To Raze or not to Raze

[Senor Soup]

I am curious,

When playing do you folks keep captured cities, or do you raze them and build your own cities on their place. I have used both strategies in the past and I am wondering which metheod do you people think is the best metheod. I included a poll.

 

[Fried Egg]

If I don't like a city where it is, I raze it. If I like it where it is, I leave it. I don't tend to have to worry about flipping too much because I usually have a high culture level.

 

[jeffelammar]

Can't vote on this one. The only real answer is "It Depends".

What is your goal?
How much cuture does the enemy Civ have vrs yours?
Does the City allow you a strategic advantage that would be lost by Razing?
Is your goal in the game Diplomatic?
Do I have a settler to replace it?

There are so many variables that will make me decide one way or another, even within the same game. I might Raze Athens because it has a high Flip risk, but keep Sparta because I allows me to reach Thermopolae. (For example)

 

[TomOC]

I never raze. Razing cities would mean I would not have to leave troops behind to "police" the city. My SOD would go right through a weak Civ easily. I would just plan ahead and have a bunch of settlers in my SOD to fill the voids.

I like the challenge of trying to keep all the cities I capture. As I progress the battle can become more difficult (and more interesting), because my troops are thinning.

 

[TimBentley]

I usually raze cities without useful wonders, since I often have less than 1/4 the culture of the civ I'm attacking. There are other reasons I capture, such as strategic reasons or the civ I'm attacking will soon be dead or is so weak I have more culture than them.

 

[vmxa]

Wow that is just a bit lacky in information and qualifications. I mean the game conditons make a ton of impact on that choice.

Am I playing in a game where I have no chance to match them in culture? Say it is a high level or a variant? Is my choice a town that is on a good site, will it fit into my plans? Does it control a resource or a lux I need? Is it defendable or a blockcade/chokepoint?

Am I way past my OCN already? Is this a conquest game and I am a long way from getting a settler on site? Do I need to get a bunch of units in the town to heal and then abandon? Lots of consideration.

In the main I would probably not going to be in a position where I have enough culture to prevent a flip, so do I expect to be grabbing or razing the nearby towns? If I am going to be able to relieve the culture pressure by razing cities near it, maybe I can hold it. Can I afford to sit on it till it is quelled?

 

[Eukaryote]

I am usally going for a peaceful victory. However it's hard to go though a whole game fighting a war. I usally keep a city since I usally have enogh cultrue so it won't flip. Besides gotta keep up the rep.

 

[Heroes]

Razing doesn't hit your reputation. Just your relation with the original owner of the city becomes worse, but it doesn't matter in most situations.

 

[vmxa]

Yes razing only affects their attitude, not your rep. If they are already ferious, then it is of no consequences.

 

[Fatal Exception]

I almost always raze if I'm warmongering. The only time I'll keep a city is if it has useful wonders in it. If I'm buildering, I may keep it if I've got a high culture score.

However even once the resistance is quelled and even if the city hasn't got any culture pressure on it, it still has a small chance of flipping if you don't eliminate the civ it belonged to. So generally speaking I'll only keep useful wonder cities and/or the last few cities from an AI civilization as I finish them off - they won't flip if there's nothing to flip back to.

 

[knupp715]

Can't vote on this one. The only real answer is "It Depends".

What is your goal?
How much cuture does the enemy Civ have vrs yours?
Does the City allow you a strategic advantage that would be lost by Razing?
Is your goal in the game Diplomatic?
Do I have a settler to replace it?

There are so many variables that will make me decide one way or another, even within the same game. I might Raze Athens because it has a high Flip risk, but keep Sparta because I allows me to reach Thermopolae. (For example)

You stole the words from my mouth. It all depends.

 

[nullspace]

I do what Fatal Exception said: usually raze, keep the good wonders and when I'm close to wiping out the civ.

 

[SimpleMonkey]

My tendency is to keep the freaking city unless it's built in a stupid place. Usually this is just so I don't have to spend shields rebuilding improvements. I'll only keep a token garrison in the city and I'll starve down (or pop rush or draft) the enemy population down to 1 or 2 to reduce odds of culture flips. However, if said city is in a stupid location and doesn't have any wonders, I'll take the slave labor, thank you.

 

[WackenOpenAir]

I am curious,

When playing do you folks keep captured cities, or do you raze them and build your own cities on their place. I have used both strategies in the past and I am wondering which metheod do you people think is the best metheod. I included a poll.

I almost always keep the city unless the flip risk is truly huge. I do however not station any units in it after the first 2 turns. The first turn is risk free, the second i sometimes keep my wounded units for a 1 turn gamble if there is a barracks in there.The citizens who are to be educated as scientists are just too valuable to raze those cities.

 

[Fatal Exception]

Don't forget, once you kill the civ off, you can add the workers generated by razing cities back in to your population without any flip risk.

Generally speaking I think I get more population in the long run by razing and adding extra workers to cities later than by keeping cities and starving them.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

I'll keep it, it extends my borders, provides a base of operations for my units, and I can starve and bleed the citizens wallets the city by making everyone tax collectors. If I see I have an undefended city I just captured about to be recaptured I'll just abandon it.

 

[Wheelock]

If possible, I generally now try to keep cities (especially if they have a good wonder, such as Sun Tzu's). I'll just leave one troop inside the city in case it defects, and in the meantime, I'll starve it down, turning the citizens into tax collectors...

In the later game, when I'm facing a developed nation with metropolises, I'll just raze them 90% of the time. Usually, at this point in the game, I find it best to press on with my troops rather than leaving some behind in each town to repress resistance.

Generally, my conquests occur before the modern age. Once the AI get mech infantry and radio towers, it's very costly to try to invade, even with armies of modern armor.

 

[mastertyguy]

I nearly always keep them.

 

[Own]

Yep, "depends" is always the right answer.

 

[Mirc]

99.99999999999999999% of my captured cities are kept!