Blitzing vs. Razing

[nbarclay]

The thought just occurred to me that the blitzkreig strategy I use so effectively probably would not be half as powerful as it is if I razed cities. The real key to my blitzkreigs is that when I take a city, the new borders of my new city usually eat into the borders of the AI's next city down the line. With railroads, using cavalry, panzers, or modern armor, I can often follow chains two or three or even more cities deep in a single turn that way. (I've even been known to build the tracks as I go.) With enough units, I can often take out the continental holdings of a decent-sized nation in three or fewer turns. (I've mentioned before taking all eleven of China's mainland cities in a single turn that way in my current game, although I usually don't get quite that lucky with enemy city placement.)

If I razed cities instead of keeping them, I wouldn't get the instant benefit of eating into enemy borders, so my fast movers would be far more likely to run into blockades of enemy culture too wide for them to cross in a single turn. That, in turn, would give the AI more time to see me coming and draft extra defenders to blunt my attack. That can make the difference between a short, highly successful war that citizens of a Democracy take in stride and a longer, more drawn-out conflict that would pose significant happiness problems. (Not to mention the benefits of getting to any luxury resources in the enemy's territory as quickly as possible, and of depriving the enemy of strategic resources quickly.)

Nathan

[notyoueither]

Food for thought.

Especially effective against small civs.

Would it be as effective against a monster empire with far superior culture to your own? And a military to match?

[nbarclay]

If I had my 'druthers, I'd rather not fight a nation with a superior culture and a truly equal military at all. If forced into such a war, I would have to seriously consider razing. On the other hand, if the era was one where offensive units have an edge over defensive ones (i.e. after cavalry but before riflemen, panzers vs. infantry, or modern armor vs. anything), I would have to seriously consider a blitz stategy to deny my opponent as many cities as possible as quickly as possible. (I might go for a hybrid tactic, capturing the first tier or so of cities intact and then razing when I start running out of units for further quick captures, although I'd be nervous about putting offensive units in a position where defensive units can't cover them.)

Frankly, I don't have any real experience fighting wars against opponents with forces truly equal to my own in the industrial era or later. (By "truly equal" I mean equal numbers of equally modern units.) Part of that is because I choose my wars carefully and take Washington's advice to avoid entangling foreign alliances that might drag me into a war against my will. And part is because I like winning, so I prefer to get good at playing on a lower level before I take on a higher one, and I'm only now deciding that I'd do better playing Emperor than Monarch if I stick with 1.16. (I'll probably switch to 1.17 now that I just won my game, and that may keep me at mostly Monarch a while longer.)

I'm not trying to say that razing is always a bad idea no matter what. But I do think a blanket policy of razing with little regard to the opportunities squandered in the process is a terrible idea. As far as I'm concerned, the ideal is quick, decisive wars where enemy cities are captured as intact as possible. Razing is at best a way to cope with wars fought under significantly less than ideal circumstances.

Nathan

[BillChin]

A minor point, if a player is in the late game, having a few extra settlers is nothing. Blitzing in general is superior if a player can destroy an enemy civ very quickly. However, razing and planting settlers can be equally as fast in terms of turns to victory and resources required. It is the middle ground where a player can not take out all of the enemy cities where the decision of razing becomes a more difficult one.

The way the game is currently set up, it is easier to raze. The inherited unhappiness, the chance of flipping, usually out weigh the captured buildings. The exception is for a decent wonder.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by nbarclay
... (I'll probably switch to 1.17 now that I just won my game, and that may keep me at mostly Monarch a while longer.)
...

Watch out with 1.17 -- the AI upgrades their units!

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by BillChin
A minor point, if a player is in the late game, having a few extra settlers is nothing. Blitzing in general is superior if a player can destroy an enemy civ very quickly. However, razing and planting settlers can be equally as fast in terms of turns to victory and resources required. It is the middle ground where a player can not take out all of the enemy cities where the decision of razing becomes a more difficult one.

The way the game is currently set up, it is easier to raze. The inherited unhappiness, the chance of flipping, usually out weigh the captured buildings. The exception is for a decent wonder.

I'll grant that producing extra settlers isn't a huge problem, but settlers aren't free either. And settlers can't always replace a city quickly enough to avoid slowing a blitz down, because the defending civ's cultural borders may extend into or even beyond the site of the razed city.

Basically, I think it comes down to the condition of the civ you're attacking and how quickly you can either take the civ out or drive it off to a distant island. Capturing cities from a communist civ that's been pop rushing isn't nearly as valuable as capturing cities from a democratic civ that can't pop rush. Capturing cities that have been drafted from fairly heavily isn't nearly as valuable as capturing cities that haven't been drafted from at all. And capturng cities from an enemy that will not be completely driven off the continent at all isn't nearly as valuable as capturing cities that will only have three or four turns to do so.

In some cases, I think a case can be made that it's very clearly best to capture cities intact (i.e. a quick war that will completely obliterate a democracy that hasn't been drafting at all prior to the war). In others, it's clearly better to raze (i.e. a city that's been dragged down from size 12 to size 1 by pop rushing and drafting and has no wonders in it). And then there are the in-between situations where a case can be made either way.

And to some extent, which types of situations we run into most often depends on our style of gameplay. My own style leads to lots of situations where capturing cities intact works wonderfully (although I do occasionally face the annoyance of having a distant island remnant declare war on me and make my captured cities unhappy for a while). But I can see how other playing styles would produce different results.

Nathan

[Purple]

Originally posted by nbarclay
I'll grant that producing extra settlers isn't a huge problem, but settlers aren't free either. And settlers can't always replace a city quickly enough to avoid slowing a blitz down, because the defending civ's cultural borders may extend into or even beyond the site of the razed city.

