Taking cities: occupy or destroy?

If you can defend it, having a holy city on your front lines can help a lot in the culture wars, if you have a great prophet to build his special building there.
 
Here's a new concern I have related to the raze vs. occupy question:

I'm playing as Mongolia (on Noble), was in a war with the US, which is bordering Russia. Russia and the US are off on a seperate continent, so it's somewhat distant from my home continent and cultural influence. I've taken and held a few of the American cities, and built up a little culture, but I stopped the war a while ago to focus on research and production, and all I really wanted was a foothold on that continent. Now, I'm thinking about restarting the war, finishing off the US and taking the Christian holy city...

BUT... Russia, who is my main rival and leading in points, etc., is breathing down America's neck. I'm worried that if I attack the US, and only raze the rest of his cities (minus the holy city, which I might want to keep), then Russia's overwhelming culture and power will sweep into the void. The last thing I want to do is make Russia's expansion easier.

As a side note, Russia has fought with the US previously and their relations are still poor, so I don't doubt that Russia would attack and wipe out the US in the future. Perhaps I should beat Russia to the punch?

Any thoughts? sorry for the length, but it's an interesting strategy problem..
 
Back
Top Bottom