Do you Capture or Raze?

[nbarclay]

With all the discussion of capturing cities versus razing them, I thought a poll might be interesting.

[rpodos]

It depends on how unhappy I think the citizens might be due to poprushing, drafting, etc. Post-1.17, this is a much bigger issue.

On the flip side, I never worry about culture flipping, as I arrive with overwhelming force.

R

[Akron]

Definitely depends on happiness and wonders and such. If I know that it previously was a huge city but then drafted like hell, then it gets razed. If it is a tiny city in a good position, it is kept. If it has wonders, then it is kept. If it is a large city and not the enemy's last, then it is razed. If I know that I'll be razing a lot of cities and I want the territory that I'm invading, then I'll bring along a band of settlers to build cities in the conquered land.

[ixnay]

I might raze a city about once every 5 games...I almost always keep them intact and work with them from there...

[hitchikingalaxy]

early in the game i almost always keep the cities i conquer. there usually isn't enough culture accrued to cause culture flipping if i place a large enough force.

towards the industrial and modern era i just waste the city unless
1.) i need a jumping off point to destroy the civilization on a continent
2.) it's the very last city of the civilization. no culture flipping going to happen there
3.) i just hit the wrong button and am stuck with it

i find that razing works and has its place but i tend toward keeping the cities.

[Playa del Carmen]

I tend to raze. Especially if the city is far away from my main body of cities. I just don't have the ambition to develope them

[Trevman]

I capture the first few cities to establish a base for my military operations. Then a raze until the AI surrenders, unless of course there is a city with beaucoup resources around it.

[Skanky Burns]

Depends on when in the game.

At the start, I keep all cities - no exceptions. They don't have enough culture yet to revert, and I generally exterminate the unlucky civ that starts next to me. The extra population is well worth the risk.

Even though I tend towards keeping enemy cities, some such as the mega-cities next to the enemy capital just must be razed. Thats about all the razing I do, unless I just feel mean.

[Spiffor]

I'm a builder, who sometimes go to war to have even more production in the future. Except if the city is sure to revolt, I keep and develop it. I rename it when all foreigners have been assimilated.

[roadcage]

I almost ALWAYS Raze. The extra (no upkeep) workers you get with razing are far more valuable than most captured cities. If you want the land , include settlers in your war party!

[Thrawn05]

I only capture cities with bananas.

And their capital. Since Firaxis forgot to add the "Here's is the enemy's head on a silver dish" animation.

[Purple]

My policy's the same a Roadcage's. Plus, I don't like where the AI places its cities.

[Zachriel]

I've never found razing to be necessary, and it leaves a deep wound in the world. Those who raze will be remembered by history for their deeds in pursuit of their ambitions.

[Jonny]

I almost always keep captured cities and work with them. I usually build/buy a temple ASAP so culture flipping isn't much of a problem. Of course, culture flipping is almost never a problem. I only raze cities if they are one of the enemy's core/high culture cities (and it isn't their last city).

[Dark Destroyer]

Exactly how big does an occupying force need to be to prevent a flip???

[vonManstein]

Banana.

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

I'll always raize (due to unhappiness/warring mother country/reversal factors), but not whenever I'm sure that I can finish off the enemy civ within a couple of turns ...

I'd walk another way if the game'd let me, but if I play for winning (who doesn't?) on emperor or deity, it just becomes too hard to succeed without raizing ...

It does conflict with my political/ethical understandings, but since this is a game ...


AJ

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Originally posted by Jonny
...Of course, culture flipping is almost never a problem. I only raze cities if they are one of the enemy's core/high culture cities (and it isn't their last city).

I agree, culture flipping is almost never a problem.

Unhappiness however ..!

When I'm warring I'll usually not stop before finishing off the enemy civ. That means fighting long wars!

If fighting long wars, you just can't keep enemy cities: the unhappiness caused by drafting and warring the mother country is just too heavy, leaving you with 'dead' cities that can't produce anything and won't grow ...

