Why to raze cities

[Fistandantilus]

Why does anyone raze cities? You have every reason to keep them!

You gain a buffer zone for your main production cities even if the new ones can't produce it protects your ones that can. Gives you access to tons of new resources and luxeries. After time can be at least semi usefull. Can be given away so other civs like you. Allows you to see more of the map continuously. Allows your units to advance faster and heal quicker since they don't have to travel all the way back to your main cities. They add to your score in territory. AND they can lead to a domination victory.

When capturing at least 3 cities what reason is there to raze them? I just don't get it. (I play on monarch)

 

[beowolfff]

Won't you be forced to leave one unit behind each conquered city to protect it? thereby reducing your attacking force by at least 1 unit as your attack rolls along?

In my humble opinion I think the question to raze or not depends on the scenario itself. If you got a few or several "wounded" units, the newly conquered city would be the best place to heal without going back to your nearest border city (just like what you said) but if your force is still "healthy" then it would be a waste to leave one healthy unit behind to guard the fallen city. You'd also be very prone to a counter attack since you just have a limited number of units guarding your new city. You'd conquer them all anyway so I say its better to be picky with the cities you choose to keep.

 

[Koronin]

I will raze at times to minimize the chance of losing the newly captured city to my rivals culture. Usually, I'll try to take enough forces to capture them, but if the fight's going badly, I will raze a city to keep the opposition culture off the ones I capture.

And often times, the AI doesn't seem to care where it places a city, so razing and following up with a settler will sometimes get a better producing city.

Originally posted by Fistandantilus
Why does anyone raze cities? You have every reason to keep them!

You gain a buffer zone for your main production cities even if the new ones can't produce it protects your ones that can. Gives you access to tons of new resources and luxeries. After time can be at least semi usefull. Can be given away so other civs like you. Allows you to see more of the map continuously. Allows your units to advance faster and heal quicker since they don't have to travel all the way back to your main cities. They add to your score in territory. AND they can lead to a domination victory.

When capturing at least 3 cities what reason is there to raze them? I just don't get it. (I play on monarch)

 

[MadHatter]

If they're outside your core production area (around the palace and FP) they will only contribute corruption to your empire and should be placed further apart from each other to minimize their numbers.

So, yes, I raze some cities, but I pick and choose, based on placement. I like them 6 or 7 tiles apart from each other (as opposed to 4 tiles inside my core area). Then I make cultural improvements to claim the surrounding land.

 

[joycem10]

i hate the way the AI places cities. i hate having a city with 4-6 blocks taken up by neighboring cities, but the AI seems to love it.

I know that this is probably the most productive way to place them but its a pet peeve of mine.

so yes i raze/abandon often when taking ai cities.

 

[meldor]

There are several factors in concidering to raze a city or not.

1) Any culture related buildings are lost (except major wonders) so you have to rebuild those anyway.
2) The city remembers which civs had it and how much culture they had under the other civ. This counts towards the formula for flipping.
3) You can not rush build anything while the city is in resistance and the more resisters, the larger the garrison to quell them keep the city from flipping. This also increases the cities chance of rioting which again doubles the chance of flipping.
4) As long as the number of foriegn nationals in your city out number the natives, it has a great chance of flipping.

Therefore ther are two ways to deal with this in large cities prone to flip.
1) Starve all of the citizens by making them entertainers until you get to 1 citizen or resistance has ended which ever comes first. Thereafter you can rush build workers or settlers to get the foriegn pop down...or
2) Raze the city and plop down your own. This has several advantages. You can start rush building those culture producers from the start. The chance of it flipping are reduced by a tremendous amount. All of the citizens are native and less prone to unhappiness and war weariness. It doesn't require a large garrison to prevent flipping. After you rush build that temple and barracks, you have a better city for you and less chance of a flip. All it costs is some pop points for the settler and the foreign pop of the city razed.

If you are planning on wiping out the civ in question and can do this before flipping can become a problem, by all means keep them all. The foriegn citizens will be pacified after you kill off their native civ.

 

[Arathorn]

Another reason to raze is to get a bunch of free laborers. Sure, they only work half-speed but 30 slaves will do the work of 15 real workers. They don't cost upkeep, didn't cost shields to produce, and didn't influence your core area to make.

The other reasons listed above are more important, of course (culture flip, better location, etc.), but this is another reason some of us raze more-than-occasionally.

