Razing a city

[Cheeky]

Is there a way to Raza cities? I know you get the option to do so when you capture the city, but is there a way to do it after that?

[Medium Difficulty]

Like in an "Abandon ship!" way when you know you are going to lose the city? I don't think so. It would be pretty broken to be able to just detonate a 2000 year old city after your opponent worked to take it.

[dred]

Is there an advantage to razing cities instead of capturing them?

[Popcorn]

a lot of the AI cities are badly positioned... or have overlapping zones of use. So, razing a city can be useful.

[Medium Difficulty]

Originally posted by dred:

Is there an advantage to razing cities instead of capturing them?

Actually yes.
-While most cities are able to handle themselves as far as ameneties are concerned, the odd one may be in too small of a space or just have no access. They will pull from your pool instead. If you are already lacking it puts strain on your well-off and producing cities and can lead to rebels if the war has been long-lasting and costly.
-Occupied cities do not grow and only produce as a reduced rate. They stay "occupied" until peace is declared between the warring parties. Fixing these up while still at war takes a long time or alot of gold. May be easier to just raze it and deal with the warmongering penalty.
-If you just bearly captured a city from an opponent who you know will come and re-take it, you can be spiteful and blow it up

[dred]

Originally posted by Hanith:

Originally posted by dred:

Is there an advantage to razing cities instead of capturing them?

Actually yes.
-While most cities are able to handle themselves as far as ameneties are concerned, the odd one may be in too small of a space or just have no access. They will pull from your pool instead. If you are already lacking it puts strain on your well-off and producing cities and can lead to rebels if the war has been long-lasting and costly.
-Occupied cities do not grow and only produce as a reduced rate. They stay "occupied" until peace is declared between the warring parties. Fixing these up while still at war takes a long time or alot of gold. May be easier to just raze it and deal with the warmongering penalty.
-If you just bearly captured a city from an opponent who you know will come and re-take it, you can be spiteful and blow it up

Thanks sums it up nicely.

[Linea]

Captured cities can be returned to previous owners or declared independent again, lowering or nullifiying the diplomatic impact of waging war or taking cities.
So propably your enemies might be more eager to declare war on you when you have cities that arent your own.

[Shinoskay]

I am so sick and tired of any 'raze cities' arguments getting muddled and 'har har you want to cheat' derailed every damn time now. I dont recall if you cant in civ 4 but in civ 5 and now civ 6 we have these toxic jerks who think its cool to come into any place someone is asking how to raze a city and suggest that the person who wants to raise is trying to avoid it being captured.

I am literally here because I have a city in a really annoying, and completely safe, spot. just two hexes from it is a really good spot but not only can I not put a city there because this one city is proximity blocking it but even if I could the two cities would compete for resources. it's a city behind defensive lines so nothing really is threatening it... meaning I cant just let it fall in a war. best I can do is gift it then get warmonger agro and go destroy it. thats not worth a city.

just because you play in multiplayer and someone hurt you by razing cities just before you captured them does not mean thats all everyone is thinking about. thats a you problem. I'm playing single player, i just want a good spot for my city.

stop being so freaking selfish by trying to accuse everyone of cheating every damn time the conversation comes up!!! cause im so tired of seeing that!!

[Medium Difficulty]

Originally posted by John:

I am so sick and tired of any 'raze cities' arguments . . .

you know this thread is over 4 years old right?

[Don Costro]

You can drop a nuke on it

[Hellhounfd3223]

Originally posted by John:

I am so sick and tired of any 'raze cities' arguments getting muddled and 'har har you want to cheat' derailed every damn time now. I dont recall if you cant in civ 4 but in civ 5 and now civ 6 we have these toxic jerks who think its cool to come into any place someone is asking how to raze a city and suggest that the person who wants to raise is trying to avoid it being captured.

I am literally here because I have a city in a really annoying, and completely safe, spot. just two hexes from it is a really good spot but not only can I not put a city there because this one city is proximity blocking it but even if I could the two cities would compete for resources. it's a city behind defensive lines so nothing really is threatening it... meaning I cant just let it fall in a war. best I can do is gift it then get warmonger agro and go destroy it. thats not worth a city.

just because you play in multiplayer and someone hurt you by razing cities just before you captured them does not mean thats all everyone is thinking about. thats a you problem. I'm playing single player, i just want a good spot for my city.

stop being so freaking selfish by trying to accuse everyone of cheating every damn time the conversation comes up!!! cause im so tired of seeing that!!

This situation sounds so stupid it's not even worth reading it all. You are clearly playing something that isn't meant to be played and taken seriously. You should leave. Like, for yourself.

[Hellhounfd3223]

Originally posted by Medium Difficulty:

Like in an "Abandon ship!" way when you know you are going to lose the city? I don't think so. It would be pretty broken to be able to just detonate a 2000 year old city after your opponent worked to take it.

Wow. I'm almost happy you are buying into civ6. Plz stay in this game, buy all its dlc, stay away from civ4 and prior. We wouldn't want you to leave your bubble, nor infect ours.

[Medium Difficulty]

Originally posted by Hellhounfd3223:

You should leave. Like, for yourself. /// Wow. I'm almost happy you are buying into civ6. Plz stay in this game, buy all its dlc, stay away from civ4 and prior. We wouldn't want you to leave your bubble, nor infect ours.