Much better to settle yourself!

I'll just keep enemy cities whenever I'll be able to kill off the enemy civ within a couple of turns.

AJ

[Spec]

I almost always capture cuz then I dont have the problem of building barracks, aqueduc and all that stuff. And I usually by temples, library and cathedral after there first turn of production so it goes pretty fast. Unless the city is to far away and will produce only 1 sheild then I just raze it or capture it to give it to another civ.

Spec.

[fezick31]

For me it depends on the type of war I am in, the type of government I am in, and how long the war is going to last.

I usually do not raze cities in Democracy or Republic, as those types of governement wouldn't usually get away with it (kinda dorky, but it's more realistic). If i'm anything ese, I usually just go fo the land and bring my own citizens along to build cities. I either sell the captured workers or use them as bargaining chips for peace talks.

It doesn't take that long for a city to grow if you plop it down in the middle of the old cities imrovements, and if the AI wins the counter offensive, then the city may revert back to you. It also allows to you position cities to better fit the resources.

The few exceptions are the presence of wonders, the last city, or strategic importance w/o a convenient settler to rebuild the city.

[Ghengis Brom]

I normally keep cities rather then razing them, particularly in the early game, and especially now that you can fortify a captured city against flipping. Of course if the captured city is a major culture producer or if it's next to a major culture producer I'll raze the city. The exception to this is, like AJ, if I'm about to wipe the civ out in the next few turns.

One tactic I've used quite effectively is what I like to call the Capitol Culture Crush. Lets say a rival civ's capitol is located relatively close to your empire but the rest of their cities are spread over a third of the map. You have other rival civs to contend with but you know this neighbor is going to be a thorn in your side. Send your troops in and crush every city in a straight line to the capitol. If you are fast enough the AI doesn't have the time to fortify with tons of defensive units, take the capitol and raze that sucker. That is the end of the game for that civ. Their culture grinds to almost a complete halt. I've done this in three games and the rival civ never regains it's former power and has always finished in last place, thats if they aren't destroyed.

[randommushroom]

Early in the game, I'll keep cities I capture. Later, after Nationalism and the draft, I've gone to razing them. It's much easier to replace with my settlers, than getting stuck with a bunch of Hell-No-We-Won't-Gos.

Although if I capture a city with a functional wonder, I'll keep that.

[Arrian]

I chose the middle option, because I do basically what randommushroon said. Keep early, raze late.

-Arrian

[randommushroom]

Originally posted by Arrian
I chose the middle option, because I do basically what randommushroon said. Keep early, raze late.

-Arrian

And just keep reminding yourself it is only a digital simulation. My latest game could give me a guilt complex if I took it too seriously. Razed the Chinese, Russians, and Zulus from the map. Persia is soon to go. Lots of Chinese, Russians, Zulus, Persians, and Aztecs working on clearing out the jungles of the continent.

But it was all Joan's fault. If she hadn't sneak attacked me, it was going to be a nice peaceful game. Why the heck did she send one horseman (!!!) to attack my city? Within a few turns, the whole world was up in flames.

Sometimes it's a fun game. Sometimes a funny game. Just don't think about it too hard.

[fezick31]

Originally posted by randommushroom

My latest game could give me a guilt complex if I took it too seriously.

no kidding, especially when you sell you prisoners to the likes of the Zulus, or even worse, the aztecs.

[Arrian]

Yeah, genocidal meglomania is fine, so long as we're talking about pixels.

In just about every game, my workforce is entirely slave labor by the late industrial period. Why pay? Of course, that's slavery, but I feel no pity for the pixels that labor in bondage.

I happily burn large cities and starve towns almost out of existence, and the people love me. If only Elvis were around to tell me so...

-Arrian

[Goatguy]

I usually go for a domination victory, so i keep most cities and then immediatly rush a temple\ library to get 100 culture fast