RAZE or ANNEX. Which is better?

[The Last Conformist]

Since my earlier post on this thread, I've become rather more inclined to raze cities - especially big, old cities with no wonders in. And the last time I conquered Germany I razed a couple of desert towns that parasitized on the city radii of the big old German cities with wonders in (which were located on Flood Plains). I do still keep the majority or cities I capture.

 

[Heffalump]

Sometimes, when there's a bit of a soft spot in my heart I'll raze the enemy city but return him his captured population.

No genocide, right? Just expulsion from lands that rightly belong to me.

generally most lands do rightly belong to me

 

[Flavor Dave]

I used to raze most of the time, but I'll think I'll change if the new city is cut off from the enemy civ (no roads.) Here's why. Yesterday I played my first game at the 4th level...dammit, can't remember what it's called. Oh well.

The Zulus had built two cities that were in empty space in my third of the continent. You know the kind of cities...in little pockets on the coast I hadn't gotten control of yet. Well, BOTH CITIES flipped to me the turn or the turn after my workers built roads to them. So, here's what I think...if you cut off roads, you're more likely to avoid flipping. Lines of communications have a big impact.

Also, I tend not to be a real aggressive player. Most of the time, I snatch 2 or so cities, then sue for peace, consolidate. This means that the new cities aren't far from some of my cities with alot of culture. These cities I keep.

But I have razed when I start to get near the enemy core. Perhaps I'll keep them, after pillaging the roads connecting us to them.

 

[Tassadar]

I just read something interesting in the book about razing an enemy city.

" Savagely razing the city of an ennemy are likely to be deplored throughout the know world"( p.137 under reputation)

so i guess it mean it blacken your reputation, and make trade with other even more difficult.

 

[friedmad]

btw, and slightly off-topic, has anyone noticed that sometime a 1-pop city does not get razed, that in fact it gets captured? anyone know the reason for this?

my thory is that if the one pop in question in the city would be a resister, the town is razed. if the one-pop would not be a resister, the town is captured.

 

[Emmet Samms]

There is something else I've noticed about over-running an enemy city. When you first conquer the city, sometimes you'll see a stealth bomber appear over it just before the RAZE/INSTALL NEW GOVERNOR box appears. If you raze it, apparently you loose any units that require a base, such as air units. If, however, you choose to keep the city, you get those units. Typically, I install a new governor and immediately move those units out, then remove the one unit left in the city (the actual conquering unit) on the next turn (leaving a large enough force to retake the city in the next square over) and hope the city flips back during the next turn or two; then retake it and raze it. I've acquired quite a few stealth bombers in this manner (sometimes as many as 3 or 4 per city) from cities I could probably never hold on to anyway (20 to 25+ pop) which, I feel, makes it oftentimes worth the hassle. ES

 

[friedmad]

ive NEVER seen that, the only units ive been given are artillery. all ships and planes and missiles are destroyed when you conquer a city

 

[ZemiGod]

Depends on the situation. If you are 100% certain you will wipe out the enemy civ entirely, annex for extra free cities. If you think you want to maybe cut their empire in half then declare peace, raze. If you totally destroy a civ they really don't have much to revolt against. If you're really evil pop rush some weird building that kills all but one citizen and install your own people. Raze for normal warfare, I'd rather make settlers from core in the aftermath than annex it

 

[Sanaz]

Depends - big cities are razed, but otherwise annex. Then workers can build RR and the city can be a base for further attacks in that turn or next. They can garrison in the city to quell resistance, and all non-resistors can be entertainers. This helps start the starvation quickly, and helps stop civil disorder when the resistors become unhappy. Then I rush a temple to expand borders for influence and power, and by the time it's down to 2-3 population they are happy and begin growing to a reasonably productive city. I mostly like looking at all the land that's mine to boost my ego.

 

[D9phoenix]

Maybe its just me, but when i goto war .. i goto war. I only capture cities that are needed for rebasing/repairing military units. I will almost always raze cities as those workes you gain have huge positive impact on your military effectiveness especially later in the tech tree.

Wonder's mean nothing to me when i goto war. I would actually prefer to destroy all of the enemies wonders then try and capture and hold them.

As for the reputation you get. Maybe its just my play style but i find the AI is more willing to sue for peace when you have a reputation for razing cities when they 10+ military units seiging one of there major cities. This helps out extremely with the problem of war weariness.

