Disbanding Cities in Civ 4

[wonkyrat]

Has anyone figured out how to disband a city, and whether you can in Civ 4? I captured a Barbarian city and it overlaps where I want to build one. Annoys me that the manual has no index so you can't just dive in and out as you play.

[amicus curiae]

No way to do it. You have to destroy the city when you take it over.

[Imperial]

Originally posted by amicus curiae
No way to do it. You have to destroy the city when you take it over.

They really need to add a way to disband a city.

[Aro]

Originally posted by Imperial


They really need to add a way to disband a city.

This is a game about choices (according Firaxis ). I mean, at noble level, a normal player wouldn't be able to build all the wonders, conquest all the civs, found all religions, be the tech leader and still having a solid economy. No way... You have to choose, here and now!

Or you can reload a previous save.

[polarnomad]

I find myself razing cities to the ground far more often than not in CivIV... not quite placed where I would want it? BURN BABY! BURN!

But seriously, installing governors in newly captured cities is a big decision in CivIV, so bring your gasoline and matches with you to the battlefield!

Alternatively, if you don't want to reload a previous save, I believe someone else on this forum came up with solution of gifting the city to one's worst enemy, capturing it again and then... Can you smell the smoke and hear the screams!?

[Thorpe]

I love the smoking rubble that replaces the plot that the city was on.

[Demon Rob]

give the city to a friend,
you can still move in the territory,
and it can prompt a war between the original owner and the friend you gave it to.
Wars are good, as long as you aren't involved!

Just did this, attacked by the persians, took their city, made peace with bonus paynments to me, gave the city to the brits, and a few turns later brits and persians are at war.

[RGBVideo]

It's not a bug, it's a feature! REALISM!

[Sava]

Originally posted by VJ
It's not a bug, it's a feature! REALISM!

If this was realism you could just move(kill) the people. It's been done.

[amicus curiae]

Originally posted by VJ
It's not a bug, it's a feature! REALISM!

Realism? So you can burn down the city now, but one turn later and it is impossible to burn down ever again. I agree with this rule change completely, but it sure isn't realistic.

[Urban Ranger]

Well if this is about some sort of special resources you can always work that tile, then connect it with a road to one of your cities. You still get to use it. Although you don't get the production bonuses, you still get the health, etc. bonuses.

[padillah]

Oddly enough one of the first units I create if I go to war is a settler, cause the city I take is almost NEVER in the spot I want it. Burn that bad boy down and build a new one over there to the left.

That's better.

Tom P.
It also keeps rebelion to none.

[Bill3000]

I do know that there are attempts to make it via python in the Civ4:Creation forums.

[jim08449]

One thing to consider doing is to turn over the city to a "friend". In the game that I just finished I had just been to war with Arabia and taken two of his cities. After a while, due the distance and culture of his remaining cities I found that my new acquisitions where being squeezed and starved by the boarders. I really did not want to destroy the cities or take them over, just push back the culture. So conquered the remaining cities and gave them to a Musa, who and been reduced to one city by Napoleon. This worked very well for me as I when to war not to conquer but just to stunt the growth of the competition while making my very weak allies buffer states. I was playing at noble and won a diplomatic victory 5 turns away from a time victory.

[Tattila the Hun]

Hum, atleast one gets the chance to torch the city when conquering, but if it flips... Some god-forsaken tundra-dwelling, just seeping gold from my coffers. Don't need the city for the resource, as one of my larger cities culture reaches there...