Do you Capture or Raze?

[nbarclay]

With all the discussion of capturing cities versus razing them, I thought a poll might be interesting.

[rpodos]

It depends on how unhappy I think the citizens might be due to poprushing, drafting, etc. Post-1.17, this is a much bigger issue.

On the flip side, I never worry about culture flipping, as I arrive with overwhelming force.

R

[Akron]

Definitely depends on happiness and wonders and such. If I know that it previously was a huge city but then drafted like hell, then it gets razed. If it is a tiny city in a good position, it is kept. If it has wonders, then it is kept. If it is a large city and not the enemy's last, then it is razed. If I know that I'll be razing a lot of cities and I want the territory that I'm invading, then I'll bring along a band of settlers to build cities in the conquered land.

[ixnay]

I might raze a city about once every 5 games...I almost always keep them intact and work with them from there...

[hitchikingalaxy]

early in the game i almost always keep the cities i conquer. there usually isn't enough culture accrued to cause culture flipping if i place a large enough force.

towards the industrial and modern era i just waste the city unless
1.) i need a jumping off point to destroy the civilization on a continent
2.) it's the very last city of the civilization. no culture flipping going to happen there
3.) i just hit the wrong button and am stuck with it

i find that razing works and has its place but i tend toward keeping the cities.

[Playa del Carmen]

I tend to raze. Especially if the city is far away from my main body of cities. I just don't have the ambition to develope them

[Trevman]

I capture the first few cities to establish a base for my military operations. Then a raze until the AI surrenders, unless of course there is a city with beaucoup resources around it.

[Skanky Burns]

Depends on when in the game.

At the start, I keep all cities - no exceptions. They don't have enough culture yet to revert, and I generally exterminate the unlucky civ that starts next to me. The extra population is well worth the risk.

Even though I tend towards keeping enemy cities, some such as the mega-cities next to the enemy capital just must be razed. Thats about all the razing I do, unless I just feel mean.

[Spiffor]

I'm a builder, who sometimes go to war to have even more production in the future. Except if the city is sure to revolt, I keep and develop it. I rename it when all foreigners have been assimilated.

[roadcage]

I almost ALWAYS Raze. The extra (no upkeep) workers you get with razing are far more valuable than most captured cities. If you want the land , include settlers in your war party!

[Thrawn05]

I only capture cities with bananas.

And their capital. Since Firaxis forgot to add the "Here's is the enemy's head on a silver dish" animation.

[Purple]

My policy's the same a Roadcage's. Plus, I don't like where the AI places its cities.

[Zachriel]

I've never found razing to be necessary, and it leaves a deep wound in the world. Those who raze will be remembered by history for their deeds in pursuit of their ambitions.

[Jonny]

I almost always keep captured cities and work with them. I usually build/buy a temple ASAP so culture flipping isn't much of a problem. Of course, culture flipping is almost never a problem. I only raze cities if they are one of the enemy's core/high culture cities (and it isn't their last city).

[Dark Destroyer]

Exactly how big does an occupying force need to be to prevent a flip???