RAZE or ANNEX. Which is better?

[Barako]

Just want to ask you guys out there which one is better?
Razing a city? or Annexing it as part of your empire.

Usually I raze cities whenever I need a lot of workers or I'm just pissed with the civ. But, most of the time I install a governor and annex the city for my empire.

The only drawback is that, they usually revolt and create a lot of disorder. Worse, they usually flip whenever you have a lot of units garrizoned in it. One time, I lost 8 cavalry units in a city when my governor was overthrowned.

So if you have suggestions or ideas when is the best time or situation to raze a city, pls post. Thanks.

 

[Mr Spice]

It depends on the situation. I generally prefer capturing but if it is a core enemy city late in the game I might consider razing it instead to avoid it reverting. Also, if a city is extraordinary badly placed I tend to "move" it by razing.

Edit: Seems like I originally left out "badly", which kind of made my post a bit weird.

 

[Ashman]

I prefer to annex if it is well placed (near gold or some valuable resources) But if it is near an enemy border I raze and use the settler to move it

 

[Shabbaman]

It depends on:

a. improvements (i.e. wonders)
b. distance from capitol
c. size
d. number of cities
e. location (resources, strategic placement)

Also, you can capture a city and trade it for something else. Full story: article by Ari

Didn't vote by the way. Too restricted.

GRTNX

 

[God]

I raze all cities size 12+. It is a big chance they will revert back if they are a bigger city.

 

[Tassadar]

i decide to raze ennemy city after my first game when a captured french city flip back 2 time in 10 turn, beleive me i raze it to dust the third time
When i invaded another continent i always carry 1-2 settler with my invasion force just to build brand new city for new luxuries exportation. all the road and sometime railroad are already there.

 

[ventricle]

Call me a xenophobe, but I almost always raze enemy cities. Unless that city holds a wonder. Otherwise, I'll try and send some settlers over and build upon the ruins.

 

[friedmad]

I typically raze cities, which is why I include several settlers as part of my invasions forces. The last few remaining enemy cities I typically capture instead because they wont revert after their empire has been defeated

 

[Barker]

I definitley raze the city. It may not be the right strategical decision sometimes, but when I destroy a civ...I completely destroy it. Genocide is the only way to go.

 

[cameramano]

If there is a weaker opposition that is too far away to develop viable cities, I will bring an invasion force to raze a good chunk of cities. The transport boats that brought the invasion force ferry back the slaves and heros to help develop my empire at home without wasting production.

Of course the civ that I do this to hates me for awhile, but normally they are so weak then that someone else pulls the trigger on them, or I finish them off.

Not a very Christian technique, but it is only a game after all.

 

[Woody]

Annex everything.

1. The score is highly dependent on area controlled.

2. You never know where oil, aluminium, coal and/or uranium will pop up later in the game. Even if its a second or tenth source for you its one source the AI wont have.

3. Luxeries, See #2

4. Base of operations. Quite often if you keep the city the next city will be in range of further attacks by calvary/tanks/modern armor.

The only minor problem is culture flipping. I only leave one unit in the city so I dont loose much and if it does flip then the one or two units the AI gets after a flip are easy prey for my next wave of offensive units coming to the front.

To stop culture flipping over the long term you have to eliminate the AI country completely. Wars In Civ III need to be to the death.

 

[God]

Also when you annex a city just starve the population down to 1 and it won't be too hard to keep that guy happy.
Also make sure not too have riots in your city. Makes it easier to flip. As soon as all the resistors are quelled check that city to make sure there aren't too many unhappy people.

 

[No.Dice]

I'll keep the city if its fairly close to my capital, otherwise i'll raze it and fill in the gaps with my own settlers. Often this is where the FP goes.

Sometimes i'll have obsolete military units tag along to quell disorder in cities i've recently captured. I almost never feel like taking a portion of my offensive force to quell disorder would outweigh continuing the attack.

 

[D. Boon's Ghost]

Usually in my early games I raze all of their cities, if for no other reason than to allow myself breathing room. Later on, when my culture is strong enough for it, I annex every city I can.
Too bad about those size 1 towns, seems odd there is no choice but their being destroyed.

 

[cameramano]

I conceed your later points. As for score though, is that such a big factor in this game? In Civ II and I, score was a good measure of a civ, but in Civ III most of the contributors to a big score are not contributors to the civilization. In fact, most of those population (and score) boosting cities are a drain on your civ's coffers. You need to pay maintinence on all those happiness producing improvements, but only get one gold in return.

If I have to face a major showdown with an enemy civ, I'd rather control an empire that consists only of concentric circles around my capitals and colonial cities by resources, than a bloated civ with a high score.

Raze everything outside of your anti-corruption radius, unless it is either strategic for warfare, or by a resource node. Or, you plan on giving the conquered cities to your friends as a gift.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I almost always annex. The exception would be if I'm teaching somebody a lesson by capturing and razing a city on a continent I don't fancy invading, or if the city is particularly idiotically placed.

Speaking of idioticity, you'd think that starving people to death deliberately ought to make people more likely to rebel, but starving down captured cities to size 1-2 is the first step in my standard pacification package.

If a city flips repeatedly, storming the nearest big enemy city seems to help more than coddling the citizenry of the first city. I guess they get demoralized when their cousins get beaten up too.

 

[Woody]

You need to pay maintinence on all those happiness producing improvements, but only get one gold in return.

In cities I annex I sell everything that is costing me money except barracks . The only thing I build is a temple so my culture boundries expand.

 

[Barako]

I agree with some of you that it depends on a lot of things.

Existence of Wonders and the city's location are two major things I really put into consideration.

But I think cities lying on not so productive areas like forests are sure candidates for razing. More often than not, annexing this cities will require a lot of developments which takes some valuable workers.

Even if there are luxuries or resources nearby, its better to raze, then get the captured workers to colonize the tile, then connect them to your road network. Remember to put a defensive unit.

Sparing the city because it's near some goodies I think isn't always a good idea.

Anyway, thanks for your replies and votes. Guess at the end, whether we annex or raze, it's the final score that counts.

 

[Barako]

Originally posted by Shabbaman
It depends on:

a. improvements (i.e. wonders)
b. distance from capitol
c. size
d. number of cities
e. location (resources, strategic placement)

Also, you can capture a city and trade it for something else. Full story: article by Ari

Didn't vote by the way. Too restricted.

GRTNX

I checked this article. Impressive play. Thanks.

 

[Emmet Samms]

The problem is, when you annex a city, especially a 15+ sized one, you have to post a large number of units there in order to squash resistance. And starvation just takes too long. When I'm invading an enemy territory, especially one overseas, I just can't afford to allocate too many troops to one city. So, like 'friedmad' said, I incorporate settlers as part of my invasion force. The towns they build can be conquered, but they cannot be destroyed unless they ARE conquered. All you need is a small rat-hole for your units to crawl into. Then you can usually figure out where all those bombers are coming from and try to take it out next. ES

PS: a city with a WONDER just might be an exception. But I have also leveled such cities . . . just depends. ES