Razing cities

[GoToParaguay]

I kinda have a general civ 3 question, when I'm playing a game I often see little point in choosing the option of razing a civ's city as some other civ will always tend to rebuild there almost immediately.
If I want a war just to harm another civ, I almost always end up having to capture cities as just razing them does very little from my experience as within a couple of turns they reappear. Its issues like this that have really put me off games like 5 city conquests games and stuff

Do any of you use razing to good effect in games?
Where and when is it useful to raze cities as opposed to capturing them?
is it possible to dramatically slow/stop the computer rebuilding cities in the game by adjusting settings etc?
If I were to want to create a custom map where the computer only rarely built settlers in the late game, how do I do it? I have heard of the idea of creatin 'ancient settlers' and 'modern settlers' but I can never seem to get the price right and it normally results in the ai either building swarms of settlers in the modern ages or not building any at all, is there a happy medium?

Thankyou!

 

[Steve2000]

Razing cities is useful to reduce the risk a culture flip. You bring settlers with you to battle, raze the city and build a new one the same turn. That way it is yours and not in resistance.

 

[GoToParaguay]

so if culture flipping is turned off you would never raze a city?

 

[Steve2000]

If culture flipping was turned off, personally I would not raze as many cities, but I would still consider it due to the fact that it is an easy way to avoid resisttance and later unhappiness. Remember the captured citizens are more likely to be unhappy as long as you are at war with their mother country.

 

[RandomInsanity]

you also get more slave workers

 

[ForbiddenPalace]

Also if you raze a city, you do not have to defend it any more, which can free up your units for further attack.

 

[a space oddity]

... and you can avoid domination when you want to win through one of the other victory conditions.

 

[Brain]

The AI has a tendency to build many settlers and fortify them in their capital. They won't acutally use them if there's no unclaimed land. As soon as there's some unclaimed land they'll try to bring their settlers there. To prevent it, just spread a few units on nearby mountains and hills so you can see the whole area and kill any incoming settlers.

 

[gmaharriet]

Another reason to raze is that the AI builds their cities too far apart. You can often build two of your own in the area one of theirs used to be. This can increase unit support for you, and they aren't likely to be very productive or have culture expansions.

 

[Stephan Hoyer]

What about razing vs. selling all improvements and abandoning? It seems that abandoning would get you extra gold.

 

[Steve2000]

Well, you can only sell one improvement per turn, iirc. Also not sure, but don't you get workers when you raze, but not when you abandon?

 

[plarq]

It's worker vs. gold.Also remember,the unhappiness of the abandoned city transfers to your nearest city,if you're playing an XCC variant and the enemy city is a metro,it'll be really painful.

 

[Gato Loco]

If you raze, the only civs who will rebuild in the empty spot are ones not involved in the war, so if you're at war or allied with everyone else on the continent, raze away.

 

[henry k c]

I will capture, leave the city empty in case it flips, build workers(10 shields), sell the improvements and abandon.

 

[cleverhandle]

If you raze, the only civs who will rebuild in the empty spot are ones not involved in the war, so if you're at war or allied with everyone else on the continent, raze away.

I don't think that's always true. I was just allied with the Indians against the Chinese (both of whom shared the continent across the ocean from me), and Gandhi had no problem filling in open space that I left for him. That space, however, was a direct extension of the Indian cultural borders rather than a hole within another civ's territory. That's probably a factor. I suspect that what you're describing is a typical consequence of the AI expansion behavior, but not a hard and fast rule of their decision making process.

 

[warpstorm]

The other reason I raze is if I am above above my OCN. The corruption may be such that it really isn't worth the cost to integrate it into my empire.

 

[Desertsnow]

Another reason to raze is that the AI builds their cities too far apart. You can often build two of your own in the area one of theirs used to be. This can increase unit support for you, and they aren't likely to be very productive or have culture expansions.

Yah. In my current game, just started, I'm starting next to Rome; Caesar is building his cities six and seven spaces apart, with no cultural expansion. I'm probably going to raze a few cities if I end up at war with him, which seems likely at this point. First though, I want to settle around the Americans (who have for some reason have only a few cities) and wipe them from the face of the planet.