Taking cities: occupy or destroy?

[shoemaker]

I've only played a few games so far on varying difficulties, but it seems that after successfully taking an enemy city, there is little strategic value in holding the city.

I suppose an exception would be to gain access to a new resource. But, it seems the enemy's cultural influence will remain in the surrounding tiles for such a long time that your own culture will take forever to expand your borders around the new city. So in most cases you are left with a single tile, and your empire doesn't have much new land.

Plus you have to factor in the cost of stationing troops in the city to keep order, and the city maintanence penalty. Honestly I've never just destroyed a city, but if you do, does the enemy culture still remain in the neighboring tiles?

 

[Arkanin]

I almost always occupy, because I almost never go to war unless I want to take their land. I don't entirely agree with your assessment; if I can manage to roll over the rest of their towns, the culture issue becomes much less of a problem. Then, all I have to do is build theatres, wait a few turns, and they are back to full functionality even if their borders are smaller.

Culture from other enemy cities will remain in the tiles, but the culture generated by that city will not remain.

 

[RoddyVR]

do an early game war (try romans with almost strait beeline for iron) and see the difference.
keeping cities makes a lot of sense. they quickly convert to your nationality (not completely, but enough) and there has not been culture building long enough that a lot of cities (other then capitols) have huge radiuses.

 

[Volstag]

I usually occupy. Generally speaking, taking over a city costs less than building your own - often significantly less. In many cases, it'll already contain improvements.... improvements you don't have to build. Once it's secured, change production to culture, or build a theatre... within a matter of turns, the border will start expanding.

In fact, the only time I won't take over a city is when it's small, no resources in the vicinity (that I need), poor strategic location, or I don't feel I can hold it.

 

[reveron]

I almost always occupy. I of course amost always play for a cultural victory too, so...

 

[shoemaker]

That makes sense. I didn't realize that the culture I was seeing adjacent to the recently captured city was due to OTHER cities in the enemy's empire, rather than what remained from the occupied city.

Now that I think about, once I captured 3 cities nearest the enemy's capitol, which is probably why the culture remained so strong. I was seeing the spillover from the capitol, not the remnants from the captured cities.

Thanks!

 

[Minsc]

I occupy cities in the early game, when I am looking for land/resources. I have not had any trouble keeping the population happy and building my culture.

However, often in the late game my goal is simply to cripple a rival, and I go straight to the heart of their empire. These cities should be raised.

 

[CitizenCain]

Yeah, when I run into the problem of other enemy cities extending their culture into my newly conquereed city... I go occupy or raze enemy cities until that problem goes away.

It works really well.

My rule of thumb is this: if it's on (or close enough) to the spot I would built int, I keep it. If it's just in the way, making bad use of the land, or in the middle or the ice/desert/tundra, I burn it and send out settlers to build a better city.

 

[dh_epic]

If you're going for conquest or domination, you can't keep every city.

In fact, I've had more success in razing like crazy for domination, rather than taking cities. But there are exceptions. Mainly, if the city has a key wonder, more than one resource (can be useful even just for denial purposes), or is the holy site for a religion. Otherwise, you should destroy at least half of what you conquer.

Of course, if you're not trying for domination victory, this goes out the window. It's never a bad idea to take even three mediocre cities. Your nation should be able to handle that burden, and hopefully you have a good reason for taking those cities in the first place.

 

[suspendinlight]

I almost always occupy, but if I came across a city I was going to raze, I might try to gift it to a friendly civ rather than destroy it. Did anyone notice that when you take a city that used to be owned by a friendly civ but was taken by your enemy, you have the option to give it back to the original owner rather than occupy or raze? Haven't tried this yet, but I almost did. Also, if you were to raze this city, you get a penalty with the original owner "you razed one of our cities"

 

[Lord Chambers]

you should destroy at least half of what you conquer.

I'd like to hear more on why this is. For me, getting the percentage of land needed for a domination victory is always the greater challenge, and so razing cities seems to be a sure way to NOT dominate.

