raze city vs. capture it

[LovesCiv]

Forgive me for asking this new player type question as I am a long time player of this game but can't seem find a good answer on the subject.

Is it better to raze a city or capture it? The only reason I can find to capture it is if it has a wonder.

If you raze it, you get the disgruntled citizen issue and still have build everything from scratch. Why not raze it then (if no wonders) and plant a new city that is upset by being conquered?

 

[Roland Johansen]

A new city gets the same percentage of citizens that are complaining about 'we yearn to join our motherland'. The complaint has to do with the percentage of foreign culture on the tile, not with some non-existent nationality of the citizens. So that is not a reason to destroy a city.

There are reasons for keeping a city, namely the acquired buildings and population. Each building that doesn't produce culture has a chance to survive conquest of the city. So well developed foreign captured cities should have some buildings in them. Another reason for keeping a city would be the citizens that already live there. You don't have to grow the population that much before the city becomes useful. A third reason would be a healing spot in foreign territory. Units heal faster in cities.

The reasons for destroying a city usually have to do with waging a war of destruction because you can't defend the city against counter attacks. In the early game, the reason for destroying a city might be because its maintenance is too high for your empire.

By the way, I've personally turned city razing off because the ease with which you can raze a city feels wrong compared to the difficulty with which other things can be constructed and destroyed in the game.

 

[LovesCiv]

Thanks Roland - I owe you one for all that information. That was very informative. I knew about healing units and somewhat about population but didn't realize some buildings actually survive. I have definately crushed my economy in the past which is why I like to destroy cities!!!!

 

[McGoo]

Like (nearly) all things in CIV, it depends!

Right off, there are several things to consider -
1. Like you said, if there is a wonder there that you want, keep the city. Most of the time this will be a capitol city, which is nearly always in a really good spot.

2. Is it placed well? Many times the AI is not so bright when it comes to city placement - like having it one square from the coast. Also, does it have resources you would otherwise not have? Does it have enough food? It it isn't at least a 'good' city, I say burn it down.

4. Is it in a good strategic spot (a choke point)? I may keep a city purely as a military move in some cases. It also sometimes helps to keep a city as a beachhead when attacking overseas.

5. Is it a hill city? I will be slightly more likely to keep a decent hill city because they are more easily defended, and many times the AI will waste units attacking your stack.
{side note: In my current game, I just captured Moscow-on-a-hill from Stalin. He went through 4-5 longbows trying to retake the city against my stack which included 2 CG1, D1, Guerrila 2 muskets. Thats 4-5 longboys I don't have to worry about in the next city}

3. Whats the economic cost? Are you far from your capitol? Are you already losing money at 50% science (of course this number is up for debate). Do you have code of law to enable a courthouse to be built/whipped?)

4. Are you planing on completely eliminated this particular AI? If so, I would be more inclined to keep a city (assuming it is placed well) than not.

5. And lastly, what are your long term goals for the game. If you are after Conquest, raze and move on often wins out over keep the city. As in everything you do in the game, ask yourself "How is this decision going to help me achieve my desired victory condition?"

 

[Supr49er]

What I usually consider.

1) Can your ecomony sustain the city?

2) Is it in a good location with resources?

3) Any Wonders?

4) What religion is it?

5) Would I build a city here or near here anyway?

6) Have I pillaged the FC?

7) Is it on my continent?

I'm sure there are many other factors you can consider. But I would not raze it and build a city on the same square.

 

[Draknith]

Good advice. IMO, it depends on how I want to play the game. If you have a small nation and want to grow without settlers, keep the cities. In my current game I'm playing as a purely evil leader. I don't keep cities, I raze everything to the ground, and force the AI to constantly rebuild their empires utterly leaving them in the dark ages... Also, if you're trying to limit a religion's grasp on other nations, razing the city it the best way to get rid of a religion.

 

[Nordiska]

I burn the cities, Total War! Actually I burn them 9/10 of the time.

 

[GoodGame]

Those are some good points. I ask myself this:

1. Is the city even in a good spot (if not optimal for the resources around it)?

2. Is the city's culture probably going to stay strong? (The city's culture will likely collapse if it's 3 to 4 spaces away from larger, more mature cities that have lots of cultural improvements / wonders).

3. Am I going to advance farther against the enemy or is this the last stop, and do I have a serious chance of negotiating peace or defending this city?

4. Will the city pay for itself / can I afford it ? (If I'm already in debt and I'm not rich enough to put my sliders where I want them, then I can't afford the city; If the city has lots of mature towns that will get worked immediately, I may be able to afford the maintenance costs of the city---but check a nearby city's costs to estimate).



If the "nays" outweigh the "yeas" then raze it.


The main advantage to keeping a city, barb or AI, is it's a free settler, and free developed population.

