Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Settler vrs takeover

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Settler vrs takeover

    Are there any benefits to finding a city with a settler rather than taking over a city that you conquer?

    I have 17 cities now. I found 8 of my own. Took 2 from China when I exterminated them, took 3 from Persia, (though we are now at peace and I have a small # citizens saying they long to join their homeland) and I took 4 from Saladin (who's sitting very weakly with 2 cities left).

    Would it better to "burn baby burn" a city and settle a new one near there? I'm having a hard time getting much prouction value out of my new cities. Maybe I'm not patient enough adn they have to be rebuilt through workers and buildings...

  • #2
    The AI tends to favor cottages over production, but you're not going to get any more production by replacing their cities with your own (unless there are significantly better city positions somewhere... unlikely).
    Plus, you'll lose population that way.

    You can replace some of those cottages with watermills/workshops, to get some hammers in there if production is what you're going for.

    Getting a forge built in those conquered cities will help quite a bit too.

    Comment


    • #3
      What I'd like to know is, what are the benefits of city ruins? Surely they must serve some purpose, or they wouldn't be there. Is it that you get some buildings back if you place a settler on that same square?
      Fight chicken abortion! Boycott eggs!

      Comment


      • #4
        No, there's no benefit. Ruins are just a marker to indicate where the old city used to be.

        Comment


        • #5
          4000 years later can you research archaeology?
          Fight chicken abortion! Boycott eggs!

          Comment


          • #6
            Yes, there are benefits. Cities you conquer don't produce anything for several turns. If you don't completely eliminate the original owner, they will have additional unhappiness from "yearning to join our motherland," which can be significant. Cities you conquer reach the point of cultural revolt if they are surrounded by enemy territory earlier.

            On the other hand, you get population which might take quite some time to build naturally, and considerably infrastructure like forges, granaries, and the like that you don't have to build. You also take a large diplomatic hit with the original owner if you raze a city.

            Unless the city is small and undeveloped, or particularly badly located, it's almost always better to capture that raze and found your own city.

            - Gus

            Comment


            • #7
              There's one benefit to ruins: They automatically have a road.
              That's not much, and generally I'd advise keeping the city, unless it's ill-placed or you decided to stop your invasion and you know it will flip back if you keep it. A captured city has lots of population. Compare with what you'd have by first building the settler and then growing the city.
              Clash of Civilization team member
              (a civ-like game whose goal is low micromanagement and good AI)
              web site http://clash.apolyton.net/frame/index.shtml and forum here on apolyton)

              Comment


              • #8
                On the other hand, you get population which might take quite some time to build naturally, and considerably infrastructure like forges, granaries, and the like that you don't have to build. \ - Gus
                When you take a city aren't you pillaging the city & destroying a lot of the infrastructure?
                Fight chicken abortion! Boycott eggs!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Yes, you definitely are. But what's left is better than no infrastructure at all, which is what you get when you build a new city.

                  - Gus

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I do not destroy infrastructure of cities I want to take over. When attacking a city, I decide whether I want to keep it or not. Those I want to keep I don't pillage. The only thing worth pillaging is raods, towns and villages imo, the rest can be countered by just standing on it, except for strategic resources, but that's often not the majority of tiles, and they are worth pillaging only if the enemy has no other source.
                    Clash of Civilization team member
                    (a civ-like game whose goal is low micromanagement and good AI)
                    web site http://clash.apolyton.net/frame/index.shtml and forum here on apolyton)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Early in the game a take over seems to be the best because the cultural wall of the mother civ is not so huge. Later on when nearing the core of the enemy civ the culture factor is immense and in my last game on Prince in 1946 I had 2 conquered "core" cities with 12 turns of resistance and several other large cities with 10 turns. If you plant a new city in an already developed area it will grow rapidly. One disadvantage to a large conquered city which you decide to keep is that if it is reconquered the cultural defense springs right back to 60 percent and has to be reduced all over again. So it just depends on the circumstances. I kept those cities even though they had 12 turns to be pacified because it gave me population and I was able to get a diplomatic victory in 1947 as a result!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        It's been my experience that about 1/3 of the time the AI builds its cities in less-than-optimal locations. On a game I played last night, I ended up razing 5 of Caesar's cities that I captured because they were placed so badly. I ended up harvesting the same resources and maintaining a larger land area with only two.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          It's way better to take over jungle than found in it. let the AI clear at least some of it. Jungle cities are kind of a net loss for quite a while, especially if founded pre-Iron Working.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Ummm... how is it that nobody has mentioned poprushing??!!

                            I look at it this way:

                            * In the early game, damn tootin' it's better to capture... Settlers are EXPENSIVE.

                            * In the later game, I'll pick up considerable pop which I can whip for (mostly) fast culture, and whatever buildings remain are a great bonus.

                            City placement is usually pretty good, although I've sometimes had specific reasons to raze and re-build.

                            On a separate note, there are of course many instances where I simply raze, having no intention of maintaining a city at that location at such time (for reasons of crap terrain, cost, defense, etc.).
                            The greatest delight for man is to inflict defeat on his enemies, to drive them before him, to see those dear to them with their faces bathed in tears, to bestride their horses, to crush in his arms their daughters and wives.

                            Duas uncias in puncta mortalis est.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Myself, I usually only raize a city that would likely come under major 3rd party cultural pressure.
                              1st C3DG Term 7 Science Advisor 1st C3DG Term 8 Domestic Minister
                              Templar Science Minister
                              AI: I sure wish Jon would hurry up and complete his turn, he's been at it for over 1,200,000 milliseconds now.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X