Raze or keep cities?

[dominox]

Do you raze or keep captured cities?

In the very beginning of the game I tend to keep the cities as I dont want to use resources making my own..

Mid-game, I usually raze all cities and make new cities very close to each other to optimize score.

Late in game, I find it most efficient to keep cities (enabling me to take the next city the same turn and so on)
When a captured city is no longer at the border (and no longer of any use), I sell all improvements and abandon the city..
This way I dont get all those useless workers (500 is enough!)
and my reputation does not suffer as much as when razing the cities (?)..

 

[jpowers]

I always use the catch and release method. I don't even know why raze is an option if you can just wait 1 turn and abandon the city anyway. If there aren't too many resistors, I try to build as many workers as I can with the city before abandoning it.

 

[Finvola]

I raze the city if there are more enemy units nearby, I just take my money and run (if I'm able to)

 

[cracker]

I did not vote because the poll does not include enough options to cover the basic choices in the game. I do not tend to raze much if at all since abandon is an option. This lets we inspect the booty and potentiall harvest some yield from the captured city. I never refuse a Flipping city, but may abandon it quickly if it does not fit the current game plan.

 

[Jimcat]

How about if your enemy captures an ally's city, you take it from the enemy and give it back to your friend? I did this in a recent game, rescued my ally from being whittled down to a single city.

 

[Finvola]

I've never been that nice to an ally before Jimcat How nice!

 

[kb2tvl]

Once I get modern armor, I will tend to raze more cities. This may even slow down my advance in some cases but it is better than having the city flip and you have to retake what you loss.

I definitely raze cities when I need workers but I wont raze at the begining part of the game unless the city is build next to a core city. I also will be more inclinced to raze or abondon cities when I am in communist or conquering an Island. Civ 3 penalizes cities on far away islands SO other than a beachhead city, there is no reason to keep cities on that Island.

If a city can control luxaries or resources, I will tend to keep it. In these cases I will build a market, library(or temple), aquaduct and put it on wealth.

I voted depends.

 

[Gastric ReFlux]

I've recently decided to start razing them all, because I've decided that an overlooked group is the barbarians. By emptying vast amounts of territory, this creates giant Barbarian preserves where my armies can have a place to play with their guns.

 

[Jimcat]

Originally posted by Finvola
I've never been that nice to an ally before Jimcat How nice!

I really hate to see any civ get wiped out. If I can rescue a neighbor from genocide, I will.

Of course, I have been known to conquer all but one or two cities of a neighbor and keep them as my powerless vassal.

 

[sealman]

Originally posted by Jimcat


I really hate to see any civ get wiped out. If I can rescue a neighbor from genocide, I will.

Of course, I have been known to conquer all but one or two cities of a neighbor and keep them as my powerless vassal.

I do the same, one game I kept the Zulu's on a 3 city island, the island was all tundra so he was pretty much done for it. I did hold one city on the island which was kept garrissoned with a force to take him out should oil be discovered on the island :tank:

I have been known to give a city back to an ally once peace has been secured, of course I sell off any improvements that I can, just in case I end up fighting that guy later on in the game.

 

[SunZsu]

When you attack - ATTACK!!! .......... RAZE CITIES - this sends your message to the AI loud and clear .... he knows you aren't going to take any more crap from him .... have Settlers in with your rear echelon reserve troops, and after razing the city, move in with your own people and build a new city ...... to sustain your invasion, buy barracks, airport, etc. .... couldn't do this if had to contend with "resistors" - would have to tie up invading troops with quelling them - waste of time! ...... then keep on moving - as Patton said "We aren't holding onto anything - Let the Hun do that - We are attacking constantly, holding the enemy by the nose, and kicking him in the arse" ........ if you get worried about the other Civs getting "mad" at you for razing cities, throw them a few "bones" i.e. luxuries, an out of the way city, maps, etc. ..whatever it takes till you are ready to deal with them in turn....did this at Regent level and won a domination victory by early 20th century - destroyed all but 2 Civs, and they were "furious" with me .... big deal!

JOIN THE GREAT KHAN AND PROSPER ........ DEFY HIM AND BE ANNIHILATED BY HIS GLORIOUS HORDE!

 

[Padma]

I rarely raze cities, but will do so when the situation warrents it.

 

[Greg Loader]

Originally posted by Jimcat
How about if your enemy captures an ally's city, you take it from the enemy and give it back to your friend? I did this in a recent game, rescued my ally from being whittled down to a single city.

Jimcat, I did a similar thing last night in GOTMX. Gave an Island city to the Romans after the Germans destroyed their last town.(The romans must have had a settler somewhere, 'cause I could still talk to them). The Romans were not my ally, though, and even after I saved them from extinction, they were still furious with me. (I had signed a pact with the warmongering americans which kept me at war for 20+ turns.)

Greg

 

[DaDoo]

I usually keep them. I don't normally have problem with CF since I am the leader culture wise. If a particular civ's cities is giving me lots of trouble with CF and stuff, I'll raze the whole civ to nothingness. Otherwise I keep the cities.

 

[Tassadar]

I agree with Sun Zsu. When you wage war, raze evrything, the penality hit for reputation is very low, beleive me, i was still able to trade luxuries with chinese( on other continent) even if i razed several english and russian city ( on my continent). French are on my continent too, no problem to deel with joan( embargo and lux trade).

So when you raze a.i. you weaken them and it leave free ground for your settler.

And my biggest reason, no more cultur flip which destroy 20 panzer in 10 turn( 2 flip within 10 turn).

 

[GFandango]

Originally posted by jpowers
I always use the catch and release method. I don't even know why raze is an option if you can just wait 1 turn and abandon the city anyway.

-snip-

I had wondered this for some time as well, until I had finally discovered a significant difference between razing and abandoning: unhappy citizens. When you abandon a city, any unhappiness due to conscription or rushing is transferred to one of your other cities. When you raze a city, the unhappiness is burnt to the ground along with the rest of the city.

 

[DaDoo]

Originally posted by Tassadar
So when you raze a.i. you weaken them and it leave free ground for your settler.

but you would need to have some of your cities build settlers to fill that space up VERY quickly after you raze them. Otherwise the AI seems to always have settlers near war zones waiting for cities to be razed or something.

Originally posted by GFandango
I had wondered this for some time as well, until I had finally discovered a significant difference between razing and abandoning: unhappy citizens. When you abandon a city, any unhappiness due to conscription or rushing is transferred to one of your other cities. When you raze a city, the unhappiness is burnt to the ground along with the rest of the city.

I did not know that

 

[Tassadar]

Dadoo, i always keep a third wave attack for those settler/defender combo .