To raze or not to raze?

WoundedKnight

Warlord
Joined
May 28, 2002
Messages
253
Several people have noted that conquered cities always have happiness below that of cities you build yourself, even if you replace the pop entirely with your culture.

Why bother to keep cities at all? It seems like trying to assimilate cities to your nationality by adding your own workers to a city which will never be like home-grown is somewhat of a waste. Why not just convert all of the pop to workers, then raze the city and build a new one with your own settler? Unless the city has a wonder or something you really want...

WoundedKnight
 
Generally, the later in the game, the more useful razing cities is. After nationalism is researched, all AI cities will generally have massive unhappiness from drafting penalties and will resist you forever, so it is usually better to raze them. Building settlers to replace them is easy at this point. In the ancient age though the opposite is true and you probably will want to capture all cities. I really don't like razing cities, but in modern-era wars it's often the only practical option.
 
Sullla is right, and that is the best way to do it (although there are exceptions, like great wonders... if it’s a good one).

I think it should have been done so that the happiness of the citizens is more or less reversed when you capture a city. Really, if a cities population has been pop-rushed, or drafted into oblivion, wouldn’t they be more willing to accept foreign rule (or rather, more willing to get rid of the current rule, hey, lets get fraxis to implement civil wars, they were in civ1 wernt thay?)? But a city with a high culture and lots of happy people will try to resist as much as possible? Although this probably couldn’t be applied to cities suffering unhappiness due to war weariness.
 
Originally posted by Zouave


So the game encourages genocide and Ethnic Cleansing. :( :mad:

I guess thats why they called the game...."Civilization"....:satan:
 
Back
Top Bottom