Why to raze cities

[Hellfire]

Early on, if you have a situation where you have a nasty war going on between another civ, taking and razing one of their cities is actually a pretty good buffer, surprisingly. If it would take an AI too far to get to you, I've found they give up. Without a lot of roads and no cities near yours it takes a very long time to get anywhere in the ancient era. Cities provide way points which are most useful for advancing, scouting, and defense against getting yourself flanked by your enemy.

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by 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?

You always have the choice of whether to raze or keep a city unless the city pop is at one AND it is producing no culture.

 

[God]

I raze most AI cities above size 7. They are too likely to flip back to the AI, and I don't want to leave 3-4 units behind trying to control the city. It weakens my attack force and there is a chance I will lose them to a flip.

 

[bbaws]

How to avoid razing. Got to the city governor and let the fella manage citizen moods. I usually have high culture anyway but since letting the gov take over I haven't had one flip at monarch level. From a few reloads I reckon the flip has disorder as it's prelude, no riots no revolt. I never raze cities. More often abandon it right after putting a settler at the limit of it's territory. You can easily double your aquired territory by doing this and usually in the modern era you have the next AI city suddenly in artillery range. Repeat and rinse.

 

[hr_oskar]

Er... you can also manage your cities yourself, have no disorders (and thus fewer flips) AND more efficient land usage. The governor's an idiot. But then that's just what I do, the governor's fine if you can't be bothered

 

[bbaws]

The governor is something I only use in times of war. I tend to find that my bloodlust spurs me into the next turn b4 I have had the good sense to manage every city for an increasing and uncertain amount of war weariness. Thus in the turns it takes to eliminate a rival civ the governor does his job nicely and prevents you having to take troops from the front to reconquer a city. D'oh, I did n't for a moment suggest using the governor throughout the game. Read b4 replying is a good rule.

 

[Hades]

When a city fell into disorder, that city will automatically lose one turn of production. It can be devastating at time, but if managed by a governor, this will never happened. There might be people would starved to death under governor's management but this is just part of the process.

If you keep one and raze all surrounding cities, you will have lesser chance of revolt. The problem is you will end up with legions of unemployed slaves with nothing better to do other than making colonies to add to your already abundant resources or cleaning your enemy's pollution..... geez, maybe I should ship them back to my capitol and creat a 100+ size city.

 

[Beam]

Approaching the domination limit is another reason for razing cities, specially if you are planning to milk the game for a GOTM or HOF submission or if there is a non-domination victory goal like in the Tournament.

And I raze capitals if they have no usefull wonders in them.