Occupied Cities

[Moonveil]

When you capture another civ's city: it says "Occupied-no growth" for as far as I can determine; an undefinable number of turns. Does any one know what factors affect this as I have seen; in the small number of games I've played cities quickly losing that designation t o seemingly never?

[Lemurian1972]

The end of the war they were taken in.

[Moonveil]

Thank you. Now I have to decide if "Peace is the way" Eh?

[Tree Diagram]

Originally posted by crossmanje:

Thank you. Now I have to decide if "Peace is the way" Eh?

I just burn the enemy cities down and have a couple settlers mixed in with the reinforcements to resettle the land. No muss, no fuss.

[gimmethegepgun]

Originally posted by Tree Diagram:

Originally posted by crossmanje:

Thank you. Now I have to decide if "Peace is the way" Eh?

I just burn the enemy cities down and have a couple settlers mixed in with the reinforcements to resettle the land. No muss, no fuss.

What a waste. Those cities have ample food, production, and culture thrown into them already. Burning them to the ground is extremely damaging to yourself, even if the districts aren't completely optimal.

[kbmodigity]

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

Originally posted by Tree Diagram:

I just burn the enemy cities down and have a couple settlers mixed in with the reinforcements to resettle the land. No muss, no fuss.

What a waste. Those cities have ample food, production, and culture thrown into them already. Burning them to the ground is extremely damaging to yourself, even if the districts aren't completely optimal.

AI often places cities in horrible positions, where 1 tile away would be optimal. I agree with Tree Diagram. (95% of the time its best to burn them down and rebuild.

[leandrombraz]

Originally posted by kbmodigity:

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

What a waste. Those cities have ample food, production, and culture thrown into them already. Burning them to the ground is extremely damaging to yourself, even if the districts aren't completely optimal.

AI often places cities in horrible positions, where 1 tile away would be optimal. I agree with Tree Diagram. (95% of the time its best to burn them down and rebuild.

An horribly positioned city that already have some districts and buildings is better than a city that you gonna have to build from scratch. If you keep the city, you gonna start generating yields from the get go and any production you generate will go into increasing that yields even further. If the city have a commercial hub or harbor, you get a trade route slot right away, not to count Wonders that city might have. If you raze it, it will take you several turns, a settler and some builders to start generating that same amount of yields. That's a lot of production/gold wasted just to get what you already had several turns ago. You're paying dearly to get a prettier city, basically

The only situation where razing make sense is in early game, if the AI settle on a spot that really screw your layout or that stop you from getting something specific (ex: production bonus for building districts across a river, while playing as Hungary). As you advance in the game, razing to settle another city is less and less valuable, eventually it just becomes a huge waste.

[kbmodigity]

Originally posted by leandrombraz:

Originally posted by kbmodigity:

AI often places cities in horrible positions, where 1 tile away would be optimal. I agree with Tree Diagram. (95% of the time its best to burn them down and rebuild.

An horribly positioned city that already have some districts and buildings is better than a city that you gonna have to build from scratch. If you keep the city, you gonna start generating yields from the get go and any production you generate will go into increasing that yields even further. If the city have a commercial hub or harbor, you get a trade route slot right away, not to count Wonders that city might have. If you raze it, it will take you several turns, a settler and some builders to start generating that same amount of yields. That's a lot of production/gold wasted just to get what you already had several turns ago. You're paying dearly to get a prettier city, basically

The only situation where razing make sense is in early game, if the AI settle on a spot that really screw your layout or that stop you from getting something specific (ex: production bonus for building districts across a river, while playing as Hungary). As you advance in the game, razing to settle another city is less and less valuable, eventually it just becomes a huge waste.

That is your opinion not fact. If I see that by moving a city 1 tile over by razing an enemy city over the long haul it will be a much better city why wouldn't I?

Yes early game is where you want to do this as you said, but a crappy placed city is a crappy placed city. Do you want one in all desert after petra was built somewhere else? You want one surrounded in all tundra if your not Canada?

[Tree Diagram]

It makes far more sense to raze a city that often doesn't take district placement or resource coverage into account and replace it with one that actually takes the mechanics into consideration. I can take a brand new city in the industrial age and with a little planning make it just as good as a city that has been there since the ancient era. Since you can't get rid of districts once they are placed a bad district is a bad district forever. A bad city is a bad city for the entire game. Burn it down and make a good city instead.

