To Raze or not to Raze

[EquinoxOmega]

I always keep the city, except i do a misclicking.

Why should i waste foreign population. Well there is a risk that they rebell, but usally my wars are absolute: either i kill them or the kill me completly(hasn't happend yet) and then they can't dispose anymore.

 

[Stylesjl]

I hardly ever burn down the cities. Mostly because i usually go to war to annex territory into my glorious empire

 

[Wlauzon]

I voted Raze, but in fact there is no yes or no answer.

If I am on the take over the world mood, I keep the ones with wonders, and occasional others - especially if they have a lot of already built improvements, especially airports (so I can fly in tanks). If I am just on a routine "wipe out this civ to make him shutup" mission I usually keep them all.

One thing you have to remember though, is that the AI cheats - it knows where all the resources are apparently, so 90% of the time when you find an enemy civ, you will find a good resource.

But there is another thing also. Playing on a huge world, cities half the world away from your capital will have very bad corruption, so may be pretty useless anyway. Those I almost always destroy, since it seems that they can never be made usefull without pouring tons of money into them.

 

[Conroe]

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.

Is this statement 100% accurate? The reason that I ask is that I am currently playing a 5cc and am forced to raze all cities.

Before declaring war, I had 1 civ cautious, 1 civ gracious, and the other 5 were polite (including the victim civ). The war is now over and we have one less civ in the world. The 1 civ that was gracious is now polite (he has a really sweet lux deal), while the other 5 are all annoyed. When I declared war, I was careful that all of my troops were within my border.

It would appear to me that razing affects the attitude of all of the AI civs, not just the victim civ. As you say, though, it does appear that my reputation is intact.

 

[garyg]

It would appear to me that razing affects the attitude of all of the AI civs, not just the victim civ. As you say, though, it does appear that my reputation is intact.[/QUOTE]

Just going to war and wiping out a civ will affect the other civs attitude.
I don't think razing cities is the only thing they noticed.

I voted raze. Though it does depend on a lot of factors. Generally I've noticed that as I moved up levels razing has became the default. I just make sure I bring settlers with me.

 

[Zelda's Man]

I esp raze when the AI has built aqueducts and hospitals in hopelessly corrupt cities that I don't want to pay the maintenance costs for. Although sometimes I keep them when there is fertile ground around for specialist farms. Clear as mud?

 

[SimpleMonkey]

It's also possible that since the AI attitude also declines as you become more powerful, just the fact that you've been a successful warmonger, razing cities or not, will contribute to taking down AI attitude.
I haven't confirmed this, but it seems reaonable.

 

[axehaxe]

Did you know it is VERY VERY bad to raze cities? You know why? I found out too late and I had to ditch an emperor game I was playing b/c of it!! I was at war with the celts and I razed like 8 of their cities. like 50 turns pass and they still refuse to talk to me. Razing cities increases the time span you'll be at war with a civ. This kicked my rear end because I thought a breif razing spree would punish the celts who had a stronger military and they would talk but it did the opposite and I was about to lose a critical choke point city which was inevitable so I knew the end of the vikings had come in that game.

 

[SimpleMonkey]

That's interesting. I thought that razing cities worked the same way as capturing cities did as far as encouraging the AI to talk to you. (I have a lot of fun imagining my foreign minister getting turned away and me saying, "Okay, Mr Hiawatha. Let's see if you'll talk once Oil Springs becomes a Japanese tourist town.") If it discourages the AI instead, that's a whole new goat parade.

 

[Wlauzon]

If razing causes so much hate, then how about keeping it for a couple turns and then abandoning it?

 

[Beamup]

Personally my rule is usually, "raze it if I'd lose it anyway." If I could hold the city, I will. If it would probably flip back/be reconquered, I'll raze it.

 

[TimBentley]

If razing causes so much hate, then how about keeping it for a couple turns and then abandoning it?

Abandoning a city with at least half foreign population is considered the same as razing.

By the way, razing cities significantly hurts attitude with that civ, and slightly hurts attitude with all civs.

 

[Zelda's Man]

When you abandon, the unhappiness from that city is transferred to your closest city so I would rather raze in hopes of grabbing some free workers. This is especially bad if the AI has been poprushing the city.

 

[Fatal Exception]

Razing doesn't cause the AI not to talk to you for a longer period of time. The fact that the Celts were militarily superior to you probably is what encouraged them to keep fighting.

Generally speaking I find that in order to get a peace deal I don't have to pay for I have to have miltiary superiority over the AI, regardless of how many cities I've conquered.

 

[Atreides]

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...

Don't you mean keep a troop just outside the city, if the troop is in the city then you'll lose it when the city flips, wheras if it's just outside the city then you can re-take the city as soon as it flips, or move it in position to defend it if a ennemy approaches..

 

[Conroe]

By the way, razing cities significantly hurts attitude with that civ, and slightly hurts attitude with all civs.

This has been my experience, as well. I'm not sure that I agree with the use of the word slightly, though. I seems to me that it hurts your attitude with all civs, period; although, not nearly as badly had it been their city you burned to the ground.

Razing cities increases the time span you'll be at war with a civ.

I'm not sure that I agree with this statement. In my experience, raze versus capture does not effect their willingness to talk peace.

Don't you mean keep a troop just outside the city, if the troop is in the city then you'll lose it when the city flips, wheras if it's just outside the city then you can re-take the city as soon as it flips, or move it in position to defend it if a ennemy approaches..

I've noticed that the AI will target an undefended city before any other city, regardless of where that city is on the map. Depending on your strategy, you may or may not want to put at least one troop inside. Besides, if you still have any resistors, you will need troops to quell the resistance. If I recall correctly, a city in resistance has something like double the flip chance.

 

[GangsterOctopus]

I usually keep the cities I conquer, even if they are in a bad location. Most of the time I’m just too lazy to move badly placed cities. If I’m really lazy I will raze. Especially if it’s near the end of the game.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Plus, even if a city is Totally corrupt it gives
1. Territorial access
2. Unit support
3. 1 shield, 1 trade
4. An Ability to create culture in exchange for cash (build temples)
5. Food for specialists/conscriptions/rushing units.

 

[Wlauzon]

One big reason to keep a city is if it has access to a resource. Even a totally corrupt city with access to a couple of gems can make the rest of your pop a lot happier.

But I still raze some cities, especially if I know they will be retaken soon. If possible I sell off any improvments and buy a military unit or so when I do that.

 

[Atreides]

I think one of the large factors is your culture ratio. I normally like self researching, so have librarys etc in both of mo cores, iving a decent culture base making it easier to keep cities.