Should I keep or should I raze?

[Theben]

I think if a city has more of your culture than an enemy civ you can't raze it... so if you hold it too long you won't be able to.

[Felch]

On island maps I like to preserve the cities, and then spin them off into a colony. It keeps the territory in friendly hands, it automatically generates a small garrison in each city, and it helps in a domination victory.

[Guild3Master]

For me, I only raze cities for the fact that they take space and maintainance that I don't need. However, it might come in handy to use them sort of as buffer zones, don't grow them but keep them up for defense because nontheless the Civ is still going to be pissed off taking that city, sort of how Israel (reality) claims to use it's boundaries (with little value in that matter besides for religiuous reasons) as zones to keep them away from the Arab enemies...

[Arrian]

I typically play civs that are Organized, so I tend to keep cities. But even with Darius (ORG/FIN - the best trait combo for a far-flung empire in the game), I've razed cities. Mostly I do it b/c of strain on my economy. Occasionally, I'll do it b/c the city is poorly placed. It has to be *really* poor placement, though, because settlers are expensive (early game anyway).

Razing an AI civ's cities will, of course, make them hate you. Sometimes I don't care (either b/c I'm wiping them out, or b/c they hate me anyway). Sometimes I kinda do care, and that might factor into the decision. One can always capture & then give the city back.

Razing a barbarian city obviously carries no diplo penalty, so that's a little easier to do.

-Arrian

[Ming]

The AI just builds too many cities in worthless locations. They just aren't worth keeping.
If I'm at war with somebody, I really don't care if I take a diplo hit. It's not like they are ever going to be my buddy again You just have to make sure that you don't raze a holy city by accident...

[rah]

For me, I look at the civ I'm going to eliminate and decide prior....Ok they have 6 cities, and only about 3 of them will provide the value that will make them worth the maint. hit. Subject to change is I discover one is a holy city with a shrine. (of course if it's in my final push, I really don't care what's left behind except for an occasional city to forward base any bombers)

[wodan11]

One strat I was messing around with extensively about a year ago was warlords. In many of those games I made sure I built the great wall of course, and I was searching for ways to piss the AIs off and get them to keep attacking me. Needless to say, this was one of them.

[Dinner]

I almost always keep 'em. Great way to bribe AI into giving a tech or two and creating border tensions between two otherwise friendly opponents. I'll fold them into my empire if it's close enough to my borders. If the city is in a poor location or doesn't really have anything of value I may raze it early in the game if I was going to put a settler near there anyway.

If it has a wonder I keep it, if its on the border of a hostile power and I'm not sure I can keep it then I raze it, and if it is not near a hostile power but is near an advanced friendly civ then I usually keep it and sell it.

[Ming]

I really hate it when you take a city with the intent to raze it, and then find out it once belonged to your "best buddy"... so you either have to give it back to him, or take a diplo hit when you raze it.

[joncnunn]

I'm now fighting an overseas war against a fairly good sized landmass. Doing a lot more razing there than I would on my own landmass. It started well into the modern era and is against Montezuma.

So far I've kept three and razed four.
And I've founded one replacement (one tile away from a city I raized) and plan to found another that's in the general area (three tiles away).

The general rule for this one is cities that don't have a resource I'm missing nor a corporation based resource get burned to the ground so I don't ruin the economy with overseas maintenance costs.

I'd have kept all but one of them if the cities were on my core land mass.

[Boracks]

I really hate it when you take a city with the intent to raze it, and then find out it once belonged to your "best buddy"... so you either have to give it back to him, or take a diplo hit when you raze it.

By "best buddy" I take it you mean "last victim"?

[Ming]

By "best buddy" I take it you mean "last victim"?

True... so very true

[zakubandit]

Usually if its a border war I invade and conquer and secure the cities, after the war I "annex" them (rename them to fit my civ). If its a foreign war, depending on how it goes, I will do a short occupation and then create a new vassal. Now if I am just on a mass war path, which isnt my style, I burn them to the ground Saxon style.

[Ming]

Well... at least with patch 3.19, you can actually look into the city before you have to decide on whether to raze or keep. I like the new feature.

[-Jrabbit]

That is great news!