what to do with captured citys?

[Mao Zendog]

My question is pretty streight forward; what do you do with captured citys? Lets asume that this is on the emperor difficulty, and that the citys you captured are totaly corrupt. Putting the citys on wealth seems like the easy way out, but what would be the best thing to do?

I usualy try to turn citys like these into specialist farms, but I would appreciate some insight as to how this is properly done.

 

[Aabraxan]

With the caveat that I usually play Monarch, with only a couple of Emperor wins under my belt, but here's my take.

I raze a lot of cities, but, for the ones that I do not raze: I starve them down and build as many workers in them as I can. (Workers built out of the foreign population come out as slaves.) Once I get them down to 1 pop, I irrigate everything around them. What I build out of them . . . it depends. If I'm in need of workers (like Steam is just around the corner, or I've got tons of jungle to clear), and the city is one of those that I just can't seem to stabilize at zero food/zero growth, I'll build workers out of it, or settlers if I need them. If I've got tons of workers, no need for settlers & I can get the city to stabilize for zero growth, I'll set it to building artillery.

As to your question about "turn[ing] citys like these into specialist farms," and wanting "some insight as to how this is properly done," I assume you've read Bede's article in the War Academy? The basic idea behind specialist farms is simply this: In the highly corrupt areas of your empire, pack cities in tight on good, green ground, especially where there are food bonii (?). (What an odd word.) Anyway, water all the food tiles (grass, cows, wheat, plains, etc.). A few citizens can work the tiles to provide enough food to support your specialists. Once rails have been laid, it only takes a few farmers on good ground to support a lot of specialists. I hope that's what you were looking for.

 

[rysingsun]

In any warlike game I will need lots of settlers to settle the new lands. Corrupt cities are ideal for building settlers.

 

[silver 2039]

Burn them.

 

[gmaharriet]

In any warlike game I will need lots of settlers to settle the new lands. Corrupt cities are ideal for building settlers.

This is true, but I find it more flexible to build either cannon (40 shields) or artillery (80 shields). If you build settlers before you're ready to use them, you pay unit support on each of them. If you build artillery, you can wait until there are 50 or 51 turns left on the arty build and change it to a settler, rush the settler at maybe 54 or 55 turns, lose 1 or 2 shields at 48 or 49 turns, or just let the arty complete. You can also pull out a worker at 70 turns. You can change the arty build to a bomber or something more expensive if you aren't ready to use the shields after 80 turns.

Meanwhile, until you decide for certain what you want to do with the shields, you can produce tax income or beakers. The shields are like money in the bank.

 

[CommandoBob]

If you don't raze the city, first you want to starve it down to size 1 and then let it grow back. Build workers/settlers like has been said by others to further reduce the city size.

If the city is resisting, make all non-resisters geeks or taxmen, which should make the city starve and lose a population point on the IBT. If you disband a clunker unit in that city, you can (depending on the unit disbanded) produce a worker on the IBT, which, when combined with the starving, will drop the city size by 2. In turn, that reduces the flip risk and makes it easier for you to maintain control of your newly acquired citizens.

As the city grows, well, that just depends on the needs of the game. I've noticed that some captured cities that were once part of their own core, these cities are still fairly productive and not totally corrupt. In these few I would treat them just like normal semi-productive cities and go on.

 

[Mao Zendog]

ok so from what i am hearing, one should use my citys to build settelers and workers.

I often find that the AI will leave large gaps between their citys. What should I do about these gaps? Should I:
>not worry about them
>build cheap cultures in captured citys to fill gaps
>settle more citys withing the gaps
>or do somthing els...

another questoin; should you build any improvments in captured citys, the ones that are 90% corrupt?

 

[CommandoBob]

ok so from what i am hearing, one should use my citys to build settelers and workers.

Mostly, yes. Workers or settlers or artillery units (since they are not affected by barracks, anywhere they are built is fine).

I often find that the AI will leave large gaps between their citys. What should I do about these gaps? Should I:
>not worry about them
>build cheap cultures in captured citys to fill gaps
>settle more citys withing the gaps
>or do somthing els...

The AI plans to use all 21 tiles in a city radius. Foolish AI. In order to make things easy on us, we'll forgo hospitals and let our cities grow to 12 and tweak them for max production. Then they are easier to manage for happiness. Then we can concentrate on smashing the AI.

In the early game, depending on the situation, just ignore them. Plant between them when you want to fight for that new city or really need the resource. In the later game, once your armies get rolling, use those gaps to build a city that will let you attack both cities on the same turn.

another questoin; should you build any improvments in captured citys, the ones that are 90% corrupt?

In the most corrupt, no, don't build any more improvements. Aqueducts and hospitals cannot be sold back; you won't capture any culture buildings, but markets can help remedy unhappy citizens. Barracks are iffy, but most of the rest can be sold. Some Small Wonders (Wall Street, for one) require a number of improvements to be built before that Small Wonder can be built in your civ.

In the lesser corrupt, it depends on how corrupt. If it is producing 6 shields and netting 3, yeah, build a courthouse.

But generally, in the most corrupt cities, don't build anything. Let that city reach it's natural size and make a specialist farm out of it.

 

[iambenben]

use them for money and maybe making a move to the next civ by storing units

 

[12 Bar Blues]

In the most corrupt, no, don't build any more improvements. Aqueducts and hospitals cannot be sold back; you won't capture any culture buildings, but markets can help remedy unhappy citizens. Barracks are iffy, but most of the rest can be sold. Some Small Wonders (Wall Street, for one) require a number of improvements to be built before that Small Wonder can be built in your civ.

In the lesser corrupt, it depends on how corrupt. If it is producing 6 shields and netting 3, yeah, build a courthouse.

But generally, in the most corrupt cities, don't build anything. Let that city reach it's natural size and make a specialist farm out of it.

Temples (or libs for scientific) should be built, if possible, IMHO. Closes the gap, and helps total culture, which helps for city flipping issues.

 

[gmaharriet]

Temples (or libs for scientific) should be built, if possible, IMHO. Closes the gap, and helps total culture, which helps for city flipping issues.

Only sometimes...it depends on how your economy is doing and on which victory condition you're going for.

100k Culture victory - definitely build

Conquest victory - probably not, since you don't want to accidentally trigger a domination victory before you've wiped out that last civ.

Domination victory - a definite "maybe" - For 30 shields (the 1/2-price cost of a temple to a religious civ) you can just build another settler to fill in culture gaps, and you get the additional unit support and whatever taxmen's gold/scientists' beakers the new town will support. Temples and libs in corrupt areas will just cost you maintenance. Near the end-game, when you are only a few tiles short (and if you have the gold), you can rush some culture for the outer border towns.

 

[12 Bar Blues]

You are more accurate whit what I say than I am. But I rarely go (never went) for conquest, too long. Plus, I always find it satisfying to build culture.

 

[Sweetchuck]

If they have a wonder, I keep them for obvious reasons.

If they have substantial constructs (harbor, barracks, etc.) - I keep them.

Starve them down, of course - unless I'm close to icing a civ totally.

The AI tends to build cities in crappy locations, so I will pick and choose. Ones that are right under a volcano or 2 tiles from the next city will get razed for slaves.