population. If you want to annex the city, wait for it to get out of revolt and build the courthouse. Once the courthouse is built, it is just like a normal city. However, I prefer to leave them as puppets, so you get the benefit of their gold and culture without having to manage it.

 

[tylor]

Problem is not puppeting. Problem is annexing. It's so nerfed that players have to use other options, which are lame and unrealistic.

 

[Bibor]

Problem is not puppeting. Problem is annexing. It's so nerfed that players have to use other options, which are lame and unrealistic.

Annexing costs you 8-10 turns of building a courthouse and a permanent 4 GPT cost for the rest of the game. It's a high cost for a (basically) happiness building, but its better than nothing. In turn you get a brand new city which can be pretty powerful (especially nice riverside capitals). Annexation at pop 8 or is something that can be very worthwile.

 

[biohazard72]

Annexation is pretty strong IMO with the cheaper and purchasable Courthouses. The GPT cost is pretty heavy, but being able to control a very strong captured city is well worthwhile. Typically I annex the very strong cities as soon as they stop revolting, while the weaker ones are puppeted and allowed to build whatever until they grow much too large for their happiness buildings. Then they burn to the ground to be replaced by a filler city unless they wise up and build a Theatre/Circus.

 

[SeerTenedos]

For me it works on some sliding scales. Here are my thoughts :

1 - The later it is in the game the less likely I am to raze and replace the city, because rebuilding takes time, and generally the cities you take are more mature. If the game is in the bag I generally tend to puppet for less management.

2 - The fewer turns / policy I am getting makes me more inclined to puppet in order to continue the ratio. The longer it takes between each social policy the more I am inclined to annex for more control.

3a - The more I feel a requirement for a stronger economy the more I tend to puppet and leave them financial. If I have a stronger economy and money to burn I am more likely to annex. Buying the courthouse and maintaining it does cost $$$, but the result is usually a better city under your guiding hand.

3b - Settlers and courthouses. Raze and replace does require the construction or purchase of a settler. These things are not free. Puppeting is free. The cost of a settler compared to the cost of a courthouse depends on things like wonders, policies etc. but they are more or less on par upfront unless I picked liberty and my capitol has spare time to crank out a quick settler. After that there is the maintenance fee of the courthouse which a settler does not invoke. If I expect the game to last 100 more turns that is 300 gold which is not even required upfront. The overall cost difference here is not very significant.

4 - The better the city, based on surroundings the more likely I am to annex. I generally look for a blueprint city, if it is a text book city for high population, production or has a ******** number of luxuries with +gpt I will annex them so that I can optimize their management and get the most out of them. If it is on the other continent I will go for the annex the first couple times to spam buy units. The poorer the location, for example it being positioned horribly I am more inclined to puppet or even raze it. With that in mind I am really not very picky about placement on non-core cities, it does not need to be optimal just 'ok' for me.

5 - Happiness. I try really hard not to take land I don't have the happiness to hold on to. Before I take a city I decide what I want to do with it, and I generally hold off taking it until I have enough happiness to do with it whatever I deem is required of it. Razing, puppeting and annexing all require happiness in varying amounts. Then I make sure I have however much happiness is required before proceeding. This requires timing with your tech and warring, but in the end the goal is really no matter what you build it should be happiness neutral in the long run based on your city's production, and happiness can be bought for annexed cities, or replaced cities (which boils down to economy). With puppeted cities you have a little less control, but if they refuse to hold their happiness weight and you are in need of the happiness you can always change your mind. Happiness has a short term factor which should be considered, but in the long term it really just boils down to a break even proposition, where in order for things to scale each city needs to carry it's own happiness weight, with the possible exception of your capitol.

6 - Workers. I like to have enough workers on hand to keep cities as optimal as possible. Generally that is 4 workers to start who follow my grand army around making a road and fixing up tiles, and scaling as needed. If my workers are so backlogged that taking a city means it will sit on improperly improved or unimproved tiles for 30 turns I generally need more workers. This observation here is that a replace city requires worker power less urgently than a puppet or annexed city.

7 - Enjoyment. I don't really like worrying about cities that are not very important, and having to manage them. Turns take too long, and it sucks some of the fun out of the game for me when I have too many cities under my personal control. Maybe for some people city management is what makes the game enjoyable and they want to do as much of it as possible. This gives one a natural bias towards or away from puppeting. I also know some people (Nate) who are downright OCD about city placement, and for them the game is less enjoyable if there is 3 wasted tiles on the map. These people tend to love raze + replace.

Once that is all done I take these sliders and I apply weights to them based on my victory type, race and mood and then out pops a decision. Some things like point #6 get weighted very lightly, others get weighted more heavily. I take my hat off to the civ developers for making this something other than a cut and dried answer. In the end all 3 options can be made to work for you and your empire, it just depends on how you like to play, and how your empire is doing. Me personally I like to puppet a lot, but if they gave puppeting a handicap I would go to the trouble of one of the other solutions, which would really to me be more effort and less enjoyment of the parts of the game I enjoy.

 

[Strategist83]

From reading this thread it is clear many of you are waaay too happy about burning down cities instead of annexing.

Stuff like:

Typically I annex the very strong cities as soon as they stop revolting, while the weaker ones are puppeted and allowed to build whatever until they grow much too large for their happiness buildings. Then they burn to the ground to be replaced by a filler city unless they wise up and build a Theatre/Circus.

showcases this. In the example here you definitely should not burn down that city. Why the heck would you do it? Courthouse only costs you 4 gpt. If you raze and rebuild your new city will take many, many turns to grow to whatever size the city you burnt down was at - turns where the city is smaller and lacks the infrastructure it would have had had you NOT burnt the city. That means lost income and is far worse than paying for the Courthouse (which now only costs 100 production - VERY little by the time you are able to build theatres - settlers cost almost as much, 89, in comparison).

Get this: The ONLY difference between an annexed and a self-built city is the 4 gpt upkeep. That is PEANUTS for a city size 5+. Therefore, unless you are playing the AI with its sometimes silly city locations, you should almost NEVER raze a city.

 

[UWHabs]

From reading this thread it is clear many of you are waaay too happy about burning down cities instead of annexing.

Stuff like:



showcases this. In the example here you definitely should not burn down that city. Why the heck would you do it? Courthouse only costs you 4 gpt. If you raze and rebuild your new city will take many, many turns to grow to whatever size the city you burnt down was at - turns where the city is smaller and lacks the infrastructure it would have had had you NOT burnt the city. That means lost income and is far worse than paying for the Courthouse (which now only costs 100 production - VERY little by the time you are able to build theatres - settlers cost almost as much, 89, in comparison).

Get this: The ONLY difference between an annexed and a self-built city is the 4 gpt upkeep. That is PEANUTS for a city size 5+. Therefore, unless you are playing the AI with its sometimes silly city locations, you should almost NEVER raze a city.

Well, the main advantage to raze and replace is that you can replace it later when you get happiness.

Like my current game as Genghis, I took out Napoleon. But he had a handful of cities that, which they were in good spots, were size 3 cities with no building, no tile improvements around them, and nothing really valuable. Since I was staying mostly around -5 happiness, I couldn't afford to take a couple of those cities on, since I would only take the unhappiness for a couple turns. If I had simply puppeted all of them, or annexed them, I would have been really bad shape for happiness.

But otherwise, I'll tend to only annex a city if I really want it to be useful. So, again in this game, I annexed the Iroquois cap, since none of my 3 home-built cities were coastal.