To Raze or Not To Raze?

Stuck_as_a_Mac

Aptenodytes forsteri
Joined
Apr 4, 2002
Messages
3,936
Location
NYC
There has been much renewed talk about our plans for... world domination... Muahahahahha!!!.. excuse me... This brings us to a question. Do we want to keep every darn city we capture or do we want to go and destroy some to keep ourselves from a domination victory?


Pros of Razing:
Keeps us from that ever so crucial 66% mark
Less highly corrupt cities to deal with

Cons:
If we do, we have to plan to kill that civ then and there.
Rep hits (see first con)

Discuss!
 
Nah.. we like 3 hour pre-turns! Actually, it causes a rep hit, and after razing just 1 civ, we're permanently a rogue nation.
 
But like you said, at this stage, who cares? ;)

Well, I don't think we should...And we do like thost 3 hour pre-turns!
 
I like to keep all cities that can be used, but raze any cities that can be of no use. Most jungle cities, such as some of those in China, can be razed, but high-production cities such as those in America should be kept.
 
No razing - Too much a rep hit. Besides, we can use those corrupt cities to pump out workers...

EDIT: Another arguement against razing: Where there is open land, there are a sea of AI settlers...
 
I'd support razing once we're down to one or two remaining opponents and don't need to play the game diplomatically. For now though, we still need to be able to keep good relations with those nations we're not actively trying to crush - so no razing.
 
No Razing, the Resons are simple. One, It will hurt our Rep and Second, as Oct said, once there is open land there will be a swarm of AI settlers to retake that land.
 
No razing. Remember that cities contain innocent people.These people must be spared. (Btw - have we decided on a domination victory?)
 
Think of the people!

It may seem like blips on the screen to you, but these are real people with real lives in those cities. Do not throw them into the jungle for no good reason.
 
Back
Top Bottom