The Thracian
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2006
- Messages
- 174
Conquer Mainly apart from under population 4 settlements
Raze Or Conquer
- Thread starter The Thracian
- Start date
King Flevance
Deity
Woohoo, I am the first person to vote raze. Let them eat cake! Burn Baby Burn!
Till
Adventurer
Criterias for keeping:
- Good tiles
- Not too far away
- Contains useful wonders
- Is holy city to a popular religion
- Budget allows keeping it
- No/little threat of flipping
- Good tiles
- Not too far away
- Contains useful wonders
- Is holy city to a popular religion
- Budget allows keeping it
- No/little threat of flipping
King Flevance
Deity
Yeah, I see razing better as you can always re-settle. Once you own a city, its there permanently. Unless you do something weird like gift it to conquer. Razing is reversable whereas conquering is not.
Spartan117
Immortal
there are many situations where i will raze cities...i usually go to war for conquest though
and razing cities make the enemy civ weaker and you dont have to worry defending the newly found city
and razing cities make the enemy civ weaker and you dont have to worry defending the newly found city
armchairknight
Warlord
Conquer. I think cities are too valuable, even if not ideally sited, and they cost enough in 'units lost' for me to want a return on the 'investment'.
I've often run into the problem where an AI who I'm not at war with feels it's perfectly acceptable to plop a city in the neutral territory that I just created by razing enemy cities. This has led me into numerous other wars I wasn't quite prepared for since I was pissed that they took advantage of all my hard work. So now I just capture it and my games end alot sooner because I can get captured cities up to speed faster than building my own from scratch.
Bongo-Bongo
The Master
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2005
- Messages
- 621
I will normally raze unless the city is in a good strategic place.
JustAnotherUser
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2006
- Messages
- 111
Till said:
In late games, you need a base for your bombers/to airlift units.
BTW, I think that you should get you more money from razing a city that from keeping it.
Till
Adventurer
My games usually end in the cav&rifleman era, but your a right. Having a beachhead on a foreign continent is important for sea based invasions as well.JustAnotherUser said:
wiseguy101
Warlord
I conquer cities because I like to have as much production capacity as possible. If I really hate the other civ, I just might raze the city instead 
Normally though, I just conquer the city instead.
Normally though, I just conquer the city instead.If i wont be able to get a settler there before the other ais i will capture the city, other wise i raze mostly, except when there are wonders
i wish civ 4 had the message that came up when you captured a city with a wonder. I find it soo annoying when i raze a city with awesome wonders because i didnt know that there were any there
i wish civ 4 had the message that came up when you captured a city with a wonder. I find it soo annoying when i raze a city with awesome wonders because i didnt know that there were any there
King Flevance
Deity
El Koeno said:
Haha. In a current game I am invading Mansa. I burned some of his cities on the way to his prize ones because:
A) They had big overlap because he was squeezing them in on my borders.
B) Poorly placed
C) The important thing is, HE doesnt have the cities anymore.
I find no real difference in razing/conquering myself. Even when I keep the city I whip the population to death to make me courthouses and theatres and such. I just dont have to make another settler. But usually when I go to war, I make a couple settlers to adjust the city sites that I raze so, I voted raze due to the fact, as I said, you can reverse it. Conquering you cannot. And if you place your new settler city "right", either way you do it, you will end up owning a population '3' city in a few turns anyways.
If in doubt, BURN BABY BURN!!!
Similar threads
