Brewster
stays crunchy in milk
When taking on an AI civ, do you prefer to keep their cities even though they may not be in the best location or do you raze them and settle in a better spot?
to keep or destroy?
- Thread starter Brewster
- Start date
Conquer and keep. Because razing would do rep hit, am I right? And you can have free productive town or city so why to raze? Even if the city would be at the outerlimits you still can grow it to 12, keep WLTK day and put all special citizens to pruduce science or money.
HungryMouse
Chieftain
777 said:
As far as I know raizing cities does not hit your rep, but the attitude of other CP civs towards you. There is a good article on AI's attitude: http://forums.civfanatics.com/archive/index.php/t-44999.html
Keeping cities works on lower levels. If you advance to Emperor and above level it just won't do as the cities just flip back. "Raze and Replace" is the way to go then.
Brewster
stays crunchy in milk
Thanks for the advice. I think I will incorperate a little of both in my current game.
thetrooper
Misanthrope
- Joined
- May 24, 2004
- Messages
- 9,103
Raze unless the city is strategically important.
MeteorPunch
#WINNING
Instead of razing, I capture, then look at the improvements and see if I want it or not, then abandon...will that cause rep/attitude hit?
thetrooper
Misanthrope
- Joined
- May 24, 2004
- Messages
- 9,103
Ummm... your bourgeois citizens love to become workers 
Happiness...
Happiness...
MeteorPunch
#WINNING
thetrooper said:Ummm... your bourgeois citizens love to become workers
Happiness...
yeah, but this is too avoid flipping/quelling revolts. It's basically a raze without the actual raze...I just want to know the attitude effects.
thetrooper
Misanthrope
- Joined
- May 24, 2004
- Messages
- 9,103
AFAIK abandon equals raze, but I don't feel too confident about that. I sell all the improvements, pillage every worked tile and "gift" the city to someone else. How kind of me 
CoolioVonHoolio
Quit WoW, back to Civ.
keeping for me is the only way. its easier to keep the citys and use those as forts rather than using my own settlers.
Lockesdonkey
Liberal Jihadist
I don't go to war much, so when I take a city, it's usually culture flip...But in any case, when I do go to war and take a city, I keep it and starve it. Then hurry Temple, Library, Cathedral. All my wars are either border wars or attacks on my cities on other continents (Everyone else goes to war, leaves lots of territory open to settlement, it has so many resources...how can I resist taking that land?), so I generally don't take many cities and the ones I do are near my own, so culture flip is less likely, even on high difficulty levels.
MeteorPunch
#WINNING
thetrooper said:AFAIK abandon equals raze, but I don't feel too confident about that. I sell all the improvements, pillage every worked tile and "gift" the city to someone else. How kind of me
that's like, sweet
gunkulator
Emperor
thetrooper said:AFAIK abandon equals raze, but I don't feel too confident about that. I sell all the improvements, pillage every worked tile and "gift" the city to someone else. How kind of me
I believe this no longer works in C3C. Cities can only be traded as part of peace negotiations. I used to do this all the time in PTW. Get an alliance with Civ A against Civ B. Capture a Civ B city, sell everything, and gift it to Civ A. Civ B takes back the empty city and your "ally" gets a huge WW penalty. Voila! You cripple two AIs with one shot!
You can always gift stuff away (however in C3C you cant gift away stuff you dont have.. you can in vanilla and ptw.. like gift them 99999gpt)
thetrooper
Misanthrope
- Joined
- May 24, 2004
- Messages
- 9,103
Noone has answered the question MeteorPunch asked earlier. I am curious too - because I am not sure if you get an attitude hit for abandoning foreign cities. I said that abandon = raze when it comes to attitude. Anyone?
mastertyguy
I'm tired!
UNLESs their culture is low.Rik Meleet said:
