When to RAZE and when to KEEP?

Genghis John · November 26, 2001, 00:16

Reading a post from Soren about how keeping a conquered city is not always the best option. It got me thinking, when is it ever a good option?

If you pop a single settler unit in with your attack group, and just found a new city on the ruins of the old, you don't have to worry about resistors and tying up your valuable army units to quell resistance, or about the city changing back to it's old culture taking a ton of your units with it.

Ok I can see the appeal of trying to hold on to a nice size 17 production city, But usually by the time you take it, the population has taken a big hit already from artillery, and when you capture it you have all these workers that can be added to the pop of your new city. Plus the corruption is probably going to net you one shield only anyway.

The only reason I can think of is to capture a Great Wonder, but for the vast majority of wonders I can live without them as long as no one else gets them either

Can anyone come up with a good reason to KEEP a conquered city? It seems to me to be a little unbalanced in that taking and holding an enemy city gives you far less benifit than wiping it out all together.

I say KILL THEM ALL

jimb0v2 · November 26, 2001, 00:42

I always keep cities. They are useful to me as long as they get to pop 2 so i can pop rush.

You NEVER pop a settler out if you raze them. At least thats my understanding.

The only time you should raze it is when, you don't have enough units to quell resistance, or you need workers, or you cannot take over that land with your own settelr later.

All this is dependant on what victory your going for
in domination taking cities is incredibly helpful.

Genghis John · November 26, 2001, 01:30

Sorry, maybe "pop" was the wrong word to use. I don't mean pop-rushing a settler out of your newly conquered city, but bringing a settler along with your attack force to found a new city.

You can then use your captured workers for "pop-rushing" improvements. Like temples and libraries, and other cultural improvements that dissapear anyway from captured cities

I still think that capturing and holding an enemy city just isn't worth it. No matter what victory condition you're after.

But I guess I'm thinking more in terms of AFTER the ancient era, where settlers are less of a premium item, and you tend to be far away from your capital.

MaSsConFUsi0n · November 26, 2001, 02:14

i only keep cities when they have a great wonder that i can still benefit from. since the wonder will never give me culture, and it's effects are obsolete, why bother with it? besides, if you don't destroy the city and it reverts back to the original owner, then they get the culture back... so burn em all down i say!!

MaSsConFUsi0n

Zanzin · November 26, 2001, 07:04

If I know the city isn't going to revolt, I'll keep it. If there's a risk it will, I'll probably raze it - can't afford to loose my units!

I think you loose a lot of rep though if you raise cities. Example - the greeks were invading me, I tried to get other civs to help out my cause, all refused.

Then the greeks raised on of my cities, and suddenly the russians and the americans were both more than happy to declare war on the greeks. Interesting

Dev · November 26, 2001, 07:25

Only time it's worth keeping cities that I can think of is when you rush the enemy in the early game or if you take a "remote" city intending to decimate it by forced labor.
Keeping border cities that connects with the rest of the enemy empire is just too much a culture takeover gamble to be worth it.

.....Little did it help that I instructed my 10 crack panzer divisions to kill all resistance......

/dev

Grim Legacy · November 26, 2001, 07:47

Quote:

Originally posted by MaSsConFUsi0n
i only keep cities when they have a great wonder that i can still benefit from. since the wonder will never give me culture, and it's effects are obsolete, why bother with it? besides, if you don't destroy the city and it reverts back to the original owner, then they get the culture back... so burn em all down i say!!

MaSsConFUsi0n

Yup.

Aie... just thought I forgot to check for *any* wonders in those 8 cities I razed last turn... ah well.

Skanky Burns · November 26, 2001, 08:46

I normally get any cities im invading down to below 6 pop points, and use one pop to rush a temple. 2 turns later, 3 pop to rush the market (costs 6 if there are no shields in the build area thingy). That should bring the city down to size 1 or 2, which normally doesnt revolt. However, that small size isnt a guarantee - a size 2 city swallowed up about 5 military units (3 tanks, 2 mech inf) once, near the enemy capital. Most of the time i just couldnt be bothered building settlers to move to the new sites.

solo · November 26, 2001, 10:46

If it's a great location, with luxuries or vital resources, I would bring along a settler and raze, just to be sure I keep all the goodies.

