To raze or not to raze?

[Barchan]

Originally posted by Ethelred


You are correct but you are missing something.

If you have more population you use up the unhappiness faster. If you keep the city at one pop it will take something akin to forever but if you increase the population each person is using up some of the accumalated unhappiness. It still takes time of course but not hundreds of turns.

That explains a few times when I've captured plains towns that just wouldn't grow past 1 due to disorder; this one dude refused to work no matter how many smilies I gave him. The game ended with him still being unhappy. I can only conclude that the AI must have rushed a 12-pop city to 1 and the unhappiness factor took forever to bleed off with just one person.

I'm no math major, so I won't even risk trying to work an equation to account for the reduction of unhappiness based on available population points. It'd be really cool if someone more skilled took a swipe at it, though....

[Barchan]

Originally posted by BillChin

In my opinion, AI suicide through pop rushing and drafting is just plain dumb and turns the late game into a farce. I do not see anyone defending the current AI behavior.

The only thing I can think of is that the AI is using a sort of scorched earth policy (or as we used to call it, "bitter me syndrome"). If it looks like you're going to get stomped by larger opponent, why not pop-rush military units like there's no tomorrow? After all, there probably isn't! Not only do you get the benefit of the military units, but you also get the added bonus of shafting your conqueror with a tiny city in perpetual unrest.

While this allows the vanquished some little bit of revenge, it also gives them the opportunity to play the role of kingmaker. For example, player X is being attacked on two fronts by two different players and has little hope of surviving. Player X would rather see player Y win than player Z, so he shifts the bulk of his defenses to the front with player Z and pop-rushes the life out of the cities on that front. The cities on the front with player Y he does not pop-rush so that, when captured, they can be rehabilitated quickly. The cities on the Z front, though, will be reduced to rubble and forever unhappy. This will give Y an advantage and, hopefully for players X and Y, a chance to win the game.

Now, is the AI thinking this way? Possibly, but I doubt it. But could this be a major factor in MP games? Ah, yesh indeedy....

[arsvendg]

RAZE!!!

In all the civ3 games I play I always raze! As soon as I get the cavalry I always set one or more cities on producing cavalry only. Then I start to send out my troops taking over enemy cities!!

Raze is the only true way of winnig civ3!! Culture wins is for pussies!! Taking over the world with pure force feels so good! getting voted to rule the world in the UN feels like ****, oh I'm so good they voted for me to rule.. or.. I CRUSH YOU! I CRUSH YOU! I CRUSH YOU!

well, that's my opinion...

[Spock]

Well now....I thought I had asked a simple question about whether I should raze or not. I see from the comments it comes down to a more personal choice with a few other things to consider, such as...location of said city...am I conquering or making them or making them my "female dog"....and do I really want the headache of babying this city full whiners.

Thanks guys

Spock

[Zachriel]

Raze is the only true way of winnig civ3!! Culture wins is for pussies!! Taking over the world with pure force feels so good! getting voted to rule the world in the UN feels like ****, oh I'm so good they voted for me to rule.. or.. I CRUSH YOU! I CRUSH YOU! I CRUSH YOU!

When I see a large and great city being destroyed, I see nothing but a big hole in the world.

"Insert your name here" the Terrible, the Destroyer of Lives, the Pulverizer of all that is Good. Yes, one day you will die (it may take 6000 years, but you are mortal too). Then the truth will be made known. Your statues will be torn down, your children stripped of their honors, and freedom will once again reign in the world.

[Whoha]

if you see a big hole in the ground you are playing smac/x not civ 3. and you can continue to play after 2050.

[Herr David]

*g*
there should be blow-a-hole-into-the-earth weapons in Civ3, too. Those things from SMAC were funny as hell.

[Giovanni August]

I usually capture and keep cities if my culture is stronger and Nationalism has not been discovered yet.

After Nationalism I almost always raze, unless my culture is at least 3 times the culture of the enemy civ.

Saluti

[Harovan]

I always raze after that AI discovered Nationalism, unless the city has a must-have wonder. In that case, I capture it (and retake it once, twice), starve it down and make it a 1-taxman city, probably forever. I may raze pre-Nationalism if I come close to the domination limit.