Like meldor said, too, it all depends on the purpose of the war -- is it a wipe-them-out in a few turns fest? If so, don't raze. Is it to gain control of a small area? Then I always raze and resettle. Across the sea? Close to home? Inferior/superior troops? They all play a role.

Arathorn

 

[Koronin]

Yeah, I always raze cities when fighting over seas. I've never cared for the corruption rates in cities on other continents so I fight wars overseas strictly to pillage and destroy.

 

[Allemand]

I don't do much razing anymore, guess I'm getting soft. I just give the cities to other civs after I get everything I want from them.

 

[DaDoo]

I only raze cities if the other civ's culture is clearly superior than mine. If I'm at war with a civ that has inferior culture, I have 1-2 cities produce defensive units and do nothing but march them into newly captured cities.

 

[Raijer]

I raze my opponent's cities quite often, mainly for the the strategic reasons all mentioned above (fighting a superior culture, slave labor, better city placement, etc.). But I have to admit, there is also something emotionally satisfying about it as well!

 

[kb2tvl]

Lately, I have taken cities and sold off the buildings inside then abondoned them.... This does the same as razing but without the workers. If you dont need the workers, I suggest doing this. I do raze cities when I need workers...

Now the reason to destroy a city is for reasons of culature flipping, placement AND if it is retaken... your enemy gets to produce culature from it again.

One reason to rebuld cities is for the added score P. You get score for building up a city, destroying it and then rebuilding it... Or so it seemed. Certainly under certain governments, having fewer/larger cities was far better than a many smaller cities.

I will even rebuild some of my core cities by producing workers then selling off building and eventually abondining it, rebulding one square away and force bulding structures. You can really reduce corruption by eliminating 1/3 of your cities and having nonoverlapping cities.

 

[Tassadar]

My reason to raze a.i. city.

If i am over optimum # city each newly city will add corruption( ref. alexman thread).

If some resource are in the range, then i may captur it, and raze the surrounding one to remove cultur pressure.


But, the real reason why i raze a.i city is because they deserve it, they are so annoying and backstaber that when i got the chance( industrial era ) i switch communist and i raze,kill,destroy,annahilate,erradicate everything, the hell follow me and the fire burn everything That why i raze those stupid and worhtless a.i. city.:shottie: :rocket3: :rocket:

 

[Richard III]

Because I can.

 

[Redbled]

Selling those cities gets me tons of techs and cash, etc at times. Pick out a civ with a small territory, but advanced in tech. Sell that city to them, and your conquests can really pay off in tech advance. A favorite trick I do is what till the courtry I'm fighting is one tile away and ready to attack the city I have just taken. Sell it to a civ also at war with that same country. The original country will take it back, leaving it to you to grab and sell again. Works really well on Deity.

 

[Crow T Robot]

Originally posted by beowolfff
Won't you be forced to leave one unit behind each conquered city to protect it? thereby reducing your attacking force by at least 1 unit as your attack rolls along?

In my humble opinion I think the question to raze or not depends on the scenario itself. If you got a few or several "wounded" units, the newly conquered city would be the best place to heal without going back to your nearest border city (just like what you said) but if your force is still "healthy" then it would be a waste to leave one healthy unit behind to guard the fallen city.

True enough, but there are other considerations.

1) Leaving a small city standing with minmal garrison, 'reserves your spot' for later abandoning and maybe rebuilding. If you raze it, someone else could come in and build there while thewar is still on...or someone else's culture aura could expand over the spot when razed.


2) Movement on your own territory and roads is faster. Leaving one unit behind so that the others can be fastwalkers seems worth it.

That said, the entire question seems situational. Depends on map, opponent, city placement etc. I try not to raze simply because when I have, the Civ seems less likely to trade and if there is another war with them, they seem far far less likely to accept any peace.

 

[gugalpm]

I usually raze cities that have bad placement. When I'm doing that cavalry war, I raze almost all the cities, cause I can't defend them with a 3 defense unit...
Then, when I have bombers, I rarely raze cities, since I can use them mainly as bases for my bombers' attack...

 

[Black Sentinel]

The later it is in the game, the more likely I am to raze cities. By the modern era, if you're attacking a big civ they will usually have big cities, and it isn't worth the headache of rebellion/flipping. Usually I'll keep a few captured cities, mostly to heal the troops, rushbuild an airport, or if the city has a Wonder.

 

[MadHatter]

No one has mentioned the reputation hit you take by razing cities. Isn't that a significant repercussion?

 

[LeeBrignellCash]

There must be some criteria that determines whether you have the choice of keeping a recently captured city or not. Does anyone know what it is?