Razing Cities

Octavian X

is not a pipe.
Joined
Jan 11, 2002
Messages
5,428
Location
deceiving people with images
I was recently asked if we had any sort of precedent for the razing cities that are not auto-razed. Because we may need to consider razing cities in the event we invade a culturally superior civ just to keep them from flipping, we should really set a plan.

Under what circumstances, if any, should we destroy captured cities? Bad AI placement, inevitable flip or capture, something else, or at all?

After a general concensus has been reached, an official poll will be started.

Please, Fanatika, discuss!
 
I'd say we never raze any city of any nation under any consideration. But that's idealism.


In reality, I belive we should analyse each case individualy. For example: we should raze a city size 2 that is place at 1 tile of the sea on a cow…
But for culture flip chance, i'd say we have to consider the option of keeping many millitary units there just to keep it. If we can't spare those units, then we must assume to raze it.

Dit I made myself unclear enough? :confused:
 
While a good concept in theory, the actual practice of analyzing each city would be time consuming and prohibitive to the enjoyment of this game. Imagine a war in which we have a military superiority (not too hard to do, considering our history) and begin to march on our enemy's cities. If we were to conduct a discussion/poll on each city captured, each turn could potentially take more than a week of real-time to complete.

We really should have a standard policy on which to base our actions. Of course, once said policy is put into place, it would be possible to override that policy if a situation warrants it through discussion and polls.
 
I think that rather than a standard policy, we should decide on how we plan to deal with captured cities at the outset of any given conflict. This way we could set out which specific cities we should try to hold, which ones we should burn to the ground and which we should leave to the DP's discretion at the time of capture (or bring back to the fora ;)) without causing too much disruption to the flow of the game.
 
My opinion would be to keep all cities if there is no chance or a very minimal chance of it flipping on us. If there is a large chance of it flipping, RAZE IT!
 
We are a warmongering nation, it is true, but we are not barbarians! Who cares if a city flips? We will reconquer it eventually! ;)
 
Originally posted by FortyJ
analyzing each city would be time consuming

I meant an instant analysis by the people present to the turn chat. With discution thread being opened only for major cities (a city with ressources, luxuries or wonders, which would be in a realy extremely dangerous situation).
 
Hmm. Let me seach around for my reply for the one that was mentioned earlyer ;).

I beleve we Should Not raize cities. Cities are too valuble to raize. Though there are exseptions when it comes to the "Pop 1 city with no culture" since the game mechanics automadicly does an auto raize. As I said before, Manual City raizings are a nono.
 
I support razing under only a few circumstances:

1) It is impossible to hold against enemy culture or enemy troops
2) The city is poorly placed, provides us with little or no income, science, etc., and will not grow to a reasonable size (say 2 or 3?)
3) The city is incredibly far from our lands (IE if we captured a single city in Greece) or we do not wish to gain new territory from the war (IE just a surgical strike to cripple or punish an enemy.... but what are the chances of that?)

Otherwise, keep the cities. Plus, we can always abandon them later....
 
I agree with Grandmaster, CivGeneral and donsig:

Cities should not be razed!

If, during the turn chat, someone want to raze it, then have a discussion over that, dont discuss if we should keep it.

Remeber that we can always abandon them.
 
Back
Top Bottom