Actually, if you are at war with a Civ you can ignore its cultural borders when founding new cities in recently conquered territory.

My style is to raze almost exclusively. But when the enemy civ is nearly eliminated, the last several cities may safely be occupied instead, since their original civ will not be around much longer to inspire their return to the home country.

Another point in favor of razing is that you can replace the AI city siting by a more rational arrangement of cities.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Purple
Another point in favor of razing is that you can replace the AI city siting by a more rational arrangement of cities.

Now THAT is definitely a point, although it would take a certain amount of advantage in placement to offset giving up improvements. (And I don't mind if cities overlap a bit, given the fact that overpopulation causes pollution.)

By the way, when razing a city, how does the number of workers you get out of it compare with the city's original population? I've done so little razing that I'm not sure I have the formula down. Also, has anyone made much of an attempt to quantify how razing affects other nations' attitudes toward you?

Nathan

[bigvic]

The Wicked Joy of Razing

At first the idea of razing all those big ole established cities you take seemed abominable to me, a real waste, as well as morally icky. Then I lost a city here, a city there, got royally, tyranically p. o.'ed, remembered its just a game, and went on a bloody destructo scorched earth rampage. First of all, it fealt great - "Take that Mr. big freakin' culture man! Moohahahaha!" Then I realized all the other cool things a scorched earth, raze 'em all, ethnic cleansing strategy allows. Workers, and lots of 'em. Take them babies and do all sorts of things with them - build roads for the reinforcements, plop a quicky fortress w/ your mob o' workers when youve over extended and hunker down waiting for the cavalry, send 'em home to improve the motherland, send 'em home to join some underpopulated cities of your own, since they aren't as efficient as your own boys. The raze 'em strategy is especially attractive to non industrious civs where quantity can make up for quality in the work force. Besides, most cities I take are pretty denuded of improvements anyway, so sending out good, loyal homeboys to start a new city ain't so bad after all. Generally, if culture is a problem, raze, raze, raze. Also, its a good idea if you face a culturally superior foe and really want that big wonder city surrounded by other big culture pumping cities, to raze all around the desired flower before plucking it. Again, evil laugh, "MOOHAHAHAHAHA!"

[ChaingKaiShek]

My Tactics

As stated in the simple title of my post. I'll gladly explain my tactics for fighting large wars. I tend to only start fights after the industrial era once I have a suitable amount of riflemen and calvary. I'll often attack empires which are roughly around the same size as my own, and that have a military which is a little bit smaller.

My choices for the empires to attack will depend mainly on three things.

A) If they have any resources I want
B) If they are in my way of another conquest (And in this case I'll often employ the help of the empire I mean to destroy after I finish the poor suckers off..)
C) I'm just plain sick of them.

I like to line up the bulk of my troops at three points. Next to the closest city which is nearest to my borders. And two more divisions near the next two furthest cities (while still in my borders or in unclaimed land).

I'll also formally declare war before I attack. (Sneak attacks are just wrong.) I even give the AI a few turns to mass their armies for their destruction. I tend to find that it is a bit more fun this way, I like wars to go on awhile. Anyway after war has been declared and the sense of doom has fallen over the target. I charge forward. I sac and capture the first three cities which are closest to my empire. From there I tend to pretty much raze or hold on a 50%/50% ratio. I always burn their capital to the ground. I mean it's a symbol in most cases of the empire which once stood.

Once the poor target has given up, or has been destroyed I'll push my remaining troops forward to amass on the borders of my new target. From there I pretty much rinse, wash and repeat. In rare cases the AI has surrendered to me after their empire was quickly reduced to near nothing. In most cases I will accept and let them live with not so much as a demand, because we all know a defeated foe is not even worth making demands of.

This works for me commonly, only one time did it get me into trouble. Which was when Myself and China were the only two left upon the map. These sneaky chinese moved their armies around my empire without me seeing (Had a bit of 'dead' area with no one in it.) and they attacked a city a left undefended... which led their armies right to my capital which they sacked with massive numbers. I made peace with them and later got my revenge.

anyway, not saying it's right. But that is how I do things.

Chaing

[dac]

Does anybody have a feeling for how much time razing adds to the "Refuse the ambassador" counter? I've been at war with a couple of civs for over 20 (!) turns, and they still refuse to talk to me. The only thing I can think of is that since they caught me unprepared, I don't have the forces to hold my conquests, so I raze them. Does the fact that I'm razing cities make the AI that much less likely to talk to me? As usual, I'm a democracy and would really like to end this war before my civilization collapses into anarchy, at which point I'll switch to communism and grind 'em into the dirt until the domination dialog informs me I've won. I don't really want to do that, though.

[Arrian]

dac,

Razing cities definitely pisses the AI off. Then again, I could care less if they're pissed at me. To hell with them.


Late in the game (post-nationalism) I bring along settlers. Sometimes, due to the border situation, razing slows me down by 1 turn - because i have to move the settler within their borders to replant a city properly, then continue. Still, it is much better this way, as you don't have to deal with possible reversion (not a problem for me usually) and/or excessive unhappiness due to AI whipping and drafting (which drives me nuts).

I will keep cities if I can get to them before the AI has whipped and drafted them to hell and back, or if I've run out of settlers for the time being.

-Arrian

[Thrawn05]

If I go to war, I usaly do so to destroy a civ. Therefore, I send my Modern Armor in and raze about two cities a turn. Anything less would be uncivilized.

[realpolitic]

If you blitz, you might also sell the worst cities to a third party at a later date they pay good $$$.

[PatLasch]

With the newer patches, you cannot sell cities, I like to give them to faraway weaker civs though.