To Raze or not to Raze?

[EdmundSpenser]

So what do u civers think?

To Raze or to occupy?

In Civ 2 holding enemy cities on foreign continents was crucial to advancing your army, but it's so touch and go with culture and resistance...nowadays I just raze the sukkas


I love razing capitals...


ed

 

[cephyn]

I can't pick, because if you do it strategically, it depends on the situation.

Sometimes i raze, sometimes i occupy. it just depends.

 

[Dirk Aurel]

Morning Ed.

Think as always it depends,not just on a wonder but if you are using religous civs,why then I would try to keep the city,you can cheaply build a temple,thereby expanding your territory by quite a bit and that v fast.Since Civ3 sadly doesn´t support airbases (yet) they are useful. Same goes for barracks,supporting ones forces.Also read that far off foreign cities might have problems producing (one shield) but they grow as fast as any other city,so you might want to use ´em to pump out workers or settlers.Also some ppl here love whipping to drive up production.

What I usually do is either keep them to expand my empire or raze them just to build a new,better located city in the vicinity, esp since AI´s at peace might want to settle the place.Am also using some modifications fighting the infamous corruption,so some of these cities might really be worth keeping.Sometimes the AI civ´s have much better land in shield terms,Germany on my map is in between lots of hills,where as my Aztecs aren´t,this is okay as long as we are in pre industrial age but later I want their land for my factories,so am holding back building the FP.

Only problem really is the (silly) optimal numbers of cities,have driven this up since I don´t think it´s justified.

 

[Mapache]

I don't raze strategically important cities. My tanks have higher speed on domestic terrain and every city is an airbase.
So you forgot a third choice.

 

[WUM]

I raze the cities close to the enemy-capitol. And i raze large cities that might revert back quickly.

Almost all small cities i keep, rather unprotected though. Exceptions are cities with certain resources i need or can sell.

This poll shouldn´t be a yes or no-question. The answer is 'depends'.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

If I`m sure I`ll kill off the entire civ quickly, I keep the cities. Or if I need a foothold for a big incasion force.

Otherwise: raze, raze, raze!
Remember: if a culture building is >1000 years old, it increases it`s culture production. So the culture ratio between your new buildings and neighbouring old buildings get`s worse and flip chances increase. Rebuild the town from scratch and this harms you a lot less!

 

[eyrei]

Most offensives I launch have a definate target of one or two cities. With careful planning, you need only a little luck to keep these from 'flipping'.

 

[Cerryl]

I've found trying to use conquered cities on another continent too much of a bother, they all produce only one shield. I have at times, reverted to communism and build things up using the 'whip', but eventually you're left with lots of territory and pretty much useless cities.

 

[Shockwave]

BURN THEM!:flamedevi

Unless they are directly next to my civ in which case I occupy them (and pray)

 

[Exile_Ian]

Its a subject worthy of more than a simple two-choice poll.

As already stated, it really depends on the circumstances. If I'm in the process of overwhelming an opponent, to the extent that I'm taking multiple cities, I'll tend to only raze if its a large population; there's no wonders there; and its adjacent to strong cultural presence by my opponent.

I don't tend to experience too much problem with cities flipping back. Maybe if I've taken 4 or 5 cities over the course of a few turns, I may lose one of them. But provided I've already done the sensible thing of cutting of its supply routes, its likely I'll be able to take it back next turn anyway.

The other negative aspect of not trying to hold on to a city, is that it makes it much easier for one of you allies to step in and start claiming the territory. Personally, if I've fought hard to gain ground, I want to hang on to it!

That point always reminds me that one of the most useful units in a largescale land-expansion war, is the Settler. I always make sure I have a couple standing by ready to pull in and claim any newly available ground (especially if I have had to raze).

 

[sealman]

When I take an enemy capital and he stills has some cities left, I burn ti to the ground. I do this for symbolic reasons and the fact that I think it should be a terrible blow for the opposition, not sure if it does anything though. I will occupy the other cities I capture and if I do not feel like defending them or fear that they will flip easily, I sell or even give them to my allies (or another civ that I plan on moving against next.)

 

[Magnus]

I used to always raze em but now I have learned and only occupy the city with a couple units and keep the rest of the force nearby (preferably on a hill or mountain). and if the city flips, we charge back in and keep taking it till it is is safe. Note this is only with civs who's culture is equal to or greater than mine - if I have the cultural advantage, they will generally not flip.

HOWEVER: I once took an Egyptian city named Sparta, a city which THEY had taken many years back turns back from my current ally, the Greeks. Well, wouldn't you know, I took the city -rush built all the culture building improvements I could, had pushed the Eqyptians way out of the picture.... and then it flips to GREECE!!!! .

 

[Thunderfall]

I don't usually raze cities. I prefer to make everyone into entertainers in the captured city and starve the city to size one, then let the city grow again.

 

[EdmundSpenser]

Wisdom from the thunder!

Hey btw, what is 'the whip'? Is it a communism thing?

I have only just started playing civ3...I bought it last year, but felt jilted at first, as if by an ex-lover, but now that civ2 is finally dying and I have mastered the use of civ 3 workers, and installed the patch, I'm really into it...

oh and joan

ed

 

[Cerryl]

Whip aka Despot rush, hurrying improvements/units with population.

While not jumping on the too much corruption sucks thing, I do find it very annoying not to get a city above 1, maybe 2 shields on another continent.

I suppose one could wait until late game to do F.P., and then move their capitol to another location, but I like to have F.P built by 500 AD if possible, sooner if I get a GL.

 

[eyrei]

The whip is when, under despotism or communism, you use population to rush a unit or improvement. Your advisor will ask you if you are sure, and you respond with something about shutting up and getting your whip.

With all of the complaining I have seen about culture flips during war, I was expecting the poll results to be different. I guess we don't have a good sample yet.

 

[siredgar]

I would raze if it's a big city to get the workers.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Magnus
HOWEVER: I once took an Egyptian city named Sparta, a city which THEY had taken many years back turns back from my current ally, the Greeks. Well, wouldn't you know, I took the city -rush built all the culture building improvements I could, had pushed the Eqyptians way out of the picture.... and then it flips to GREECE!!!! .

Cool! That helps build my faith in the game system. After all, Greece did that: conquered by Romans, then Turks, then flipped - to GREECE! I can understand a city flipping to its original civ better than it flipping to a middle conquerer.

 

[Magnus]

I know, I know, Richard III, and of course since the GREEKS were my ALLIES, I just COULDN'T take it back from them... now COULD I?