To raze, or to capture?(that is the question)

[Amorphus]

I've been wondering for a while now, when I'm at war, and I have the option to raze or capture a city, which is better? I always captured them in my second game(total newbie to game), but they never seem to get bigger, and they are harder to control.

Would it be better to just raze them and build my own????

Thanks in advance [dance]

*edit*Gonzo in the irc room told me the situation is greatly what matters, and told me to upload my (newbie) save file

Please take into consideration this is my second game, my first I didn't finish, and it IS on chieften.
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads3/Caesar_of_the_Romans,_1630_AD.SAV

Sorry game before was wrong one

 

[gonzo_for_civ]

Welcome to CFC. As I've directed in chat, you ought to upload a save file, I'm sure there would be some here who are eager to help

 

[gonzo_for_civ]

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads3/Caesar_of_the_Romans,_720_AD.SAV

That's the link to the save BTW.

Now come on chieftess, padma, for old time's sake, help out the newbie

 

[Amorphus]

Gave gonzo wrong file sorry

that was early before war this is new one

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads3/Caesar_of_the_Romans,_1630_AD.SAV

 

[Chieftess]

Depends on the type of game you're playing. If there are a few civs, and you aren't worried about taking a rep hit (meaning, other civs hate you more), then raze it. If it has lots of culture, you might was to raze it, too.

Abandoning a city with more foriegn citizens than yours is also considered a rep hit. If the location is good, then just capture it. It's also a better choice if you're playing a larger map with more civs in it.

 

[[GoD]Toxic]

Take a city, dont raze it. Just use this:

Step 1. Take the city.

Step 2. Get it down to level 1.

Step 3. Get another citizen.

Step 4. Build a worker and the city is only populated by citizens from your civ thus making it less corupted and less likely to desert to another civ.

 

[Praetorian]

Burn!!!!

 

[Zachriel]

It depends on your goals. What do you want your children to read in the Annals of Civilization? After all, you only live for 6,000 years or so. Only then will the history of your reign be written.



Solitudinem faciunt, pacem appelant.
They made a desert and called it peace.

 

[tcwonder3]

One way to raze (which I like to do to set up an unoccupied area around my borders) is take along a few native workers. Keep the city, if it is 4 or less. Then build a colonist (whatever level) and/or workers to reduce it to level 1. Add 1worker to make the foreign and loyal populations at least equal (building workers to use is more effective, but more time-consuming), then sell-off and eliminate.
A good strategy is to follow up with your own colonists and place (because the conquests rarely are placed well for your expansion) a city, using those built foreign workers, and grow it to loyal.
None of these are easy to do after mid-game, because the micro-managment of the cities just takes too much time.

 

[MadHatter]

I usually bombard it down to size 6 or less, take the city, move in two units per citizen, flip the governer on to manage moods and hope for the best. It usually works, when it doesn't...I take it again and raze the damn city! (that'll show 'em)

 

[billindenver]

I always capture and starve. Don't let the citizens work any productive land. Make them all entertainers. Once starved down to 1 (make workers while starving) let it grow again. Rushing a temple also helps.

Once you get beyond 12 cities though, you have to realize that no city you capture or build is going to be productive. It's one thing I don't really like about Civ III compared to I & II. You are only going to have a limited number of productive cities in your empire, no matter how many cities you build or capture.

 

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by Zachriel
It depends on your goals. What do you want your children to read in the Annals of Civilization? After all, you only live for 6,000 years or so. Only then will the history of your reign be written.

That all depends on your children too. Like father like sons, if they grow up and want to become the tyrant like you, then they may complain that you weren't done enough razing in your days.

 

[tcwonder3]

Billindenver: What's this about a 12 city limit? I believe you are misinformed. If not, then I would like a more specific clarification. Expand upon this.

 

[billindenver]

Originally posted by tcwonder3
Billindenver: What's this about a 12 city limit? I believe you are misinformed. If not, then I would like a more specific clarification. Expand upon this.

Well, 12 might be the wrong number, but there is an optimal city number for each map size, and I was thinking it was 12 for standard maps. I couldn't find this offhand. I'm sure someone around here knows offhand.

 

[billindenver]

OK, I was wrong. On a standard map, the OCN is 16.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19922&perpage=20&display=&pagenumber=4

 

[Renata]

I think the issue was more with the statement that no city past the OCN can be productive. It's just not true. First off, the FP, if well-placed, can nearly double your number of useful cities. Courthouses in border-line productive cities increase it again, as do police stations, as do WLTK days. To provide just one data point for comparison, in a recent warlord-level game on a small map (effective base OCN 12-ish I think?) I had 27 cities and every single one was productive; i.e. even the worst-corrupted produced at least 8-10 base shields once railroaded, but pre-factories (and without police stations either).

Renata

 

[Ralph-x]

If I want it or its early game, I keep, when on the late game warpath to conquest just burn, dont care about the rep hit, unless its got wonders in, then I keep ofcourse.

 

[barron of ideas]

When you spent the resources, time, units, whatever it took to get the city, you should have had a plan. Most of time, under most such plans, a bigger civilization is better (this is not always the case with players trying to achive other than domination victories.)

Another reason not to keep the city is if it is so big a flip risk that you can not take the chance. See articles in the War Academy about the flip risk. The smaller the number of enemy aliens in your new city, the smaller the flip risk. Also helps if you can keep them happy, or even better, in we love the king day. Big garrisons also hold down the flip risk, but if it goes, they go.

I think it is not an exploit to raze a city, as the AI does it all the time, but it is likely "dastardly" and if you play with restrictions on your behavior, like always declaring war before invading, and living up to your 20 turn bargains/treaty lengths, you probably don't want to take the reputation hit from razing a city.

It is a good idea to have a plan, before you start the war that resulting in taking the city. Then when you do get one, you know what you were planning to do. Mostly a bigger empire is better, even the corrupt ones can turn out workers and settlers, eventurally, and taking a lot of turns, can build culture buildings and add to the glory of your empire.

 

[Bismarck]

Someone did an analysis not too long ago of the effect of different actions on the AI's attitude towards you. It turns out that razing a city is one of the worst things you can do, in terms of your relations with the AI.

It does not exactly damage your *reputation* (i.e.., the AI will still trust you enough to sign long-term deals with you), but it does make the AI much more hostile towards you.

 

[bealystock]

If it's a city I want to keep I reduce it by building workers, then I repopulate it with my citizens. If I don't want it, because its in a bad location or to far away and corrupte, I sell it to anouther civ on the other side of the world. Last night I sold 2 ex French cities to the Romans and 1 to the Greeks for about 260 gold + W maps each. Now its their problem if it flips back.