raze or keep?

[Grunthex]

Originally posted by Civ Dave

BTW, is there a disband city option? cause I take over mostly small cities (for some reason, they don't like being bombed.... strange ) and if I could disband it and make a settler in exchange, I'd be happy

If we ever get a FAQ set up, this needs to go in it. You can disband a city of size 2 or less with a settler, or size 1 with a worker. The key is there must be *0 food growth or less*. So if the city is making ANY surplus food, they will not disband, and will delay. If 0 or less, you get the standard menu asking whether to Abandon, Delay or ... uh, something else I never use.

[Civ Dave]

grum: *grumbles*

grun: thanks although, not sure how much help that'll be.... I'll just destroy them all anyways!!!!
*evil laugh*

[hexagonian]

Fence sitter here...

This is one of the gameplay issues that is forcing me to question whether civ3 is worth getting. After all, if it is a much better strategy to raze a captured city rather than attempt to hold onto it, then this takes away from the playability of the game.

And before anyone says that this is based on historical evidence, (yes, I know, there is ample evidence that cities were destroyed by conquering nations), the problem lies with the fact that this strategy is the 'preferred' method to deal with the issue, especially with cities that are on other continents. If a player is forced to RB certain improvements/units to quell revolts, fine, but reports are saying that even when players do all this, revolts still happen.

Don't forget, lessening the chances of revolts will also work in favor of the AI.