So should I just raze enemy cities?

steve dave

Chieftain
Joined
Mar 17, 2002
Messages
80
I am in a war and have been capturing enemy cities but the coruption in them is just so bad that nothing ever improves or gets built. Should I just level them and carry on so I don't have to worry about them? The corpution is so bad that it is almost making the game not fun.
 
You're not going to get more production by razing them.

Corruption is overly extreme on the fringes of your kingdoms.

Try and get a leader and rush a Forbidden Palace there. Not much else to do for corruption, unless you do some Editing, and change # of optimal cities.
 
Originally posted by steve dave
I am in a war and have been capturing enemy cities but the coruption in them is just so bad that nothing ever improves or gets built. Should I just level them and carry on so I don't have to worry about them? The corpution is so bad that it is almost making the game not fun.
The newest patch improves the effect of courthouses, police station, and we love the king days on corruption. Check out this thread with an analysis on corruption :

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19922&highlight=corruption

Total number of occupied squares adds to the total score for your civ (and maybe power too?), so it may be better to keep the remote cities. They can also base for future attacks.
 
"You're not going to get more production by razing them. "

No ****? I didn't know that. You learn something new everyday.


I'm just going to raze the cities.
 
You can raze if you want but IMHO it is far better to control as much land as possible. This is simply because; more land=more resources!!! If you get more lux resources, then you will have more productive workers (less entertainers) in your core cities, so in a roundabout way, you do get more production; this is especially important in higher levels. Also, later in the game, the more territory you have, the better chances of having all the strategic resources pop up in your control. I say screw production in captured cities. I usually build a temple to build up my culture (helps prevent captured cities flipping back) and then set the city to wealth to pay for it's own temple. Or you can just set it straight to wealth and let the income build up!!!
 
Yeah, it's good to grab land but I raze Ai's cities bigger than 3 because of the culture flipping.

For grabbing land, I prefer my good own settlers.
 
Yup, I definetely agree about the captured cities flipping back, especially size 4 or above. If you are an incessant warmonger like me, you probably don't have much culture built up and this can make it very frustrating trying to kill an enemy who keeps popping back up. First of all, if you immediately set all available citizens to entertainers, you can make the crybabies happy and starve off 1 pop point straight away (this seems to significantly reduce flipping). Secondly, NEVER leave units in the city more than 1 turn after you have captured the city. On the turn you take the city, move in as many wounded as you can. The next turn is safe (I have seen cities flip on this turn, but very rarely, and it's usually very large cities, capitols, or Wonder cities) to leave thise wounded to heal. The turn after this is when you need to get all troops, wounded or not, out quick! All you have to do now is leave a troop or two within attack range so if the city does flip, you will be able to recover it instantly. Bear in mind that if (or for bigger cities, when) it flips, it gets the best available defender. This is usually a spearmen because you have cut off all resources to that city for pikemen or musketeers or whatever. If the city is directly connected to an iron or saltpeter in it's own radius and it's a high risk flip city, I pillage the road to that resource to assure it will be spearman the city gets. Being a warmonger, like I said, I don't care if I have since made peace with the former cities civ or not, I always take back what is mine (and it's all mine!). Another reason I like to take cities and not replant my own is that I am usually too busy pumping out combat units to spare time for settlers! Settlers I do build have unclaimed land to fill. Also, if you are playing a religeous civ, it takes no time at all to switch to despot, pop rush a building or whatever (also helps to get the foriegners out of your new city) and then switch back to your regular government. However, if you do this, it may be wise to wait until you have quite a few captured cities ready to pop rush to make it worth those 2 lost turns of production for the rest or your civ. This strategy does tend to leave resistors in some of the bigger cities, I usually post the aforementioned gaurds to the city and wait until I have crushed my enemy totally before moving back in to take care of them. Another way to reduce flipping is to wage very early wars so that your enemy has no culture built up either. Or, smash the enemy before 10 AD so that he relocates far away. Unfortunately, the bottom lin is that the only sure, permanent way to prevent his cities flipping back is to wipe the enemy from the face of your planet for good. :egypt:
 
I often raise enemy cities that I take, and plant my own settlers in their place. I usually have a couple settlers standing by (assuming there's no open space to settle in) for this purpose.

I find that this both prevents the cities from revolting back to their previous nationality, and keeps them from freaking over war weariness. In my experience captured enemy cities will sometimes freak when you start a war with another nation, even though your other cities don't seem to mind at all.

I will keep enemy cities when:
I do not have a settler that can settle anytime soon.
If the captured city has a nice wonder.
If there is a chance an opponent might settle that land before I can.
 
If the city is so far away that production is 1, I usually raze it unless there is a resource i do not have or luxuries (then I build a temple and set on wealth). If a city is not so far I just starve the citizens out and watch my own populate the city. If you are a religious civ and like war you could use despot rush too, but I usually make peace as soon as the enemy is ready to pay me what I want (and that's a lot), so I do not have that many cities to worry about.
 
It'S depend you can raze them if you have settler waiting behind and at the same time you can place the citi where you want with les change of culture fliping.

Also give you some worker to work the land around

But if you go for score keep the citi since population give you score
 
The corpution is so bad that it is almost making the game not fun.

It's part of the game...Even the Elite players have alot of problems with the corruption. You just have to learn how to deal with it correctly.
 
Anyway to turn coruption down in the game? Cheat code or something. I would be very interested in making is less of a problem or non existant.
 
It's not really a cheat code.... You can Edit the games ruled in the map editer.

Make your own map and mess around with the rules if you like!
 
I never raze cities. I suppose I could argue it's because it isn't necessary; or that the game is too easy anyway and I like the challenge; or just because it's convenient doesn't mean it's right; or that if things should turn bad I don't want to face the warcrimes trials, or embarrass my family; or it's hard to get rid of all the bodies; or because my God forbids it; or because I want to be remembered as Zachriel the Good, rather than Zachriel the Terrible.

Maybe it's all those things.

:egypt:
 
LOL:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom