 |
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
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
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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
|
 |
Antwerp (the pearl of Flanders) Belgium
Jan 2002
time: 06:17
|
|
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
Last edited by AJ Corp. The FAIR on 10-04-2002 at 22:23
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
|
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
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
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kolpo
|
|
Another disadvantage of razing is reputation. Like the manuel indicates reduces razing your reputation. Reputation inceases the chance other nations will break there treaties based on the manuel, I think it makes also getting treaties harder(can anyone confirm?). I don't know which otehr effects reputation has.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BillChin
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zachriel
I've played against Communists, but I don't agree. Unfortunately, I do not have the fact and figures to back up my assertion, but I do know that I can take a formerly Communist town and turn it around in a reasonable amount of time.
I do not know why we have different experiences in this matter. |
I'm not sure what you disagree with. Do you disagree with my intepretation of the rules? The rules are that unhappiness is additive and a city can have 400 turns of built up unhappiness after pop-rushing or drafting 10 citizens. This is not uncommon and many players have reported this. I did say it is possible for a player to start from -10 and get to +10 with enough bonuses. However, most players would rather start from 0 than -10 if given a choice (razing and resettling vs. capturing and inheriting unhappiness).
Do you disagree with my proposed fix? The proposal is to stop AI pop rushes and drafts at a certain level of unhappiness. The level I would test first is when half the pop is entertainers. I believe all players want a semi-rational AI that does not commit suicide, inherited unhappiness or not.
You may disagree that there is a problem at all. That is fine, but I believe you are in the minority on this issue. 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.
Maybe you agree on fixing the suicidal AI, but think that the inherited unhappiness is fine. Here we can find some common ground. If the AI pop rushing and drafting is limited, inherited unhappiness is not that big a deal.
I know why we have different experiences. You are a better player. You have tons of gold to rush improvements in all captured cities. You never use Communism as your form of government. You probably have both Sistine Chapel and Bach's Cathedral. You probably have five or more luxuries. Maybe you need to understand that some players are not as proficient. Some players do not get those wonders. Some players are gold poor and luxury poor. Some players enjoy playing as Communists.
What it boils down to is that some players play the game differently than you do. Just because you are a more efficient player does not mean that other players do not have legitimate concerns about the rules. Just because you are a better player does not mean that everyone aspires to play the game the same way you do.
I believe that every player needs to find their own play style. The rules need to encourage this, rather than funnel everyone into a narrow band that works and a wide band that doesn't work.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alexman
I just wanted to say that Arrian and BillChin are right. I did a quick test and I can confirm that the pop-rushing unhappiness duration is indeed additive.
My test also confirms the rumors that when you disband a city, any pop-rushing unhappiness jumps to a nearby city. |
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
rpodos
|
|
I think I understand.
Wouldn;t it also make sense to immediately grow the city to as many pop as it can support, by adding workers and settlers?
R
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
I tried that. Instant riots. You have to have enough content and happy faces so you can get the food you need.
I almost always go for a temple first. What comes next depends on the situation. A marketplace can do a heck of a lot if you have the luxuries.
Its likely the next patch will decrease the number of turns for unhappiness from what I saw someone at Firaxis say. They thought it might be too much. I sure think its a heck of a lot.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-04-2002 10:26
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.
AJ
Attachment: 
|
