Is there an alternative to always razing cites?

[ACooper]

My point was that the reasons some people are having problems based on thier playstyles. I aggree that people have "overreacted" but I provided my solutions above and they have worked in all patched and prepatched versions.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Whoha
pangea, or have you edited the building giving wonders to give to all cities?

Assuming you're responding to me, it's actually the Tourney 3 game. (I didn't start playing tourneys until the fifth, which I abandoned due to a game bug, and after playing the sixth, I started working my way backward.) The map is continents, but it ended up with one huge one that I and five other nations started on and some smaller land masses that Rome and Japan started among. I now own the whole supercontinent but have only two cities not on my continent - Oxford, captured from the English, and a Chinese city gained in peace negotiations. (And I haven't razed a single city all game. I think I only had one culture flip go against me prior to the Chinese war, but I'm not positive.)

What's really idiotic is that after giving me one of its only two remaining cities in peace negotiations - on the same island with its other one, no less - China went right back to war with me just a couple turns or so later because their mutual protection partner Japan and I were still fighting. I now have three elite modern armor units parked right outside China's last city (thanks in no small part to a rush-built airport), so that nation shouldn't be a problem much longer. Of course now I'm at peace with Japan and I'll probably find myself back at war with them when I take out China.

Nathan

[LordBashHeart]

I don't really see what the prob is w/ razing cities.

Outa sight outa mind. Then again Im a brutal bastard when it comes to keeping those pesky peasents in line. If it can't be solved with chains, whips and bombs, then its not a REAL solution. hehe

-LordBashHeart

[Arrian]

To raze or not to raze...

Well, we are discussing industrial age warfare here, with a 3-move UU. There are two very important factors that have been mentioned, but only briefly:

1) Your culture vs. theirs

2) Enemy culture borders next to a capture city.

#1 is simple. Is your culture better? If so, how much? If not... raze 'n rebuilt. I normally have double the culture of my closest AI rival, which helps.

#2 is also simple, with Panzers. Leave a token garrison (a couple of infantry and any Panzers that require healing) and charge onward. Once there are no squares w/in a captured city's 21 radius that are in the enemy's cultural borders, the chances of a flip are much lower.

Also, unless there is something there you want (active wonder), raze the capitol. That's their #1 culture city, usually, and also it will cause a palace jump, generally away from your advance.

Starve captured cities. Make every non-resistor an entertainer. Starve them to size 1. Rushbuy a temple & library in each. In core cities, also rush a university (I'd say cathedral, but you're scientific, not religious, so I think Uni's are cheaper for you) asap.

Do not waste Panzers as garrison units. The faster you destroy the enemy, the less time you have to deal with this whole issue. Panzers are blitz units, perfect for munching through empires quickly. Use them as such.

-Arrian

p.s. By the way, this issue is the major reason I enjoy mid to late game conquests as the Babylonians (at least before the AI whip/draft under 1.17). You can trip, fall, and have the best culture in the world as Babylon. Also, rushing temple, library, cathedral and university in captured cities is pretty cheap for the Babs. Culture is a key element to warfare in CivIII. Hell, I've had towns I was having serious trouble attacking flip to me during war.

[nbarclay]

I don't like starving cities either. Aside from the fact that it's not how I prefer to do business, every citizen I starve is a citizen I have to replace before the city can reach its former level of production and wealth generation. I prefer to get captured cities producing for me full bore as soon as is practical.

That's not to say I won't let people starve if the alternative is having them riot. And if the danger of a culture flip is great enough, I may try to have enough entertainers to keep there from being any unhappiness at all even if it means people starve. But I'm not willing to adopt a general policy of starving cities I capture.

Nathan

[Whoha]

they get to work for you sooner and safer if you can take out the civ in a few turns, so leaving a minimal garrison(couple of attack units outside, 2 or 3) and not rushing(er em rush buying) may be the best way to get the cities productive quickly.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Whoha
they get to work for you sooner and safer if you can take out the civ in a few turns, so leaving a minimal garrison(couple of attack units outside, 2 or 3) and not rushing(er em rush buying) may be the best way to get the cities productive quickly.

Rush buying a temple or library seems to have a significant impact on the risk of reversion, so I often consider the risk of losing it if the city does flip worthwhile in late-game warfare unless a city can build its own pretty quickly. As for leaving a garrison outside, with fast movers and railroads late in the game, it often doesn't matter much where the units are. They can retake the city from halfway across the continent about as easily as they can from next door. (Just make sure the cultural borders if the city reverts won't leave you with inadequate power in range.)

Nathan

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by nbarclay


Rush buying a temple or library seems to have a significant impact on the risk of reversion, so I often consider the risk of losing it if the city does flip worthwhile in late-game warfare unless a city can build its own pretty quickly.

I might add that so far, I've done quite well at holding democracies together through the kinds of wars I fight, so rush buying is done with gold without creating unhappiness. Pop rushing in a large city I plan to keep would be a very different matter.

[Whoha]

I like to leave them outside the city because they can still protect the city against attack from there, and with the no culture rush buying the cities that are 3 deep in culture are problematic for cav/pansers/armor.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Whoha
I like to leave them outside the city because they can still protect the city against attack from there, and with the no culture rush buying the cities that are 3 deep in culture are problematic for cav/pansers/armor.

Three deep in culture is only a problem if the entire depth is actually available to the city. Often, a city with a 3-deep or even deeper theoretical radius only has a 2-deep or even 1-deep practical radius in some places before its borders stop at another city, and 3-deep cities are always only two deep along direct diagonals. The real key is whether, if the city flips, the combination of other city borders and terrain will allow units to retake it immediately without being parked next to it.

(This brings up a related thought, which I'll post in a separate thread titled "Blitzing vs. razing".)

As for protecting cities, most of the time, I'd rather use my strike units to attack the next city down the line than to sit outside a city defending it. I suppose there are probably exceptions if I'm trying to fight without as strong a force as I prefer, but in general, garrison duty and defense are left to slow movers and the injured.

Nathan