Razing Cities

[Silverflame]

It seems that a majority of the people here prefer to raze over capturing, particullarly big cities/metros. This seems unrealistic, as if you raze a size 15 city, then you are doing more damage than a nuke. It just seems crazy. My suggestions are that for each person in the city that you raze, except for the first one, one person in one of YOUR cities becomes unhappy. So if you raze a size 6 city, then 5 people in your homeland cities, far from the front, become unhappy.
What do you guys think?

 

[Chieftess]

I think any unhappy citizens already transfer to your civ. Also, I must be in the minority that doesn't raze cities.

 

[Adam7Eight]

I never raze cities either.

 

[danwhit]

I hardly ever raze also. I find that after I raze a couple cities, all the other leaders get mad at me. Sometimes I care, sometimes I don't.

 

[Hygro]

When i play for fun, i never raise them. When I play to win, I do raise often. I agree, when you nuke a city you kill just as many as when you raise it (half poplulation becomes workers). I think the international community should get angrier, and war-weariness should escalate much faster.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

I rarely raze cities. What I usually do instead is only put one unit in, daring the city to flip back, while everyone else waits outside in case they have to fight again. I build a worker in 5 turns. When there is time I move guys in to stop the flip.

I think the raze effects AI attitude toward you, I don't know that it should make your own citizens unhappier though... not necessarily what happens in real life.

 

[Immortal]

I hardly ever raze cities, I fight wars more for expansion in civ 3 then for anything else, and I have a high enough culture (I play almost exclusive Babs) that the dreaded flip can be held back.

 

[Cantankerous]

I only raze cities that are poorly located or that I will not likely be able to effectively hold. But in general, I don't like to raze cities because all it means is that an AI settler will immediately be dispatched to the vacant territory, and then I'll have to deal with that problem.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Originally posted by Cantankerous
I only raze cities that are poorly located or that I will not likely be able to effectively hold. But in general, I don't like to raze cities because all it means is that an AI settler will immediately be dispatched to the vacant territory, and then I'll have to deal with that problem.

Not if you are ready with your own settler... another good way to handle razing situations when you don't want to risk flipping or you can't spare to split up your forces is to rush a settler from one (larger) recently taken over city and use it to fill in the spot left by the razing.

 

[Darkness]

Not if you are ready with your own settler... another good way to handle razing situations when you don't want to risk flipping or you can't spare to split up your forces is to rush a settler from one (larger) recently taken over city and use it to fill in the spot left by the razing.

That's what I usually do....
I guess I'm part of that majority that does raze cities....

 

[Dragon67]

I'm only raze them, if they are poor located. In late game I use to be able to knock out a civilisation in 1-2-3 turns, so I'm not afraid of culture flips. And it's a waste to raze them since they often have improvements like factories, and other usefully stuff. But if I have a small or a slow army, it is totally different (I always try to avoid that). Those cities are also usefully to heal/repair my damaged units, so I can prepare them quickly fore a new offence.

 

[Civddict]

communism is ultimate goverment for war.
no war wearines, no corruption on borders. i raze every second city. and i rush build temple in others, sometimes with workers from razed city

 

[Willem]

Originally posted by Silverflame

What do you guys think?

Do you think that if the American army had emptied a city in Afghanistan while they were fighting the Taliban, that anyone back in America would even know about it?

Razing doesn't necessarily mean that you slaughter the citizens of a city, it just means that you send them packing, and looking for a new home. Cities have been abandoned since they've been around, somewhere in the world there's probably one being left behind right now, due to lack of work or maybe some hydroelectric project.

About the only people who get upset about it are the ones that are forced to leave.

 

[sabo]

I never raze cities either, I've heard you get a rep hit from that. I"ve found a better solution when you take over a city of size 7 or more is to make everyone comedians and starve the city down to 1 or 2, then you build it back up with your people to keep it from flipping.

 

[Sparrowhawk]

I try to avoid razing cities. The rep hit is not conducive to trading. Of course, if a civ makes the mistake of pissing me off (razing my cities, or nuking me) I'm liable to go on a rampage...

 

[oosik]

i captured a level 6 japanese city, got it to a level 11, highest culture in the game but last in techs. They still flipped!! so I reloaded to an autosave before it to see if I can keep it, it's kind of critical tactically.

I just can't believe it flipped!

 

[etj4Eagle]

Originally posted by oosik
i captured a level 6 japanese city, got it to a level 11, highest culture in the game but last in techs. They still flipped!! so I reloaded to an autosave before it to see if I can keep it, it's kind of critical tactically.

I just can't believe it flipped!

You probably need more garrison units in there. An idea that I use when I capture cities is to rush produce workers from it. That way you reduce the chance for flip, while at the same time avoiding the razing penalty. And if you like starving your citizens as well, you can drop a city at a rate of two per turn this way.

 

[RobOz]

I hardly ever raze also. I can't take the rep hit.

If it's towards the end of the game with only one or two AI civs left, I may start razing to have to keep from having to running corruption-ridden cities.

 

[Tassadar]

The very first game i played, i lost 20 panzer in 10 turn because a french city flip back 2 time.


Beleive me, i raze 95 % of the time since that, i will only keep the one with wonder like pyramid.

Razing is much more effective than capturing;

1.- you dont have to fight resistance, thus your army go forward.

2.- No more cultur flip

3.- Bunch of slave worker

4.- Free land to settle with your own settler ( you dont need to wait for starvation ).

5.- You wont have too much city over optimum number, but only very good city with low corruption. but if you capture all the crappy city the a.i. got, then corruption increase up to the sky.

 

[Gothmog]

I am pretty sure that razing cities increases the chance of dropping into anarchy from democracy. In a recent game all my cities were very happy (7 lux, bachs, gardens, Sistine, slider at 70%), most were in WLTKD. I had only been at war for 3 turns but I was razing large cities, they were the only civ left. My people revolted with no hint of unhappiness. Strange days indeed. I was able to win by domination in anarchy just 2 turns later.