To raze or not to raze?

[Spock]

Normally in all my games I go for the space race or 2050 win, recently I began going with conquest(not my forte). So I have a question for all the warmongers out there...which is better? Raze or not to raze? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?

[nbarclay]

There's a fair amount of in-depth discussion of this issue in some threads from maybe two or three weeks back (give or take a little) on the General forum. I'll summarize what seems to be about the closest thing to a consensus that seems to have come out of those.

Whether you're better off capturing or razing depends most heavily on (1) relative cultural strength and (2) what kind of war you're fighting. If culture is in your favor and you expect to either obliterate the enemy quickly or drive them off to a distant island, capturing cities generally works well. If your enemy has a much higher culture and you don't expect a quick total or near-total victory, you're in for some serious flipping problems if you don't raze. In between, there's a gray area where it seems to be largely a matter of taste.

Nathan

[Ethelred]

Raze if you must due to low culture. I prefer not being in that position.

Keep it if its late in the game and there are railroads. With Modern Armour you can just keep rolling taking one city after the next if you have the units. Panzers may work nearly as well but regular tanks generaly won't have enough movement for that.

Its that third move that makes the difference. Rairoad to the border. Two moves and your on the next cities doorstep. Third move for the attack take the city and then you have more railroads. Hill, forrests, and mountains need to be avoided when moving during a blitz.

[Zachriel]

Razing is un-Civilized.

It is not necessary to destroy the village in order to save it.

[Arrian]

Given that I've undergone the same conversion you seem to be undergoing (builder -> warmonger), I figure I outta chime in.

I always play religious civs, usually Japan if I'm gonna pick a fight. Due to that, my culture always outweighs any given AI, particularly in the ancient era, by a lot. When launching my initial attack to secure my continent (usually attacking 2-3, sometimes 4 civs with a horseman rush), I keep just about every city I capture, only razing if I feel the location is terrible. Due to the overwhelming culture advantage I have, I usually have no trouble with flips.

Later in the game, if facing a healthy AI civ with decent culture, I will probably raze the capitol, and keep the rest. If I can destroy them quickly, I am less likely to raze.

Some tips on keeping cities:

Early in the game, get those temples up and running for a nice cultural advantage

Turn everyone into an entertainer in the captured town. I usually starve them down to size 1, so that when it grows, all the citizens will be mine, instead of native. Much less chance to flip.

I will put several units in the city right after capture (a defender or two, and any attackers who need to heal). This quells resistance quickly.

Fast attack. If you overrun your foe, there is no need to worry about culture flipping. Also, the number of squares in a city's 21 square radius that are under their former civ's control (cultural borders) plays a role. The sooner you can push those borders back, the better.

-Arrian

[Rasputin]

i only raze if the AI has been using ICS and the city overlapping another city and inhibiting growth.

[planetfall]

Sometimes it is a close call. I have one city I wanted to keep because it had 2 wonders and 3 spices inside borders. I hurried almost everything I could and size is 1 with defaulting to entertainer. If turn off governor, city revolts. Brought in 4 of my workers and joined city hoping to improve and start building citizens. No go, they all starved leaving the original Egyptians.

Finally figured it is because I hadn't hurried enough culture builders. In F5 screen there is more red culture than black. Guessing city won't grow until my generated culture is greater than AI old culture.
Will be interesting to see if this theory is correct. My culture is much higher than Egyptians and this is the only city that is causing any problems.

The disadvantage of not razing is the delay caused by time of building police units and moving police units into city. If have time, why not delay, but if close campaign may have to raze.

If you enforce a rule, "I will not raze", it definitely requires more skillful play. The challenge of maintaining at least some conquered cities definitely makes the game more interesting. Everyone can raze. Not everyone can successfully convert an alien city to a productive city.

[BillChin]

The advantages of razing:
Fewer culture flips
No inherited unhappiness

Disadvantages are the problems stated above, culture flips and inherited unhappiness. Another reason to keep cities is that an army can usually advance quicker by capturing cities instead of waiting for settlers to catch up.

In the early game, an enemy civ often pop rushes countless units, so razing is a good option to avoid the inherited unhappiness. After enemy civs switch out out of Despotism this is not as big a problem, but culture becomes more important. On higher difficulty levels, culture can be an overwhelming reason to raze. If a player does not raze they may face culture flips very soon after taking a city.

If a city has a key wonder, it is a no brainer to keep the city. Even if it means a culture flip a time or two, a good wonder is worth the effort. If a player can crush the enemy and take all their cities within a short time, again it is an easy decision to keep the cities.

On the other side, if a player watches a city get pop rushed from 12 down to 3 (Communist), or 6 down to 2 (early game Despot), it is a no brainer to raze and resettle. The alternative is to wait 100 or 200 turns for the inherited unhappiness to dissapate. If a player is launching an overseas invasion against an enemy with high culture, again it is a no brainer to bring settlers and plan on razing. Trying to hold enemy cities in their culture zone, close to the enemy capital is a poor option. The exception may be against an easy opponent or on a low difficulty level. An alternative is to park units just outside the captured cities.

