Raze or capture?

[Dragoon]

The main thing I'm trying to figure out is if the added corruption from having a lot of cities is worth the added territory (which ups your score). The AI seems to try to hold as much territory as possible, and if you raze a city another civ usually moves in to take the area. However, civ3.com suggests razing cities instead of capturing them to keep curruption under control.

There are other factors like having to leave units garrisoned in newly captured towns to quell resisters, which slows things down if you're trying to capture multiple cities. Also, there is the danger of the resisters overpowering you and you lose your garrisoned units.

Which is a better strategy?

 

[eyrei]

I generally don't even bother to attack a city unless it has a strategic resource or a luxury within its radius, or if it holds a very useful strategic position. If the AI starts a war with me, I just play defence unless they have a city I want for one of these reasons.

 

[ianbnet]

I've discovered it's almost a necessity to raze the majority of the cities, not so much as to control corruption, which is uncontrollable anyway, but because of the cities' nasty tendency to rebel. I just bring in Settlers behind my army and repopulate.

Also, if you're out for a domination victory, you have a lot less upkeep to worry about when you've just razed the cities. It's too bad, 'cause my favorite thing in Civ2 was to take over the rest of the world minus 1 city, then develop the hell out of it before I vanquished my stricken foe, and that's pretty much impossible in this game.

 

[knowltok]

Doesn't razing really piss off your opponent? Sometimes you don't have to care, but sometimes you might need to. Capturing and selling back are also options. Even selling to another Civ.

 

[tetley]

Selling to another civ who gives you Right of Passage is important. Lets you keep up your attack. I don't think Razing is ever beneficial when there's so many other, more lucrative options, such as drafting & hurrying the city down to 1 pop and selling all the improvements.

What I do is, if the city's on my home continent I'll hold onto it. It'll get assimilated over time and probably fall into a Palace radius. That early in the game, your Settlers have better uses. If it's foreign, I trash it. It'll always be too corrupt to be of much use, at least in the
traditional sense. 1-pop border towns definitely have their uses, but producing stuff isn't one of them.

BTW if you vacate a (useless) border town you can lure AI cavalry into it, for you to pick off.

 

[CeasarSalad]

Capture it, then sell it back to your opponent. He'll give you an arm and a leg for it!

 

[Minty]

First time post, so here we go....

Corruption can be a pain especially if you are trying to expand your empire by taking other Civ's cities. My question is, What would be the best way to take a city, by Cultural Influence, by Force and keeping it, or by Force, then raze it, and rebuilding from ground up?

 

[Ohwell]

In my current game, im playing as the americans. I have a lead in science and money, but the chinese are more powerful. They and 3 others are on one continent, me and 5 on the other. Tjhe chinese killing all on their island, i try and stop them from gettin too good. I send my men over, raze all their cites.

 

[Galen Dietenger]

Im begging to lean towards raze+resettle. The administrative headaches are geting to be more stress than there worth. Heres some things to consider when asking this question.

-Cities you capture(often) have there infastructure destroyed
-reverting is almost a certainaty-and in any event is impossible to predict and difficult to prevent.
-Resistance can take many years to quell even with a large force tied up doing that.
-while your forces are busy beating down the rebels-you can get a revert-loseing the city-its rescources-its ZoC -most importantly-your units. etc etc

These points are more subtle and just as problematic

-After war is over, you will be (mainly) left with pop1 cities that WILL NOT GROW unless you plant a temple in it avg cost 200 per city
-Corruption in will go through the roof-in effect, you will get a 'phyhric victory of sorts, where the costs and long term effort to bring your new cities up to the point the benefits outweigh the enoumrous costs of the conquest and subsequent rebuild are....well you get the idea.(in effect they become a net DRAIN on your civ-and its too risky to rebuild a hostile city while war is on-I dont attempt it myself)
-Nothing short of totally destroying a Civ will quarantee cities wont revert-even if your at peace
-You will need a Huge cash reserve to rebuild a civ even with temples)asumeing they are a larger CIV. for example-capture say 20+ cities totalX avg of 200g for temples alone-and thats enough to drain your treasury for years to come.

When not to raze

-When city has a wonder(thats a given)
-It has a resource u need asap and no settler is nearby

To summarize the downside to a 'Capture and hold' strategy
-see above

The upside
-mmm dont think there is one actually

The upside of a Raze and settle strategy
-basically same as settleing new territory-BUT you will get the benifit of infastructre already in place and a captive workforce to repair any damage. This alone probably saves you a century or so


The downside
-Settler production drains your own civ of population and resources needed for war production.
-New settled cities wont grow overly fast either-but at least theyll be YOUR people.
-settle units have to be guarded like gems on the advance-Comp loves to sniff out and attack 'soft' units 1st ive noticed.


