take over or raze the city
- Thread starter rjgo
- Start date
King of Camelot
Camelot's King
When going on a campaign against another country I usaully raze the cities unless the have good resources or location, otherwise you have to leave a guy or two there to protect it and if you take all the cities then you suddenly realize you have no army left!
Mongoloid Cow
Great Khan
I take the cities 
I have more than enough culture to keep em 
I have more than enough culture to keep em Trinity
Brains, Beauty & st b*tch
But better than razing them, you can take them over, sell off the improvements, then abandon the city.
Razing cities also causes bad PR. Abandoning doesn't seem to have so much of an effect.
Razing cities also causes bad PR. Abandoning doesn't seem to have so much of an effect.
MadScot
Brandy's back!
Take them over - and use road/worker/rail to blitz to the next one.
Fr8monkey
Deity
I usuall keep them unless I think they are too large to keep. Once I took Paris (an 11 Pop city) and kept an Army and 7 other units to quell the unwashed masses. 3 turns later it reverts and takes all my units! After that, it's 'Scortched Earth".
Trinity
Brains, Beauty & st b*tch
Again, this underscores the reason for bombarding a city to near rubble before taking it. Also, did you switch every single laborer over to entertainers in the city. That seems to help with the flipping problem since there are no more unhappy laborers ready to culture flip.
I did take a couple of size 11 cities last game and it was against a civ whose citizens were unimpressed with my culture. There were an average of 6 resisters in the city. I move my red or low yellow units in to garrison, switch every single non resisting citizen to entertainers, and the resistance is crushed within 2 turns. Regent level.
Once the resistance is crushed, the city governor will resume production. Don't allow this to happen. There are still too many unhappy laborers. Keep them all as entertainers until the population drops another digit, otherwise the city will flip on you. Keep every unhappy laborer as an entertainer until you've taken surrounding cities. Once that happens, no longer have to worry about flipping.
I did take a couple of size 11 cities last game and it was against a civ whose citizens were unimpressed with my culture. There were an average of 6 resisters in the city. I move my red or low yellow units in to garrison, switch every single non resisting citizen to entertainers, and the resistance is crushed within 2 turns. Regent level.
Once the resistance is crushed, the city governor will resume production. Don't allow this to happen. There are still too many unhappy laborers. Keep them all as entertainers until the population drops another digit, otherwise the city will flip on you. Keep every unhappy laborer as an entertainer until you've taken surrounding cities. Once that happens, no longer have to worry about flipping.
WarlordMatt
Emperor
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2002
- Messages
- 1,383
I usually take over the city as it gives u more cities and possibly a strategic advantage
I remember a game when I had an early battle against France. As one of their cities was placed perfectly I kept it while destroying all the others. The size of the city when I conquered it was ~3 and I founded new cities in the 'cleaned' space, also around this conquered city.
I checked this city a few thousand years later and compared the performance against it's neighbour cities and I was close to heart attack. All surounding cities (founded by my settlers) had a much better performance while this now 20+ former French city was only moderate. There was still a lot of unrest and unhappy people in this city.
Theferfor I think that conquered cities can never ever achieve the same performance as your own founded cities. I always raze them.
I checked this city a few thousand years later and compared the performance against it's neighbour cities and I was close to heart attack. All surounding cities (founded by my settlers) had a much better performance while this now 20+ former French city was only moderate. There was still a lot of unrest and unhappy people in this city.
Theferfor I think that conquered cities can never ever achieve the same performance as your own founded cities. I always raze them.
Klasanov
Catz!!!
I've heard that with razed cities, the unhappiness migrates to the nearest city.
Me, I take cities. The point of my conquest is to land grab. Destroying what you take isn't really landgrab though, so...
Me, I take cities. The point of my conquest is to land grab. Destroying what you take isn't really landgrab though, so...
ChrisWade
Beer Monster
It depends on the situation. I voted take over as I do that more than razing. In the early stages I take over for expansion reasons. Later in the game I will raze if they are nearby and move settlers over to rebuild in better locations.
Cartouche Bee
Appropriations Consultant
I only raze later in the game, if I'm trying to avoid a domination victory. Earlier in the game razing causes a hit on your reputation so it's not really worth it.
CB
CB
Trinity
Brains, Beauty & st b*tch
Another interesting note regarding captured cities and workers.
Alja mentioned poor performance of captured cities. If you continue aggression against the native people, they tend to be unhappy.
Captured workers is another interesting point. I went to war against Greece which was in Republic at the time. I was a monarchy. Shortly afterward I switched to democracy. MY workers worked at the 1.5 rate, while the Greek workers continued to work at the 1.0 rate. This led my people to make Greek jokes, such as "how many Greeks does it take to change a light bulb?"
Another time I was in Monarchy and captured workers from a nation in democracy. Those workers were better producers than mine. Both times I was playing an industrious civilization.
I guess captured workers continue to work at the rate that they did under the last government they were under before capture.
Solution: if you can afford it, once a city starts producing laborers of your own nationality, have the captured worker join the city and build a new worker. Another incentive for starving down captured cities.
This bloody game rewards ethnic cleansing!
Alja mentioned poor performance of captured cities. If you continue aggression against the native people, they tend to be unhappy.
Captured workers is another interesting point. I went to war against Greece which was in Republic at the time. I was a monarchy. Shortly afterward I switched to democracy. MY workers worked at the 1.5 rate, while the Greek workers continued to work at the 1.0 rate. This led my people to make Greek jokes, such as "how many Greeks does it take to change a light bulb?"
Another time I was in Monarchy and captured workers from a nation in democracy. Those workers were better producers than mine. Both times I was playing an industrious civilization.
I guess captured workers continue to work at the rate that they did under the last government they were under before capture.
Solution: if you can afford it, once a city starts producing laborers of your own nationality, have the captured worker join the city and build a new worker. Another incentive for starving down captured cities.
This bloody game rewards ethnic cleansing!
dunk
Warlord
I usually keep them. I try to get alliances against my enemies and if I raze cities, my allies will plop cities in the holes I make by razing.
I don't wind up with culture flips very often.
I agree that the gameplay lends itself to ethnic cleansing and devalues diversity. I think diverse cities should produce more culture (maybe 25% extra per nationality in the city or some reasonable number). I think razing cities shouldn't be allowed in Republic or Democracy, and should only be possible if the city is size 3 or less.
Slave laborers shouldn't be allowed in Democracy or Communism. You could still capture them, but they would require upkeep and work at the same rate as your own workers and of course retain their nationality for city adding purposes.
I don't wind up with culture flips very often.
I agree that the gameplay lends itself to ethnic cleansing and devalues diversity. I think diverse cities should produce more culture (maybe 25% extra per nationality in the city or some reasonable number). I think razing cities shouldn't be allowed in Republic or Democracy, and should only be possible if the city is size 3 or less.
Slave laborers shouldn't be allowed in Democracy or Communism. You could still capture them, but they would require upkeep and work at the same rate as your own workers and of course retain their nationality for city adding purposes.
sabo
My Ancestors were Vikings
I usually take them over but if I didn't bombard the city down to one or two first, I"ll turn everyone into comedians so I don't have any unhappy laborers and starve them down to one or two then build it back up with my own people
Klasanov
Catz!!!
Um, Communism shoul definitely have slave labor
kbullett
Chieftain
It depends on what stage of the game I'm in. I never raze in the early game, I'll capture the city then if I don't like the location I produce as many settlers and workers as I can then abandon it. I tend to raze everything in the late game so I don't waste the manpower to keep the peace, reputation means little in the late game unless you're trying for a Diplomatic Victory.
Similar threads
