Has Anyone Been Capturing and Keeping Cities?

[PN]

Originally posted by Antonin


I have a lot of success keeping cities by having huge labor gangs fast-building roads right behind the spearheads of my offensive. When I capture a city, I am often able to connect it to the rest of my empire the same turn.

The immediate infusion of luxuries seems to help convince the conquered population to accept the inevitable.

Unless I'm being thick (very possible) or have missed it in the manual (less likely), this only works if you already have cities on the same continent. I haven't yet figured how to get workers into ships to send them overseas. To connect a city on a new continent you need to build a harbour fast, but without workers in ships you have a really hard time getting new workers fast when there are so many other things the cities need to keep them happy after the AI has wiped them out before you conquesr them.

[Kristjan]

I never ever raze a city because I am afriend of all humanity and want to save all these little miserable human beings from the cruel oppression of French and Germans

Seriously speaking, I think that razing a city should cause a fallback in culture, for some 5000 points per razed city.

I hate razing.

[Evil_Eric_4]

I almost allways keep the cities bc then I can use all roads & RR to move faster into their territory.

the only time I raze is if its a worthless city that overlaps the radius of a good city.

[Mokael]

Just remebered another tactic I use sometime - use workers captured from other civs (if their host civs has been destroyed, that is) to "disolve" the captured cities. Especially good for Industrial civs, since all captured workers are slower anyhow.

[Zardof]

Here's what I do....

Originally posted by Mokael
Hmm, cities revert back even under Communism. It happened in my recent game on several occasions.

In my current game, playing under Communism, the following strat has yet to see a city flip:

1. Do not take city unless under size 6. Bombard if necessary.
2. Move all populance to entertainers. As resistors in city are quelled, convert them to entertainer. Some of the pop may starve, thats ok.
3. When all resistors are quelled, pop rush temple.

By the time it's all over, the city size will be about 1 or 2.

I'm playing Persians. No flips in current campain against Babylonians. Have taken 10 cities so far.

[JohnHK]

Conquering cities

What is the point in razing a city and replacing it with one of your own because of the the corruption factor? Whether you keep the city or replace it with your own if the city is any fair distance from your capital you will be limited to one shield production anyways because of corruption and waste.
The corruption and waste factor at its current scale in the game ruin the game.
Corruption and waste has be severely toned down by Firaxis to make this a viable and enjoyable empire building game.

[Redstar]

yes they do revert under commie

"I "use" the cities when I'm comunism, they won't revert back then. It may be lame but it's a solution for this corruption rate.
"

I am a commie and know that captured cities will revert back.
however there are things you can do to make this a remote possibility.

1) Blast the city to under 10 before you take it
2) send in 2*(+2) the units as resistors
3) disband enough to build a temple right away
4)make 2 more entertainers than govenor would
5) take or raze a couple cities around to throw back enemy borders.
6) make peace --not really an option now with the patch (which is good)

if you do all of these the city will never revert on third turn.

if u scratch 3 and 4...its almost never.

if you leave a city large..you can still do this but you can never be really sure what will happen on third turn. Most times you will be safe.

edit: all that said..it would still be nice if they ameliorated the reversion factor.

[GodSpawn]

Re: Conquering cities

Originally posted by JohnHK
Corruption and waste has be severely toned down by Firaxis to make this a viable and enjoyable empire building game.

That is only in your opinion. I have no problem with having an additional difficulty in the game. I like a bit more of a challenge. Civ 2 was far too easy; Civ 3 seems about right (to me).

Incidentally, CTP had a similar expansion limiter.

On the original subject: If I want to wipe out a particular Civ, I tend to give the cities that I don't want to a weak ally (one with which I have a right of passage agreement). Then I can blitzkreig my way around with full access to the road and rail network.

Quite often, the cities that I gave away become culturally assimilated into my civ (but usually after quite a long time).