Does this normally happen when you lose a city?

[eao]

Originally posted by Spam Shark
I think if your goal is to eliminate the civ in question you might as well raze the cities and use settlers to build new ones to replace them. That way you don't have to worry about resistors or having them revert to their former owners.

Why not keep the city, switch to Despotism or Communism, and hurry production on a city improvement like Temple and Cathedral? This will kill off the foreigners, and subsequent citizens produced will be of your nationality.

[Morganstern]

I'm puzzled about the posts that advocate giving cities to another Civ. I can't imagine too many scenarios where that would be advantageous. In my experience, these cities have been on my border, and I have far more to gain by getting that land, either through the existing city or a new one I build, than just giving it to another Civ. I imagine you could give it to a faraway Civ, but that Civ is just as likely to lose the City to your more immediate rival neighbor than you - what is accomplished?

Have the other Civs really been that generous when receiving a City?

[Boracks]

The only time I have given away a city is when its my only one on an island with 3 or 4 other cities of other civs.

In my second game I did this twice when the Romans declared on me and landed troops on one of the islands. Seeing that I wasn't going to hold the city, I sold one of the improvements and then found another civ that had something I wanted (like tech and gold/turn) and traded them the city.

Net was I lost two cities (to two different civs), gained 3 tech and income and the Romans lost more units than I did (sea battles) for no gain.

Not a winning position but it felt good to screw the Romans like that.