City replacement after a conquest

[Zamboni]

Good Day,

I noticed that after conquering a neighbouring city that the corruption is very high and becomes a drain for me should i choose to keep the city (versus razing it).

So here is the question, in cities that have been conquered and have a high corruption rate, would it be better to abandon the city and immediately re-create another one using a settler?

Thanks in advance for any assitance.

[alexman]

Raze-and-replace helps your chances against culture flips, but it doesn't do anything to help with corruption.

[Mr Justice]

Zamboni i would say that corruption will be a problem weather u keep the city or raze it and build new one.
build courthouses/police stations to reduce corruption.

so as such corruption is not much of a factor when i take a city. im more concerned about culture flipping.

personally i rarely raze cities. built up cities will have stuff built allready from previous civ.

theres some great threads here with info on corruption and culture flipping. im sure someone will dredge up the link.

/me admits to being lazy.

[joncnunn]

Permantely razing the site would also keep existing cities further down the OCN list from having their corruption values slightly increased.

If your just going to replace the city though, there's no difference with corruption.

The effects of Razing will elimate resistors and greatly reduce probability of culture flipping. (Athough if you had a substainal overall culture lead anyway, the cultural flip risk was fairly low.)

Also, razing makes all AI like you less. (Well, if both you and another AI are fighting an AI, that other AI won't start to mind until one of you declares peace.)

[Goethe80]

I was wondering, there are cases where you automatically raze a city when you attack a small size 1 city. Does that make the AI irritated against you as well?

[joncnunn]

More precisely, if there's no culture in the size 1 city. (At one time it was no cultural expansion [<10], but I hear that was changed in one of the patches.

I would guess yes, but can't say for sure.

Originally posted by Goethe80
I was wondering, there are cases where you automatically raze a city when you attack a small size 1 city. Does that make the AI irritated against you as well?

[Jon Shafer]

A good strategy to prevent culture flips is to change all of the city's population to specialists of some sort, and starve the city down to size 1. When the new population develops, it will be of your nationality. Additonally, those specialists aren't counted in the culture flipping calculations.

It's almost always a good idea to keep cities (unless you want to move them into a better placement scheme which I rarely do... you can usually just build a couple cities BETWEEN previous AI sites to get a pretty good grid pattern going). Late in the game when you have WLTKD, a Courthouse, a Police Station, factory, power plant, etc. you can actually get quite a bit out of these cities. In the current game I'm playing, a city that start out with 17 shields corrupted out of 20 now produces over 35 (uncorrupted) per turn now that its fully developed.

Basically, a city is either completely worthless (won't produce hardly anything no matter what you do to it) or it's something that you should keep and nurture into a producer. Unless you have VAST tracts of land, the latter is usually the case.

[Zamboni]

Thank you

Thanks for the information. I never thought of just changing the citizens to something else or the culture flip. I will give both a try.