Imagine going out of your way to ♥♥♥♥ post on a 4 year old thread for a game you dislike. I expect your petty spite to carry you through the strange and depressing reality that is your life.

[leandrombraz]

Originally posted by John:

I am so sick and tired of any 'raze cities' arguments getting muddled and 'har har you want to cheat' derailed every damn time now. I dont recall if you cant in civ 4 but in civ 5 and now civ 6 we have these toxic jerks who think its cool to come into any place someone is asking how to raze a city and suggest that the person who wants to raise is trying to avoid it being captured.

I am literally here because I have a city in a really annoying, and completely safe, spot. just two hexes from it is a really good spot but not only can I not put a city there because this one city is proximity blocking it but even if I could the two cities would compete for resources. it's a city behind defensive lines so nothing really is threatening it... meaning I cant just let it fall in a war. best I can do is gift it then get warmonger agro and go destroy it. thats not worth a city.

just because you play in multiplayer and someone hurt you by razing cities just before you captured them does not mean thats all everyone is thinking about. thats a you problem. I'm playing single player, i just want a good spot for my city.

stop being so freaking selfish by trying to accuse everyone of cheating every damn time the conversation comes up!!! cause im so tired of seeing that!!

Well, that's a you problem =P

It doesn't work that way just because of multiplayer. Settling a city is supposed to be a meaningful decision, and you're supposed to live with the consequences once that decision is made. These are the rules of the game you're playing, if you don't like the rules, there's probably a mod that allows you to change it, so look at the workshop. Ranting on the forums won't help you, aside from getting answers that will be just as polite as yours. It is what it is, there's nothing that can be done to help you.

The best that can be done, aside from recommending to search the workshop, is to give you a tip. Civ VI is different from Civ IV and V. Cities competing for resources isn't a problem and it's even optimal to settle your cities close to each other. Settling your cities 6 tiles from each other, so they don't overlap, isn't a good strategy in this game, even though that might sound counter intuitive, since districts and wonders occupy tiles. Civ VI favors good city planning. You'll get more from clustering together your districts from different Cities, for example, than if you build then far away from each other.

[Shinoskay]

Originally posted by Medium Difficulty:

Originally posted by John:

I am so sick and tired of any 'raze cities' arguments . . .

you know this thread is over 4 years old right?

and yet still so relevant, it's been the same thing for years.

Originally posted by Hellhounfd3223:

Originally posted by John:

I am so sick and tired of any 'raze cities' arguments getting muddled and 'har har you want to cheat' derailed every damn time now. I dont recall if you cant in civ 4 but in civ 5 and now civ 6 we have these toxic jerks who think its cool to come into any place someone is asking how to raze a city and suggest that the person who wants to raise is trying to avoid it being captured.

I am literally here because I have a city in a really annoying, and completely safe, spot. just two hexes from it is a really good spot but not only can I not put a city there because this one city is proximity blocking it but even if I could the two cities would compete for resources. it's a city behind defensive lines so nothing really is threatening it... meaning I cant just let it fall in a war. best I can do is gift it then get warmonger agro and go destroy it. thats not worth a city.

just because you play in multiplayer and someone hurt you by razing cities just before you captured them does not mean thats all everyone is thinking about. thats a you problem. I'm playing single player, i just want a good spot for my city.

stop being so freaking selfish by trying to accuse everyone of cheating every damn time the conversation comes up!!! cause im so tired of seeing that!!

This situation sounds so stupid it's not even worth reading it all. You are clearly playing something that isn't meant to be played and taken seriously. You should leave. Like, for yourself.

no, you

Originally posted by leandrombraz:

Originally posted by John:

I am so sick and tired of any 'raze cities' arguments getting muddled and 'har har you want to cheat' derailed every damn time now. I dont recall if you cant in civ 4 but in civ 5 and now civ 6 we have these toxic jerks who think its cool to come into any place someone is asking how to raze a city and suggest that the person who wants to raise is trying to avoid it being captured.

I am literally here because I have a city in a really annoying, and completely safe, spot. just two hexes from it is a really good spot but not only can I not put a city there because this one city is proximity blocking it but even if I could the two cities would compete for resources. it's a city behind defensive lines so nothing really is threatening it... meaning I cant just let it fall in a war. best I can do is gift it then get warmonger agro and go destroy it. thats not worth a city.

just because you play in multiplayer and someone hurt you by razing cities just before you captured them does not mean thats all everyone is thinking about. thats a you problem. I'm playing single player, i just want a good spot for my city.

stop being so freaking selfish by trying to accuse everyone of cheating every damn time the conversation comes up!!! cause im so tired of seeing that!!

Well, that's a you problem =P

It doesn't work that way just because of multiplayer.

that is not just a me problem, a lot of people play single player. this game STARTED as a single player casual and i've been with it from the start, even played the playstation version.

that it's now built around multiplayer is whats actually stupid, and the real problem. Thats bound to be toxic, in fact it is toxic, people craft specific retorts to defend their meta rather than being truly objective and now we have posts like the op's across the internet wondering why the hell we cant do something so simple as raze a city in a bad spot without having to do three left foot hops, donning incense and spinning counter clockwise twice then clockwise once, before then singing praise to the sun gods to burn their city from the digital landscape.

and dont even get me started with the new unit veterancy system.

[Paladin]

Well, being able to raze your own cities in the face of having it captured does make sense. It's not like slashing and burning in retreat is a new concept.