Did anyone notice that when you take a city that used to be owned by a friendly civ but was taken by your enemy, you have the option to give it back to the original owner rather than occupy or raze? Haven't tried this yet, but I almost did. Also, if you were to raze this city, you get a penalty with the original owner "you razed one of our cities"

I wonder what the rules are behind this. Obviously it could get excessively complicated if a city changes several hands. Suppose the fourth civ decides to raze it. Does he piss off the previous three who think it's "their" city, or is the owner of the city only the second to last person to control it?

 

[Bobolini]

I rarely raze cities becasue I am moving deeper and deeper into their territory and I need to have my damaged troops rest and rebuild to full strength. Having them move 4 or 5 turns back, then rest then 4-5 forward is a waste of time. Only time I raze is if two cities are very close and resources are weak around it.

 

[Aurelius321]

I will usually occupy the cities unless there is some overriding reason not to. Like a bad strategic position or if I'm in a hurry to get to a city that needs to be taken down in a hurry due to high production (never good to leave enemies behind you whilst your rampage through their empire)

 

[Zhahz]

I usually occupy but I could see being in a situation where I was pillaging and terrorizing and raze just to enhance that.

I usually go to war to take land so I occupy. Culture starts to rebuild once resistance ends - just build a few cultural structures to get it going, like the theater and temple of your state religion. If you're in the right civic you can buy out those building super cheap.

 

[Ayani]

I've found that trying to gain a foothold on another continent can be very hard in the late game because of the overwhelming culture of the opposing civ.

For example, I took a city on the coast of the English continent, and after resistance the only tiles I had were in the ocean, seperated by engilsh territory which surrounded my city. Once peace was established, the only way to move units in or out of the city was to airlift them, as boats couldn't enter without starting a war.

This can make things difficult very late in the game if you don't want to (or have the resources to) wage a long war overseas to capture or raze every city for that nation.

Which brings up a question... in Civ III there was an option for cities to retain culture after capture. Has anyone found a way to enable or mod that functionality?

 

[Vizzini]

When launching an invasion to an enemy continent try to bring along a Great Artist if at all possible to avoid that problem Ayani.

Create a great work in the city the same turn you capture it. Resistance ends instantly, the city can immediately start building culture buildings, and the base 4000 culture can punch a hole in the culture wall that will surround your new city. (And help prevent the dreaded Flip)

 

[damxam]

I keep cities unless they're very small and crummy, or they're in a very perilous cultural situation. My main culture worry isn't my enemy who I'll crush soon enough, but other civs, especially if they share the main religion with the city and their nearby cities are very culturally strong compared to the conquered one. With all the unrest that's likely to happen from getting conquered, that city can flip faster than you can say D'oh.

 

[phungus420]

In single player I almost always keep the city.

In multi player I almost always raze it. I will only keep a city (and not raze it) if I am sure, absolutely sure I can keep it, and when in doubt I raze.

 

[Old Jubilee]

Hmmm. I generally keep in multiplayer, probably because, with a human player, that city is generally where it is for a reason

Against an AI, I generally raze the little crappy ones that they tend to stick in lousy spots(even between their larger, half-decent ones!) and just try to hold on to the main cities to 'anchor' my foothold in their territory. Also I tend to keep my units in the just-captured towns to heal up for a turn or two before progressing to the next target.

But hey, that's just me.

 

[gakkun]

When launching an invasion to an enemy continent try to bring along a Great Artist if at all possible to avoid that problem Ayani.

Create a great work in the city the same turn you capture it. Resistance ends instantly, the city can immediately start building culture buildings, and the base 4000 culture can punch a hole in the culture wall that will surround your new city. (And help prevent the dreaded Flip)

You know I use to think that works but I've had 2 cases where the culture DID NOT budge at all!!!
Both were cities next to the enemy's capital and in one of these cases the capital was also a holy city. WHen I dropped the culture bomb the only tiles I gained were 2 ocean tiles but otherwise the enemy's culture continued to surround 3 sides of the city square.
Yeh these are extreme examples but I'm surprised by how strong the enemy culture and how different culture works in this game.