If the city has a vital wonder I need, then attempting to hold on seems best to me.

MarshalN · November 26, 2001, 10:55

It depends on how strong I am against the enemy. So far this game, I've yet to have a city defect back to the Germans (who were the only ones I fought a serious war with). I took about 5 of their cities, none of which reverted back. I think declaring peace soon after you take the city helps. Everytime I get a city, I try to negotiate peace with them to get them to give me something. Then when I feel like it (i.e. not very long after) I take another one of their city. Now they're down to 4 population 1/2 cities, and I'm just letting them live because those cities are in tundra/floodplains and not really worth bothering. I've got all their cities that have the luxuries/resources.

I don't think razing is a good idea either since it does seem that the other civs think poorly of it. They get mad at me for doing it.

Capt Dizle · November 26, 2001, 11:12

I built my forbidden palace on the border with Germany knowing that they would attack sooner or later. When they did I took their cities nearby and bought temples and cathedrals.

The end result was that this section of my empire is as productive as my original core.

eMarkM · November 26, 2001, 14:05

What the opposing civ thinks of your culture is a really big factor. If they're "dismissive" or "disdainful" of yours, then raze if there's no wonders. Otherwise, it'll be reverting back every other turn. If they're impressed (or better) w/ your culture, than you can usually safely keep it. Then suppress resistors, rush build a temple and that should do it.

e

mattcj · November 26, 2001, 15:17

I take a lot of settlers and workers with me when I'm about to take over a city and then just add them to the city's population. Adding your own folk to the pop will help to reduce the chances of it going back to the darkside.

MarshalN · November 26, 2001, 15:36

See, while that works, it seems far too expensive to keep two or three pop... just raze the city and start from scratch, and you don't have to keep a big garrison there and worry

I think what they think of you is important, like eMarkM says. The Germans were in awe of my culture, and I haven't had any problems with defection. Never thought of that before....

eMarkM · November 26, 2001, 15:53

Quote:

Never thought of that before....

Yeah, it's a BIG deal.

I was conquering Babylon--a culture monster--and they were disdainful of me. I could never keep one city for very long. Spent a lot of units conquering 4-5 cities only to see every one of them revert back within a few turns. It was like I never invaded. Very aggrevating and I couldn't figure out why until I saw my advisor say they were disdainful of my culture. After that I razed all but wonder cities.

If they're in awe of you, you should have no trouble keeping cities with usual methods of garrison and rush temple. But, the more they out culture you, the more you should consider razing and replacing with settler. I've had a fully resister-crushing garrison, temple-rushed city revert back when they're disdainful of me. Not worth it, raze em.

e

TrailerParkJawa · November 26, 2001, 16:20

In my last game I took 1 small city with a harbor, and 3 large cities from the Zulu. I kept the small city with a harbor because I needed that port to bring in trade.

I usually will keep a large city because my units then get the 100% defense bonus. If I had destroyed the city my guys would have been more vulnerable.

I think there are good arguements for when to raze and when to keep. In my game I had the strongest culture, and most advanced military, but my physical size and population was about 3rd place so taking cities size 8-17 really helped me out.

I did raze some of his small cities though. Especially the annoying size 1-2 cities he sticks on the edge of your empire snagging a colony or resource.

Bill_in_PDX · November 26, 2001, 16:42

Has anyone looked in detail at the implications of a razing?

I've done it, and had it done to me (which was nice, because we made peace at the end of the turn and I rushed a settler in to reestablish the city, one tile to the left, which was an even better spot...but I digress...)

In my experience, razing has significant effect on your rep diplomatically.

G.A · November 26, 2001, 16:58

Yup. Diplomatic effects would be nice to know...

Cause in my last game I razed a lot of cities, and then it all ended with China - the only civ, that was "polite" to me (others were annoyed to furious) to sneak attack me, and bring all the others along with alliances... And I was planning to have China as my friend... Though my foreign advisor then kept calling them all "liars and cheats"