Razing VS Install Governor

[Zero]

First of all, What is the point of razing a city if you can simply capture it and then abandon it? Do you take a rep hit or make population angry when abandoning cities?

Secondly, if you build a settler with captured city, you'll get a settler with the citizen's ethnicity... what about workers? Do they count as slaves or do they require upkeep? If they require upkeep do they have the ethnicity of the citizens and work half as slow or what?

And finally. When is razing/Installing a better choice over installing/razing?

[Kuciwalker]

I'm pretty sure you take hit (not rep, just stance) when abandoning a captured city.

[Catt]

Abandoning a city is the same as razing it for attitude purposes provided that more than 50% of the citizens are not your nation's nationality. So if you capture a foreign city (full of foreign citizens) and choose to install a governor and then abandon the city, you take the same hit as you would if you had just razed the city on conquest. Note that this provides for some curious outcomes -- if the Russians capture an Indian city from your ally India, and you subsequently capture the city from Russia and then abandon it, you will take an attitude hit associated with razing an Indian city! Your ally India will probably experience an "attitude adjustment."

With that in mind, my approach to razing versus abandoning is as follows:

1. I hardly ever raze cities, but that's just my playstyle

2. If I have decided to "raze" then I must also decide whether to raze or abandon. Razing nets me slave workers, but also collapses the cultural border. Abandoning generates no workers, but allows me to sell off any improvements for a few gold, and also preserves cultural ownership of tiles until the city is abandoned. I'll generally take the slaves (and thus raze) unless I need to preserve the cultural radius -- i.e., if striking deep into enemy territory with fast-movers (cavalry or MA, for example) the cultural control may very well prolong my blitz by allowing me to take advantage of increased movement on "my" tiles (the new 9-tile city radius) and their underlying improvements such as roads or RRs. Where such cultural control permits the conquest of an additional chain of cities, I'd be inclined to install governors, use the cultural radius to advance until my offensive is exhausted, and then at the end of the turn go back and abandon all the newly conquered cities -- that way, the profound cultural influence of an AI's core cities won't expand into the "free" tiles created through my razing and deny me enough movement to reach the next goal. Using this technique, I can often take out a good chunk of a civ if I have reached the stage of MA without having won (or lost!) the game.

A bit wordy, but I hope I got my point across.

On the "building slaves and settlers" point - workers built from other citizens will be slaves, and you won't pay upkeep (and they'll work half as fast).

Catt

[Zero]

I rarely use the raze option. I prefer to sell any improvement I can, use the cultural border, use the "free" mass hiring of scientists/taxmen (if you intend to kill off the city, people starving shouldnt be an issue for you ) and/or gradual deconstruction thru settler projects. And abandon it.

How many workers do you get for razing city? is it one for one population?

[Nakar Gabab]

One per two or three.

[Kirby]

What is meant by "abandoning a city"?

Do you mean just leave it empty or disbanding with a settlers/workers?

[Snotty]

To abandon a city you have to right click on it and choose abandon city off of the menu.
The disadvantage of abandoning seems to be that it is not always instant. I found this much to my dismay in a recent MP game (where you do not get the option to raze, you always install). Anyway, after capturing 2 size twelve citys, I attempted to abandon them only to be told that it would take me two turns to do it.
It seems you have to defend your MP captured citys for a few turns before you can raze them. I am not sure if I like having to make this new addition to my strategy. It means I will have to take large stacks of defenders later in the game, otherwise my opponant will just take the city back. And the first time I lose that stack to a flip......

[Don Giovanni]

I give cities away as gifts to unpriviledged civs or allies sometimes to avoid razing them - just make sure you have an ROP and your enemy doesn't. They get one defender for free too, and your wounded units can be brought home safely to your capital. I take them back later, of course

[Daz]

Calc- the workers have etnicity too. Right click on a captured worker and you'll see. For example Worker (China).
If they join a city, they are chineese (in this case).

[Arrian]

In the ancient era, I almost never raze.

In the medieval era, I may selectively raze 'n rebuild (either by bringing my own settler or rushing a settler from the captured city & then abandoning it).

In the industrial and modern eras, I often raze, either due to flip concerns or worrying about hitting the domination limit before I want to. Plus, having hordes of slaves is nice to help build RRs and clean up pollution on the cheap.

-Arrian

[Cruddy]

I only raise if I can't garrison enough to prevent it flipping back. Sometimes I will move all units out to retake if it does flip.

But razing is the last option for me - it loses you potential citizens and as already described, collapses the cultural border which can leave you wide open for a counterattack.

Attacking a size 1 city is not an option for me. I build up the enemy, then knock 'em down. Attacking a civ that is in despotism early on has a similar impact (because they will pop rush spearmen and reduce the population to 1).

[stonewall]

I usually capture. The only times I raze are if the city is in a really bad spot (mostly compared to where my cities are) or if just don't want to manage any more cities - this is usually during the endgame where you go through the formality of wiping out the other civs.

[Kirby]

When you abandon a city do you get workers/settlers from it?