I have been use Cap+hold-but next full game im going for Cap+Raze all the way. there no possible way it could be worse than what I had to put up with so far. If you have very high culture Ill grant many of these problems may not exist to this extent, but im assumeing like most of us, we start wars from a position of weakness rather than strenght. In Civ3 if your on top-then going to war is rather pointless anyways. I always start(major) wars to gain power and so-on, not solely because I thinks it 'fun' to do so


:crazyeyes

 

[Albert Einstain]

I don't see any good in razing the city & rebuild. I prefer bomb the city, let's say, with artillery down to size of 1. After that I take the city and leave there single unit, let's say infantry. And then make single man ententainer. It won't rebel because of happyness. I saved settler. And city remains with its strong culture number, which NEVER comes down. This helps from rebels. And, sure, I build libraries and temples.

 

[Ohwell]

I agree with you ianbnet because cities that you capture far away are not only corrupt mother f***ers, they are also easy targets for culture advanced comps. they are also easy to capture. I dont usually rebuild their for the same reasons i burned. I usually would build forts around and attack anyone who tries to settle there. My motto: Raze anything that needs a harbor to trade with you. :flamedevi

 

[hoyatables]

...and depends on the type of war you are fighting.

Let's say it is early in the game and you are eliminating a pesky neighbor that is just too close for your own good - well, I say keep the city. In my experience, these cities can easily become as productive as any other city in your immediate empire, and it allows you to expand quickly when settlers are at a premium because of low populations, etc.

Certainly it makes sense to hold a city if it has that iron or horse or coal you need in the mid-game. And let me tell you, keep every city you tear through along that path, too, so you preserve a transportation corridor. A simple road won't do the trick, and you need to make that city contiguous with your empire to limit corruption.

But let's say you've just gotten tanks and you build your tank army and you want to take advantage of it to wipe through that irritating Zulu nation that keeps provoking you? Well, I suggest razing. If you're gonna wipe someone off the face of the planet, do it right. A city each turn - more if you have more armies, and you don't have to waste the resources and cost of maintenance of garrisoned troops to quell resisters. It *might* be worth it to try to settle their original cities; I've noticed these tend to turn around in your favor rather quickly. They also have high pops, improvements, and occassionally a wonder. Odds are they will be the last cities you attack, and you can station your armies there to end resistance. But the rest of them are useless. You're better off securing military control and sending in your own men to build new cities. And if it's a foreign continent or island, just keep your naval forces around to watch for other settlers.

I made the mistake of keeping a bunch of useless German and British cities, and they just drained my treasury and troops as I tried to build them up while keeping my war moving quickly and decisively.

However, I did notice something interesting; when I launched my all out offensive and took or razed 20 British cities in about 5 turns, my citizens and theirs all celebrated. No war weariness, no discontent - they were actually happy! I think the people like it when you totally conquer someone, but not if you just putz around in the field.

War in this game needs to be well thought out and have definite goals.

 

[Arrian]

I lean heavily toward raze and rebuild, especially after the ancient era. Albert brings up bombarding to size 1, and that has its uses too, as any "new" population points the city gains as it grows (or as you pump workers into it) will be of your nationality. As for not razing cities w/wonders... well, only if the wonder is still active. You will not receive any cultural bonus from a captured wonder. If it's obselete, it's worthless, so raze it. Capturing an active Great Library early in the game, however, is worth the risk of city defection.

One exception to the raze&resettle policy - if you know you're going to wipe out the enemy in the next couple of turns. Once the civ is gone, the city cannot defect (unless it's right next to yet another civ).

This kinda reminds me of MOO2, where I would have a custom race that was better than any of the AI opponents (all combat/spying negatives, creative, democratic, +1 industry, large homeworld... up to +2 industry or warlord w/genetic mutation), so I never actually captured any planets - I'd wipe 'em out and send in a colony ship. Sure, it took longer, but once those places were filled with my (superior) people, they were more productive and generated more science.

-Arrian

 

[eyrei]

I strongly agree with Hoyatobles last statement, that war in Civ 3 must be a well thought endeavor. I usually keep my goals simple, and quickly acheived. Sometimes as simple as capture and raise an enemy city because of its strategic importance, or capture and hold an enemy city for its strategic resources/luxuries. I like to be able to accomplish this within 3 or 4 turns, and then sue for peace, even paying small reparations. Protracted wars cause all sorts of problems like war weariness, and the loss of science and infrastructure production as you concentrate on units. Plus, there is always the chance that you get your ass handed to you.

 

[Rowan]

I think razing is the one to go for.