Abandon or raze a city

[Nym]

There are two ways to rapidly "destroy" a city:

• to raze the city if it was took from an ennemy,
• to abandon the city.

Nothing new here.
If you raze the city, it has an impact on your international reputation. But what happens if you first take the city and then, in the same turn, abandon it?
The two ways are considered as destroying the city in the game's summary at the end.

[Thrawn05]

Re: Abandon or raze a city

Originally posted by Nym
If you raze the city, it has an impact on your international reputation. But what happens if you first take the city and then, in the same turn, abandon it?

Only if that city was captured and has some nationals from another civ. Otherwise they could care less.

I started a war with civ doing just that. I took Babylon and decided after a while, that all those unusable tiles (the babs made more cities around it and make overlapping tiles on the city), i gave it up. Not good.


I prefer Raze then capture. I go for a total victory.

[Hagbart]

When you abandon a city you kill all of the people in the city including people of other nationalities. So it's like razing it.

[Sea41571]

I dont Raz a city unless it does not provide a strategic point for more troops or alot resorces, otherwise its useless.

[TacticalGrace]

Originally posted by Hagbart
When you abandon a city you kill all of the people in the city including people of other nationalities. So it's like razing it.

no the people don't die! they live on as workers (slaves?)

[NeoStar]

Re: Re: Abandon or raze a city

Originally posted by Thrawn05

I started a war with civ doing just that. I took Babylon and decided after a while, that all those unusable tiles (the babs made more cities around it and make overlapping tiles on the city), i gave it up. Not good.

So you say they declared war on you when you did this? I have never seen this happening - I cant say I have abandoned many cities but the few I did with foreign nationals didn't raise any reaction...

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Hagbart
When you abandon a city you kill all of the people in the city including people of other nationalities. So it's like razing it.

Which is why either option is ABSURD, LUDICROUS, and a form of genocide surpassing anything Hitler ever dreamed of in both scope and efficiency.

They should be removed from the game. At least with PTW Culture Flipping, the fear of which is why people consider such crazy options, will be optional, so there will be no reason to consider such unrealistic options.

[Saint Marcus]

Which is why either option is ABSURD, LUDICROUS, and a form of genocide surpassing anything Hitler ever dreamed of in both scope and efficiency.

Guess what the Romans did when they captured Carthago.

[NeoStar]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
Guess what the Romans did when they captured Carthago.

Getting rid of an ancient city is one thing. Killing a modern (25+) city is another - now that's a huge amount of people.

I don't mind the concept - but I think huge cities should not have that option.

[Nym]

Originally posted by NeoStar


Getting rid of an ancient city is one thing. Killing a modern (25+) city is another - now that's a huge amount of people.

I don't mind the concept - but I think huge cities should not have that option.

I agree, it would be more realistic. But we should also have the possibility to retreat (part of) our troops instead of simply losing them . I hate losing about 5 elite units such a way.
I often try to keep the cities I take, but when it happens I am so angry that I raze the city when I take it back. A kind of vengeance...

[Lord Merciless]

Culture flipping will never occur on the first turn after a city's capture.

Abandoning a city several turns after its capture usually has one major advantage: Extending your border and slow down enemy troop movements. It's often possible to carry continued attacks based on your border expanding ever deeper into your enemy's territory. Once I managed to take 20 French cities(actually eliminated them) in a single turn using this way, which also means I don't have to raze anything and don't have to fear about culture flippings.

Razing cities will get you many slave workers.

I prefer Abandonment over Razing.

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by Nym
I hate losing about 5 elite units such a way.
I often try to keep the cities I take, but when it happens I am so angry that I raze the city when I take it back. A kind of vengeance...

Have you seen the culture flip formula in this thread?

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51715&perpage=25&pagenumber=1

[Nym]

Originally posted by Moonsinger


Have you seen the culture flip formula in this thread?

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...5&pagenumber=1

Not very easy to use such a formula during the game, but it should still be useful.
Thanks.

[Galvatron]

Well the AI often build cities on so unsuitable places (squares colliding with other cities) that you just have one option: to destroy it. I also prefer to raze cities for the reason mentioned above and some strategic ones (like hampering the economy of your enemy: the city is lost he couldn't capture it back and with this tactic you get every opponent down of course you must have a sound economy in the background so you don't need those cities) and those free workers are a nice bonus.