You're right also to reconsider taking cities of civ's that you expect to war with again. But if you're likely to make the owner extinct, or beat them so bad that they're de facto vassals, then don't fear about potential unhappiness from taking the city.

Forgive me for asking this new player type question as I am a long time player of this game but can't seem find a good answer on the subject.

Is it better to raze a city or capture it? The only reason I can find to capture it is if it has a wonder.

If you raze it, you get the disgruntled citizen issue and still have build everything from scratch. Why not raze it then (if no wonders) and plant a new city that is upset by being conquered?

 

[Woodreaux]

My considerations:
Factors which drive me to spare a city

• The presence of settled Great People, especially Scientists, Merchants, Engineers and Spies.
• Buildings created by Great People
• The city is on a river bank
• Big-fat-cross contains flood plains
• Really cool World Wonders in the city (National Wonders are ignored, because they are lost anyway).

Factors which drive me to destroy a city

• Water tiles, but the city isn't on the coast. Those tiles are wasted, because the coast-line buildings cannot be created.
• The is close to river, but not on the river bank. Why? Why ? Why does the AI do these things when it knows I will massacre its people for it? In addition to not getting the freshwater health bonus and missing the chance to build levees and hydro-plants, the city blocks construction of cities on the river side. I don't care if a city has a population of 25, if it falls in this category the only that will save it is a military academy and 3 three settled Great Military Instructors!
• Apostolic Palace. If I see it inside a city before sacking it, the only way I'll keep the city is if it satisfies several of the keeper criteria.
• Mountains around the city. Building cities with desert, or sheet ice in the BFC are just wasted tiles-- but at least those tiles don't have volcanic eruptions which destroy improvements in surrounding tiles.

This is kind of tangent but it's related to topic. When a volcano destroys a cottage or city is razed ruins are created. Periodically, those ruins will spawn random events that usually boost research. Has anyone tried build cottages outside of any cities' BFC just to destroy them to create ruins tiles, just to increase the likelihood of those events?

 

[Bushface]

I raze cities only when they're in a silly place (and smallish -about 6 pop.) or if they get razed automatically. Keeping conquered cities seems to me to be beneficial, for the following reasons :-
1). You don't need to use a Settler to gain another city.
2). There will possibly be a building or two that survives the capture, as well as Academies and World Wonders which always survive. A Granary, Forge, or Market appear to be the most common survivors, and are obviously useful.
3). The captured city will come out of resistance sooner than a new city could possibly reach the same population, although a big city will lose a few pop. from starvation until its borders expand again.
4). Captured cities allow rebasing air units closer to the line of battle, bringing more enemy cities within range.

Because of 3). above, I very seldom pillage; why destroy improvements only to rebuild them later ? Sure, you get immediate gold by pillaging a town/village/hamlet/cottage, but it takes many turns to restore the plot to the same level of commerce generation; farms and mines are quicker, but scarcely worth the trouble for the few gold you'll get by pillaging them.
Can you afford to keep a captured city ? Yes, because the gold you get from the capture will, almost certainly, pay the extra upkeep cost until the city's economy has recovered and you've built a Courthouse there.

 

[jray]

• Water tiles, but the city isn't on the coast. Those tiles are wasted, because the coast-line buildings cannot be created.
• The is close to river, but not on the river bank. Why? Why ? Why does the AI do these things when it knows I will massacre its people for it?

Lol, QFT. In BTS it seems like the AI flat-out revels in settling in idiotic places. I guess it's an effective defensive strategy though, one that will sometimes even discourage me from invading a civ. Why would I want to fight a bunch of hill-fortified archers in non-river non-coastal cities?

 

[GoodGame]

I don't agree. Although ideal city packing is cities on every coast spot, with interior cities as space allows, sometimes it's better to settle fewer cities that maximize bonus resources, even if you lose 3 or so coastal tiles and the ability to make ships; It takes a lot of turns to reach maximum pop to fill out the double fat-cross, so sometimes its better to think a little short-term with the city placement. And sometimes the loss of health for being non-river is sometimes worth it to maximize the number of river towns you can build, since its only a sick point or so; Tons of food types will remedy that.

Lol, QFT. In BTS it seems like the AI flat-out revels in settling in idiotic places. I guess it's an effective defensive strategy though, one that will sometimes even discourage me from invading a civ. Why would I want to fight a bunch of hill-fortified archers in non-river non-coastal cities?

 

[sydhe]

I generally keep it unless it's in a really stupid position, which is usually one square from the coast. I'll occasionally raze one because it would be under severe cultural pressure, and if the enemy recaptures it, will put pressure on other cities.

I like taking barbarian cities. I prefer them on a river, of course, but I don't demand it.