In between these no brainer situations there is a vast grey area where play style, difficulty level, map size are all factors.

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Razing is un-Civilized.

It is not necessary to destroy the village in order to save it.

I agree, but if you want to get the best out of the game/situation, razing is often preferred above dealing with the unhappiness caused by AI civ's drafting.

I'd like to refer to your attractive piece of work, chapter Forbidden Palace:

[img] http://www.crowncity.net/civ3/ForbiddenPalace.htm [/img]

to fully exploit the FP the English should raze the surrounding cities and settle afterwards, to get new and extra core cities for themselves. At this stage in the game the draft unhappiness will cripple the cities too much to keep them IMO.

AJ

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Why doesn't this work?

I wanted to show a picture in my previous post, and I wrote:

[img] http://www.crowncity.net/civ3/ForbiddenPalace.htm [/img]


First attempt ever. What went wrong?
This result is good enough though.

AJ

[alexman]

Originally posted by BillChin
On the other side, if a player watches a city get pop rushed from 12 down to 3 (Communist), or 6 down to 2 (early game Despot), it is a no brainer to raze and resettle. The alternative is to wait 100 or 200 turns for the inherited unhappiness to dissipate.

Is unhappiness duration due to pop-rushing really additive like that? I thought that the unhappiness effects are cumulative, but each pop-rush can overlap in time with any other that was performed within 40 turns. For your example of pop-rushing a size 12 city down to three, I would expect maximum unhappiness to last 31 turns (assuming the AI pop-rushed every turn, the last 9 turns) but be worth 9 unhappy people.

But then again I pop-rush only a temple here and there, so I'm not sure...

[Arrian]

It's additive. It's ugly. I did forget to mention that, after nationalism and communism make the rounds, I raze unless I can take a city via a Cavalry or Modern Armor blitz (three squares - the units are outside the AI's threat-assessment zone, and so it doesn't draft. Put units w/in 2 squares of an AI city, and watch the population drop as they draft and whip up units).

I have captured cities which went into disorder at size 4, with all 8 luxuries, a temple, cathedral, a marketplace, Sistine, Bach and 10% luxuries. I learned my lesson then.

-Arrian

[BillChin]

Originally posted by alexman
Is unhappiness duration due to pop-rushing really additive like that? I thought that the unhappiness effects are cumulative, but each pop-rush can overlap in time with any other that was performed within 40 turns. For your example of pop-rushing a size 12 city down to three, I would expect maximum unhappiness to last 31 turns (assuming the AI pop-rushed every turn, the last 9 turns) but be worth 9 unhappy people.

But then again I pop-rush only a temple here and there, so I'm not sure...

It is definitely additive. Anyone who has fought against a Communist AI knows the problem all too well. It is 40 turns per pop rush or draft so in the case of 12 down to 3 that is 9 pop rushes = 360 turns. At 40 turns after capture, there will still be eight inherited unhappy peeps, after 120 turns, with the game probably over, there will still be six inherited unhappy citizens.

This is one of the major complaints against version 1.17f. A player can overcome the inherited unhappiness with enough wonders, improvements, luxuries, and military police. However, it is much easier to raze than suffer for hundreds of turns because the AI plays a certain way.

There are a couple ways to fix this for the next patch. One way is to stop AI pop rushing and drafting at a certain level of unhappiness. A good first estimate is to stop drafting and pop rushing when half the citizens are entertainers. For a pop 12 city, this would probably stop them around pop 7 or 8 and eliminate the worst of the problem.

Another idea to make capture more attractive is to have a "liberator" bonus that gives a chance for unhappy peeps to embrace the conquerors and no longer be unhappy. If coded poorly this could create an exploit where two civs could trade a city over and over to get rid of unhappiness.

[rpodos]

Most comments re razing on this and other threads have been from the viewpoint of expanding your own empire...

Don't forget, there are other reasons to attack a city.

Warmonger:
- Take over a city, and then leave it empty for re-capture. Take it over again. Wash, rinse, repeat. Especially good for weak defense cities, and even better if next to a mountain fortress.
- Create a warzone.

Metagame:
- Take over a city and sell it back to the same civ.
- Take over a city and give it to a lesser-developed nation, a vassal (as a buffer), or a major power from another continent (in preparation for MPP-driven world war.

R

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by AJ Corp. The FAIR
Why doesn't this work?

I wanted to show a picture in my previous post, and I wrote:

[img] http://www.crowncity.net/civ3/ForbiddenPalace.htm [/img]


First attempt ever. What went wrong?
This result is good enough though.

AJ

The http above is for the webpage, not the picture. Right-click on the picture and copy the url, or download the picture and attach it.