When would you not settle a City?

[MPower]

Why would you want to distroy a city (or give it back to its rightfull owner) if you are looking to win???

Thanks, Appriciate it.

[johnmcd]

Some cities just aren't worth the maintenance.

If you're going for culture win you may be quite behind on tech and giving away an city that isn't one of the big three might be a price worth paying for ultimate victory.

[Shaka II]

I rarely destroy cities, mainly because it's just my nature to preserve what I capture. I'm a builder, not a destroyer.

It depends on the victory condition and things like that. in domination and conquest games it is more likely that you'll have this choice. In domination, you generally don't want to destroy cities, since you need the 64% land area to win and even scrawny tundra cities count for land area.

Sometimes you just want to remove the cultural influences of a city without keeping it, since it's borders may be impacting another city. More cities means more maintenance too, so if the city doesn't look like a productive city, it might not be worth defending or keeping for economic value. I suppose there are diplomatic reasons for giving a city back to it's original owner. A good ploy if you are going for diplomatic victory, yes?

[MPower]

Can you give it back/distroy it after you settle it.

Thanks, Appriciate it.

[Shaka II]

You can't destroy it after you keep it. You can offer it to the original owner though, or another civ. I don't know if it counts as the same diplomacy bonus as when you are first offered the choice. Also, the AI might not want to accept that city later. When you first capture the city, the AI isn't given a choice. They have to take it if you offer it.

[johnmcd]

I've gone back and loaded the save with the 20 units but alas it's quite a bit further on in the game than at that point.

It was a recently taken capital entirely surrounded by the enemies culture, 100% enemy. It was defended with a mixture of archers and samurai in whichever age it is that gives you grenadiers and rifles.

[Yosho]

Well, sometimes, if you're in a war but don't want to expand any farther for maintiance reasons, it's good to launch some raze/plunder attacks. Plundering improvements and destroying cities gives you a lot of money without killing your economy, and destroys the economy of your enemy pretty good.

[Addled Platypus]

I avoid hills when possible

If a newly aquired city is to far into enemy civ...burn baby burn

I find it entertaining to try and split a AI civ in 2, keeping a larger part seperate from the the rest. Bring a culture bomb to help flip the smaller cities that are seperated

[axisworks]

I discovered an interesting reason to raze cities while watching an AI invade an island that was exclusively inhabited by Russia this evening. England (the attacker) invaded with a fairly formidable force by sea, then proceeded to raze every city it captured, so that, if its forces were decimated by a prolonged battle, Russia wouldn't have anything to re-capture, and it would remain at a relatively low level of production. Other reasons include: If England had to defend the cities it captured, it would end up being that much weaker because of the forces it would have to leave behind.

Basically, the moral of this story is, if you don't have an overly-gigantic army and you want to take a risk invading an enemy's home island, raze what you capture. If you lose all your units because your offense runs out of steam, you can always re-invade later, and bring settlers to start your own cities (and you won't have to wait 9 turns for the "resistance" either. Mind you, it'd be pretty stupid to raze any city with a wonder built in it. I've done that before on accident, and I was kicking myself for the whole game afterward.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Platypus Rex
I avoid hills when possible

Not sure why. Plains hills tiles are the best city sites, because of a) the extra hammer and b) the defensive bonus (esp. for archery units).

I found that the defensive bonus alone is more than the 2 hammer you lose each turn.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by axisworks
Basically, the moral of this story is, if you don't have an overly-gigantic army and you want to take a risk invading an enemy's home island, raze what you capture.

Not always. Your objective defines your actions.

If your objective is to merely weaken an opponent, razing is a good choice. On the other hand, if you wish to establish a beachhead from which to continue your attack, razing is completely stupid.

If you aren't sure, it is a good idea to keep some cities, simply because cities offer defensive bonuses. You can just bring along a GA or two, and you get to quickly enjoy cultural defense.

[Qwertqwert]

I sometimes destroy them because I just got there with 1 unit left and they have multipul units around me, so if I destroy it they can't get it back.

[MPower]

Thanks Guys, Appriciate it

Please, anymore ideas, write them down