Razing cities

[web25]

what are the negatives just razing cities you take over? does this effect happiness of your current citizens, different under certain governments?

i would rather build my own in the new territory i take.

thanks.

 

[Yoda Power]

It makes you unpopular in the eyes of the AI, but otherwise there's nothing wrong with doing it.

 

[Aabraxan]

Is there not some effect about whip unhappiness (present in the city that you raze) being transferred to the next city of yours? I may be remembering incorrectly here, but that's what comes to mind.

 

[Puppeteer]

Is there not some effect about whip unhappiness (present in the city that you raze) being transferred to the next city of yours?

I'm pretty sure that's not the case, because when I keep a captured city it often has whip unhappiness, but if I raze I never get unhappiness.

Perhaps if you abandon your own city any whip unhappiness transfers?

Pros: Razing can net you workers from 1/2 the city population and you avoid resisting citizens and otherwise having to cover an unhappy city that could culture flip away. You avoid inheriting additional unhappiness from the enemy's mistreatment of their citizens (whipping and drafting).

Cons: You lose wonders and non-cultural improvements in the city (don't think a rax, harbor and aqueduct is of negligible value), you have an opportunity cost of the population of the city not contributing to your empire, you have to spend food and shields to produce a settler to settle the lands of the razed city. It affects AI attitude towards you, but I'm not sure if that has any gameplay effect. There may be a small opportunity cost in delaying the connection of a luxury or strategic resource controlled by the city.

My enemies usually have higher culture, and I'm conquering cities closer and closer to their capital, so I often raze, take the free slaves and avoid the hassle of whiny foreign citizens, quelling resisters and culture flips. So I generally have settler pumps, food-rich cities dedicated to settlers or cash-rushed settlers in high-waste cities continually producing settlers to fill in conquered lands.

But as with everything in Civ3 it's situation-dependent and much will be decided by your play style and game goals.

 

[timerover51]

My experience is that razing cities mainly affects your status with the AI and makes it harder to do any business with them, although I tend not to do business with the AI except for trading world maps. It does make is very difficult to get a Peace Treaty with the civilization that you are razing the cities off, at least with some. If I remember correctly, I was fighting the Mayans, and razed as city that they had established in the Jungle that was not exactly producing a lot nor would, and after razing that, I did get an immediate Peace Treaty with them so that I could concentrate on the Aztecs. The war with the Mayans started when I took out a Spearman and a Settler that were about to settle on the location that I wanted for an advanced base for my war with the Aztecs.

 

[Aabraxan]

Maybe that's it, Puppeteer. I've been away from Civ3 for a little while and am a little rusty on the finer points.