Can you KEEP a captured city that has a population of ONE?

[Villain]

Every time I capture an enemy city that has a population of 1, I do not get the option to keep the city.

Actually, I shouldn't say EVERY time, cuz for some unknown reason I have been able to keep a city like this a few rare times. At least, I am pretty sure I'm remembering correctly.

Anyways, can someone clear this up for me? The Celts have one piddly remaining city I would like to take so I can wipe them out... but at the same time I want the city for myself.

Must I wait for it to reach a pop of 2?

[notyoueither]

If the city has a cultural value greater than 1 it will survive being captured at size 1.

[Villain]

ahhh, ok.

So it's the CULTURAL points the city has and it has nothing to do with the actual POPULATION.

Thank you.

[Willem]

I believe it's culture and population. A size two city with no culture can still be taken. I usually bombard to size one, so I'm not entirely positive.

[Villain]

Originally posted by Willem
I usually bombard to size one, so I'm not entirely positive.

You do this so there are fewer angry citizens that would increase the chances of the city flipping back? or.. ?

[Jaybe]

At least with PTW 1.14, ANY culture points ensures its survival at capture. It does not need to have had its culture border expanded yet. Therefore, if the civ just had its capital transfered because its previous capital was captured, it will have at least one culture point because of its relocated palace.

[Villain]

Originally posted by Jaybe
At least with PTW 1.14, ANY culture points ensures its survival at capture.

OK, so therefore a city could theoretically have a population of 20, but have no Palace, Temple, WoW or any culture-producing improvement and if I was to attack it, I would not be able to keep it?

I suppose that makes sense. I'm gonna go test it out.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Villain


You do this so there are fewer angry citizens that would increase the chances of the city flipping back? or.. ?

No, so my offensive troops suffer the least amount of casualites as possible. I generally raze any cities I capture, unless it contains a wonder.

[Villain]

Originally posted by Willem


No, so my offensive troops suffer the least amount of casualites as possible. I generally raze any cities I capture, unless it contains a wonder.

Oh, I see. You do it not to kill citizens, but to lower the HP of the defending troops?

And you raze because.. ?

Sorry.. this must seem like 20 Questions -- except there's no prize at the end of the thread.

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by Villain
OK, so therefore a city could theoretically have a population of 20, but have no Palace, Temple, WoW or any culture-producing improvement and if I was to attack it, I would not be able to keep it?

It would survive. The rules are if it was ever at least 2 population or 1 culture point it survives (unless you decide to raze it (I never do)).

[Willem]

Originally posted by Villain


Oh, I see. You do it not to kill citizens, but to lower the HP of the defending troops?

And you raze because.. ?

Sorry.. this must seem like 20 Questions -- except there's no prize at the end of the thread.

I'm very fussy about where I build my cities, and generally an AI city doesn't fit in to my "master plan". Plus it provides me with a good buffer zone if I eliminate a few of his border cities, I don't have to worry as much about his culture levels.

[Villain]

Originally posted by WarpStorm


It would survive. The rules are if it was ever at least 2 population or 1 culture point it survives (unless you decide to raze it (I never do)).

Gotcha. That seems to fit with the 'surviving' and 'not-surviving' situations I've experienced but never really got WHY.

Thanks for all the replies!

The info sure comes fast and furious here... gotta love it.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Willem


I'm very fussy about where I build my cities, and generally an AI city doesn't fit in to my "master plan". Plus it provides me with a good buffer zone if I eliminate a few of his border cities, I don't have to worry as much about his culture levels.

I prefer to capture larger cities, rush buy workers / starve down to size 2, then rush buy a settler to disband the city and rebuild suitable to my grid. I get more slaves that way, and keep my home cities more productive.

[Willem]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I prefer to capture larger cities, rush buy workers / starve down to size 2, then rush buy a settler to disband the city and rebuild suitable to my grid. I get more slaves that way, and keep my home cities more productive.

I find that to be to much of a bother, I just to prefer to get it over with. If I do disband a city, I'll just pull everyone off the fields and build a Worker. Less hassle. I'm really glad they included the raze option in Civ III, it used to be such a pain slowly starving a city away in Civ II.

[pedrojedi]

At first I liked the razing option, but now... It is unthinkable it was not part of the Civ series! I usually raze a city to get workers, which become a) new pop for new citites or b) watchtowers, radar posts, airfields...

I never raze a city with a wonder; instead, I'm always afraid that some dumb AI player may do it just for the sake of its war. So I always try to get first in wonder AI cities.