[kbmodigity]

Originally posted by Tree Diagram:

It makes far more sense to raze a city that often doesn't take district placement or resource coverage into account and replace it with one that actually takes the mechanics into consideration. I can take a brand new city in the industrial age and with a little planning make it just as good as a city that has been there since the ancient era. Since you can't get rid of districts once they are placed a bad district is a bad district forever. A bad city is a bad city for the entire game. Burn it down and make a good city instead.

Amen

[gimmethegepgun]

Originally posted by kbmodigity:

That is your opinion not fact. If I see that by moving a city 1 tile over by razing an enemy city over the long haul it will be a much better city why wouldn't I?

With the amount of yields you would've gotten from the city combined with the amount of stuff you need to put in to get back what was lost you very likely will never make up the loss by the end of the game.

Do you want one in all desert after petra was built somewhere else? You want one surrounded in all tundra if your not Canada?

A city in a garbage location with several districts is still going to be a pretty good city with little reason to burn it down. One time I had one of my better cities just sitting on a coastline surrounded by nothing but snow. The coast gave plenty enough food and then the snow was just covered over in districts and it was great.

[leandrombraz]

The way Civ VI works, one crappy city with a district that give yields already paid for itself, mostly if the district is a commercial hub or harbor, which also give you a trade route. so what matter isn't where the city was placed but what was built in it.

Flat desert cities are bad, if the desert city has hills, you can make it work because of trade routes. You can also use some city state improvements to improve flat desert tiles, so it give you something. Tundra cities are good after you unlock the ability to plant woods.

[leandrombraz]

Originally posted by Tree Diagram:

It makes far more sense to raze a city that often doesn't take district placement or resource coverage into account and replace it with one that actually takes the mechanics into consideration. I can take a brand new city in the industrial age and with a little planning make it just as good as a city that has been there since the ancient era. Since you can't get rid of districts once they are placed a bad district is a bad district forever. A bad city is a bad city for the entire game. Burn it down and make a good city instead.

A district you conquered don't need to have adjacency to be worth keeping. You still get yields from buildings, city states, great people points and you can give it some adjacent by building more districts around it. What matter is that you got a district for free, which is even better if it already has buildings.

[Tree Diagram]

Originally posted by leandrombraz:

Originally posted by Tree Diagram:

It makes far more sense to raze a city that often doesn't take district placement or resource coverage into account and replace it with one that actually takes the mechanics into consideration. I can take a brand new city in the industrial age and with a little planning make it just as good as a city that has been there since the ancient era. Since you can't get rid of districts once they are placed a bad district is a bad district forever. A bad city is a bad city for the entire game. Burn it down and make a good city instead.

A district you conquered don't need to have adjacency to be worth keeping. You still get yields from buildings, city states, great people points and you can give it some adjacent by building more districts around it. What matter is that you got a district for free, which is even better if it already has buildings.

Nah, it's much better to destroy it and rebuild. A free badly placed district is still a badly placed district. Even if it's a large city, it's worth destroying and rebuilding in most cases.

[gimmethegepgun]

Originally posted by Tree Diagram:

Nah, it's much better to destroy it and rebuild. A free badly placed district is still a badly placed district. Even if it's a large city, it's worth destroying and rebuilding in most cases.

How much production do you need to put in to rebuild that district? To rebuild the city center buildings? To rebuild the tile improvements? How much yield are you missing during the time it takes to do that?
How much food do you need to repopulate the city? How much culture or gold do you need to get the borders back?

Burning down developed cities wastes SO MUCH.

[Tree Diagram]

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

Originally posted by Tree Diagram:

Nah, it's much better to destroy it and rebuild. A free badly placed district is still a badly placed district. Even if it's a large city, it's worth destroying and rebuilding in most cases.

How much production do you need to put in to rebuild that district? To rebuild the city center buildings? To rebuild the tile improvements? How much yield are you missing during the time it takes to do that?
How much food do you need to repopulate the city? How much culture or gold do you need to get the borders back?

Burning down developed cities wastes SO MUCH.

None of that matters, I always have excess production and food and plenty of extra trade routes waiting to be used to move that production and food to a frontier town by mid game. As I've said, bad cities will never be good cities. That's just reality. A city with loads of production tiles/resources that the AI decided to turn into a religion focused city will never be as good as a city with production tiles surrounding an industrial district and (again) since districts can't be moved or destroyed or replaced those poor choices pull down the value of that city for the entire game. If I need a cultural center and the AI built an economic city then bye bye AI city. If I see a religious district surrounded by strategic resources and mines then bye bye AI city. What good is a military district built on the wrong side of your new city such that it can be ignored by a besieging army? This is the case 95+% of the time. You can't waste something that has no value and and AI cities almost never have any value.