capturing cities

[linkhan]

One thing I don't find as satisfying anymore is capturing cities. Back in the Civ 1 & 2 (maybe 3, don't know) days, capturing cities was kind of fun.

You get to take 1 technology, some gold, and keep some of the city improvements.

I haven't looked too closely into it, but every time I conquer a city, all I get is some gold, maybe some workers, and a great wonder if you're lucky.

So here's what I miss:

Capturing technology - Is it just because all civs I attack happen to be behind on techs? It's my first game and I'm playing Noble.

Capturing city improvements - Even if I don't want them, at least I should be able to take some as war spoils and sell them. I find it unlikely that enemy civs don't have any city improvements.

Possible Caveat - I always siege enemy cities with catapults to reduce defense bonus before sending in the armies. If you didn't siege the city, would you get to keep some of the improvements (at the expense of more units sacrificed since enemy has more defense bonus)?

Maybe it's all just perception on my side. Anyone have similar experiences? Or is everyone having the same experience?

[Cabbagemeister]

I like capturing cities because they went back to the old civ2 method of giving you buckets of gold. Two captured cities, and I can run deficit research for 30 turns.

[vmxa1]

I have not looked at what was in the cities until today, but they tend to have at least one structure and often more.

I don't care how much they have, I still want to be able to abandon. Even if it is only have you quell all resisters.

With the culture borders not retracting much, you cannot drop in a settler as most tiles will be in their borders.