[Cruddy]

I don't know. Only time I tried to abandon a city the game crash - which makes me unhappy about trying again!

[stonewall]

Originally posted by Kirby
When you abandon a city do you get workers/settlers from it?

My memory says no. Of course, my memory cannot be trusted

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Kirby
When you abandon a city do you get workers/settlers from it?

When you abandon, you get nothing but a pile of rubble. You get workers (about half the pop points) when razing a city. You never get settlers. If you got a settler when abandoning a city, clearing jungle would be too easy, wouldn't it?

[Panzer32]

Abandoning a city:

I would like to see a unit called the 'refugee' or something like that. They would represent one unit of population. They would be created when a city is abandoned, and their only ability would be to join city.

Well... a random thought for civ4!

[Frank Johnson]

Refeugees are a good idea, but they're much more likely to go back to the enemy, than come to you. ^_^

I guess it could be like one of those things adjusted for government differences. When you take over a city, a certain number of people flee the city, some to you, and some to your enemy. But if you burn the city, you get some slaves, but others escape as refuegees.

Besides that.....the war artillery works in the game is kind of lame. I don't know any major cities that had 90% of its citizens killed by artillery. Bombing....hm slightly more leathal....but.....

I'd say the many more people were simply rendered homeless by bombing campaigns, so having them become refuegees (instead of dying) would be smart too.

[Cruddy]

BRILLIANT TIP THIS! Just read it on CF, to be honest, but it's so good I had to share it with those who don't know. Credit to Jack Merchant.

When you install a new governor in a city with resistors, IMMEDIETELY set that governor to maintaining happiness.

As the resistors stop resisting, they're either put back to work or set as entertainers (usually the latter).

This means no civil disorder in that city - and it won't flip unless a nearby enemy city's culture border expands.

Pretty good huh? I KNEW those governors were good for something.

[Cruddy]

*** Please Delete, repeat post ***

[Arrian]

Cruddy,

My general approach to quelling resistance/preventing flips is to simply make all available citizens into specialists (this results in starvation). Once I have control over most or all of the population of the city, I will turn them all into taxmen as I starve the city down (so I at least get a few gpt out of those pop points). Then, once I've starved it down to a low pop (usually 1-3, depending on how confident I feel about my culture), I allow it to grow again.

Overkill? Possibly. But I almost never lose cities to flips, so there is a payoff.

Obviously, if I'm tearing a civ to pieces with Cavalry and expect to wipe them out in a few turns, I might not starve their cities this way. I'd be more likely to employ the "IDGAFIYF" technique until I've eradicated the civ.

-Arrian

[Don Giovanni]

Originally posted by Cruddy
it won't flip unless a nearby enemy city's culture border expands.

Are you sure about this ? I think I have experienced several flips, where this wasn't the case, but I could be wrong !?

[stonewall]

There are several things that effect the chances of a city flipping. Try this thread

I am sure there are others if you do a search.

[Gutz]

What is this?? "IDGAFIYF" I have been out of CIV 3 for a while and dont remember this one..... Coming back in though!
Chris

[Salvor]

I took it to mean he doesn't particularly care too strongly should the city undergo a culture filp.

[Gutz]

Ahhh, Thank you!
Chris

[Nakar Gabab]

If you're using a GIANT STACK-O-DOOM(TM), you can always just garrison more defenders than they have citizens and wait a turn. It slows you down, but you get the unique joy of watching the resistance crushed immediately.

[Arrian]

I tend to go with GIANT STACK-O-DOOM plus specialist starvation. However, if I'm worried about a flip and cannot spare a huge number of troops, I will employ the old tried and true "I don't give a **** if you flip" strategy which involves fortifying two attack units outside the city. If it does flip, it gets 1 regular defender. My 2 vet attackers will take it back immediately.

-Arrian

[lmtoops]

In high level games, it's much better to keep the city and give it to another civilization. In some instances, the other civs will trade for the new city. But most of the time, the city is gifted.

If you use the gift strategically, there are some very good effects. First off, your relationship will be greatly improved, which is great for the AI civs that are stronger than you.

Second, you can make your borders multicultural. Some of the civs are close friends and the common border can be relatively defenseless. Forces can be concentrated on your true enemy border.

Third, if the AI civ is far away, the city will never be strong. Which means it may flip culturally. In case of war, they are easy to capture, if you capture a few of the weak cities the AI is much more willing to talk peace.

Two more things, which I believe to be true. Units that are in the gifted city are automatically returned to your capital (or nearest city??). I know this happens in the latest version.

I've not seen any unhappiness, when gifting the city. This may be because none of the citizens are my nationality; I'm not sure. Of the conquered civ is unhappy, but your already at war.

[Arrian]

In some instances, the other civs will trade for the new city.

It is my understanding that the AI will ONLY accept cities as gifts now. Firaxis patched out trading cities to the AI for goodies to prevent abuse by humans trading worthless size1 tundra towns for significant money/tech/resouces.

-Arrian