Now if they would just allow airstrips like in Civ2 i wouldn't even bother capturing cities. For me it't not worth it as it is way to easy to just send out your own settlers and put down cities in a logical setup. Though with the new option to "abandon" cities i might start capturing them just to "abandon" them and put them where i want/need them to be.

 

[Murphy]

If the campaign is too long, I prefer to raze all.

 

[Barako]

Originally posted by D9phoenix
As for the reputation you get. Maybe its just my play style but i find the AI is more willing to sue for peace when you have a reputation for razing cities when they 10+ military units seiging one of there major cities. This helps out extremely with the problem of war weariness.

I have to disagree, AI will usually wage war on you when you start razing cities. Maybe they just feel you don't deserve to survive. In fact when other ai civ start razing cities, the other civ will also start declaring war against it.

Maybe your military is just too strong for them that's why the ai civ are willing to pay for peace.

Try razing cities while your military equals that of the other civ and you'll have wars raised on every front.

 

[D9phoenix]

I will have to try that Barako. Right now my strategy is to destroy the first civ i come into contact with to get the free cities then i just hunker down and expand like a mad man till the industrial age. By then my cities are able to produce enough units per turn i never have a problem when i goto war.

But as im still trying to learn this game i only play on warlord ( one after i chieftan) i think it is.

 

[Smoking mirror]

I have to say I never raze cities!
in the early game every new base of production equals in an emegency one extra unit per turn.
Say for example if you have seven cities and a small army. Suddenly the russians (who nearly always build a large military) decide to declare war on you. In the early game you either go for all out war or for peacefull advancement, but the A.I. almost always opts for the opposite, if you have a small military you get invaded if not the AI leaves you alone. (unless you can keep them realy happy, with gifts etc.) If you only have seven cities then the total number of units you can rush build is 7 per turn.
If you have captured some of the enemy cities then you can build more (admitedly less experienced) troops. The AI make his military calculations based on number of units, not quality. so if you want to fake him in to peace, you just have to have more units.
If you can, build a fortress next to captured city and place a high attack unit or two there. if the AI gets the city back you can swoop in and get it. Its what the british army used to do during the 19th century.

Any way late in the game I rarely capture any big cities cos by the time I lauch an attack I have reduced it to rubble with bombards and bombing. if you destroy the enemies cultural improvements before capture it has less chance of flipping.

 

[Rich]

Jesus guys....

Steam rolling everything in your path.

Take a step back and a deep breath and think about what ur doin.

Then RAZE.

 

[argolite]

The question is whether your war is limited or to the death. If its limited, then razing might be preferable, with your own settlers ready in the wings. If its to the death, then annex all. You need captured cities as springboards for your rolling offensive. Besides, once that civ is dead, resistance ceases!

I fully support starving all captured cities down to 1. In any war, nationals of foreign ethinicity tend to get war weary faster.

Just be aware that pacified cities might defect to other civs.

Cheers

 

[Kaiser Wilhelm3]

yeah i was just in a huge war with the english that spanned a period of 1200 years ending with me taking out their last stronghold of Coventry. But i had razed all of their other cities (perhaps 10 or so) except for London, and 3 others, that were right next to my borders....I leveled Coventry even tho they had the Pyramids, but oh well....The English kept attacking me after signing peace treaties....tho i had gotten them back a couple times. But at least when I did it it was to by some time and save my civ from a Persian Invasion from the North.....of which I am also still dealing with even though they are cutting thru France now who borders my west and north except along the coast line so I have a little bit of expansion left before having to just flat out bust a cap in France's ass. I just liked Razing the city to get workers and send em back to the Fatherland......

 

[Slive Draver]

I will choose the third option: settlers. Usually, enemy cities aren't placed very well. So, I build settlers nonstop until there are no more people left in the city. The city disbands, and I'm left with 5-6 settlers to do whatever I want with. I like to set up a stupid colony right in the middle of enemy territory, then sell it to the enemy for a bunch of money.

 

[bigbill0126]

most of the times when i go to war i need to expand my civ due to the PSYCHO AI (LIKES CIV2 BETTER). then i annex it.otherwise, i raze it.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

I Annex - otherwise your forces are that much further from your own borders.

If they flip back, I take them over again and raze them. Bunch of ingrates deserve it too with the luxury rates I run...