to keep or destroy?

[Pentium]

I usually capture and rush temple, since I'm usually strong in culture.
And capturing the next city greatly reduces flip chances.

 

[TyranusBonehead]

I usually capture and keep

 

[island007]

I try to go for quick domination.
I mostly capture and keep, this is on emp or demi. I try to break the culture pressure (capture more cities) next turn and starve the remaining pop. Once resistors are gone I rush settlers. Flips are rare and dealt with the following turn killing more pop. Also, once my offensive war starts the enemy civ is scheduled to be eliminated in (7-15 turns).
There are exceptions, in particular the culture leader and/or the Baylonians. Alot of their stuff will get razed. Also, I may raze a large pop, and culture filled city for slaves and to eliminate culture pressure quicker. I count grid blocks to gauge culture strength, or you can count back to find the location of the city in the fog.

 

[Rambuchan]

I raze and replace most of the time. Loads of free workers, army gets to keep advancing rather than stopping to put down resistance, no chance of culture flips.

I only keep the cities if their culture is way lower than mine and / or if I can't get a settler to what would be a strategically placed city. I find regular razing doesn't prevent you from trading effectively with other civs (monarch level), they may not be polite but they still part with cash and techs and still join alliances.

Of course I never raze cities with wonders in them.

 

[bmlb]

I always keep cities I capture; but that could change.

 

[MrRats]

I always raze...show no mercy!!!

 

[Bluemofia]

I conquer and keep. doesn't affect reputation.

 

[Smellincoffee]

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?

If the city has more foreign citizens than it has your citizens, abandoning a city counts as razing. It's worse for you, because you don't even get slaves out of the deal like you would if you razed it from the get-go. I learned this the hard way in my first Warlord game...one city (Babylonian) kept flipping on me, so when I captured it back for the third time, I abandoned it...and everyone hated me from then on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thetrooper
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 gift cities all the time, and I have C3C 1.22.

 

[MeteorPunch]

If the city has more foreign citizens than it has your citizens, abandoning a city counts as razing. It's worse for you, because you don't even get slaves out of the deal like you would if you razed it from the get-go.

Thanks for the answer.

 

[Spike59]

I keep the cities and starve the population down to 1. To get there quick, I also rush build workers, so I lose two citizens per turn. I do not have any problems with cities flipping back (I play on regent, so that is a factor).

Because the AI was polite enough to irrigate around the city, the population comes back relatively quickly. When the city regrows, the new citizens are from my civ, not the one I am conquering.

 

[rysingsun]

i dont very often raze cities. but now usually for me a war means a conquest. i push it until the last city is taken because once the ai is eliminated culture flips can no longer occur. i only occupy conquered cities on the first turn after conquest or with perhaps one unit on following turns if the city in question is right on the warfront. yeah they flip all the time and i take them back. i never starve cities but i sometimes if under communism pop-rush to get the native population down.

its a shame to start cities from scratch. i fight most of my wars in the industrial and modern ages when conquest tends to go very quickly so any city built at this time with a settler or any city that has been starved to size one will never produce anything significant for my empire before the game is over.

 

[thetrooper]

@Smellincoffee: thanks for your reply! As I expected.

 

[HMonster]

When you raze, you get slaves out of it? Is it one slave per city size?

 

[Bluemofia]

No, city pop divided by 2.

 

[Pentium]

You can't sell/buy a city in any version. But you can give it to the AI.

 

[Roso]

I didn't vote because I think better is to raze, but more often I keep cities because of lack of setlers . Especially cities with lot of citizens or culture are really hell to be kept not to flip back .

 

[GorfTheWanderer]

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?

As I understand it if you adandon a city that has equal or more foreiners in it that natives it is the same as razing a city in respect to attitude hit...

 

[RegentMan]

For me, it depends on the situation.

 

[davidwchislett]

I usually keep, rather than raze. Though I often load the nearly captured city with my own citizens to stop there being flip-backs becasue I too had that problem on Emperor level.

But I also enjoy gifting if the city would require too much investment to make usable in its current position.

 

[Swiss Bezerker]

Conquer on most cercustances