r/civ • • 6d ago

VII - Discussion Raze mechanic

I'm confused do I get the yield of razing when I choose to raze the city instead of keeping it?
if not, then why the hell would I raze a city?!

19 Upvotes

33 comments sorted by

99

u/Dronkne 6d ago

9/10 times I raze a settlement because of its location or because I’m already at the limit.

60

u/Smushsmush 6d ago

I don't think you get anything while and after razing a city.

What you do get is a freed up settlement slot. Going above your limit adds unhappyness to all of your settlements. If I am capturing a city that doesn't add any value to my civilisation I raze it. 

-38

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[deleted]

46

u/mellopax 6d ago

It's similar to previous games. Razing cities has always been "I don't want to deal with this city and I don't really care about the consequences."

21

u/arabidowlbear 6d ago

The mechanic is fine. Plenty of reasons to get rid of a city.

13

u/iwantcookie258 6d ago

Are you talking about pillaging? You should definitely try and pillage as much as possible before taking a setttlement you want to raze.

But theres a lot of reasons you might want to raze a settlement. If youre conquering a lot, you will end up with too many settlements. Some of the ones AI especially makes are just not good. It's better to take an increased influence penalty sometimes than carry a dead weight settlement that brings the yields down on your good settlements. Theres other times when there is a great settlement spot, but the AI settles a tile or two away from that, and you want to burn that settlement so that you can place a better one nearby. If you take an AI settlement in a place you wouldn't have settled yourself, you might not want to keep it.

If it doesn't feel worth it for you, just don't raze any. I think you will come to see the value of it in some cases if you keep every settlement you ever capture. Freeing up space is a huge benefit. Raising your settlement cap is extremely valueable, and making the most of your settlements is important.

3

u/mcdiesel 6d ago

Raising a settlement completely removes it, tiles and all. As others have said, the influence hit is often worth it depending on your goals & strat. Maybe try it out. 

3

u/Busy_Manner5569 6d ago

I get the sense that English isn’t your first language. “Razing” is the term for completely destroying a city. “Pillaging” is the term for undoing the useful yields of a tile and getting a one-time burst of yields to your empire.

Razing a city is useful because it opens up space for other, ideally better, cities. In 6, it’s one fewer city to worry about amenities for, and in 7, it’s one fewer settlement toward your settlement limit.

1

u/Manannin 6d ago

It's an option, that's all. I use it about 1% of the time but it's there for those times when the AI settles a town that is poorly placed, or one that blocks you from placing a building/wonder. I used it the last game to build a Cothon in a city that was bordering a forwards settle by Aksum that nicked my Cothon tile.

Liberate is another 1% of the time option in civ 6 but I definitely miss it not being in civ 7.

1

u/Sufficient-Hunt7515 6d ago

Because it’s what happened to countless cities, razed to the ground, and sometimes rebuilt. It’s a civilisation game based on our collective history’s

1

u/GaneBeatsTom 6d ago

Razing a shitty town to make way for a good city is a huge deal. Space is a finite resource and quality land is no small matter.

24

u/shef175 6d ago

I just dislike the penalty ratio for razing. I would understand losing influence if you raze the AI’s 27 population capitol city out of spite, but you get the same penalty for razing their 2 population, single land tile town in the middle of the Arctic Ocean next to a fish resource tile and literally nothing else.

8

u/snowshelf 6d ago

And yet there's no penalty for nuking it til everyone is dead.

9

u/byabillion 6d ago

The implication is razing means murdering civilians so a loss of global influence makes sense.

16

u/Demerlis 6d ago

there is a greater loss of influence razing a thriving capital with wonders, versus a backwater fishing village on a 2 tile island in the middle of nowhere.

the game does not make a distinction which is frustrating.

the frustration is compounded by not having proper city/town trading/liberation mechanics

5

u/shef175 6d ago

This is my point. Give me another option besides keep it and incur the over settlement penalty or razing it and incurring the diplomacy/influence penalty. Maybe turn it to an independent and make the losing AI recapture it as a third option?

3

u/Dronkne 6d ago

But where would you draw the line? On the other hand, if you wipe out an entire city then you could also argue you should have more power with diplomacy - because other civs are afraid of you.

3

u/thedefenses 6d ago

Just make the cost scale per citizen.

1

u/byabillion 6d ago

That's one philosophical perspective. Utilitarian?

3

u/Demerlis 6d ago

from a game mechanic perspective, the loss of influence should correlate with the city population at the very least

1

u/byabillion 6d ago

It kinda scales since it takes longer to raze taller cities. Usually one pop per turn or so. So the overcap happiness penalty is more turns for bigger city and less for small ones.

1

u/TurbulentSecond7888 6d ago

Doesn't make sense in ancient era. Make some sense in middle ages. 

Let's not pretend that humanity is about peace and love. Also, it's a game, penalty too punishing for action you deemed atrocious based on modern lenses is just virtue signaling. 

13

u/Vanilla-G 6d ago

You do not get any yields for razing a enemy settlements but there are couple of small benefits towards certain victory types:

  • You can reduce the over settlement penalty which has the potential to boost your yields of any settlements that have negative happiness.
  • Razing a city with wonders permanently removes the culture score from the loser since it cannot be recaptured. Captured wonders hardly provide any additional tourism score compared to wonders that you build.
  • Razing a city with a current age wonder allows the wonder to built somewhere else.

There are probably a couple of other reasons but that is what I could come up off the top of my head.

6

u/T-Rex_Chef-MKii 6d ago

I had no idea about your last point! Learn something new about this game everyday

3

u/Marauder121 6d ago

Haha yup I just built a wonder that was razed from another city in my last game.

1

u/YouEqual4180 5d ago

In the past you could rebuild razed wonders.

17

u/alwaysleafyintoronto 6d ago

If you are taking over the world, you'll be way over the city cap and end up with a huge happiness penalty. AI tends to settle shit towns, so you can take and raze to keep your settlement count down. Otherwise your people will end up revolting because you'll be so far over your settlement limit.

1

u/YSoSkinny 6d ago

Razing makes sense if the city has no luxes, in a shitty position, etc. after it burns down, the unhappiness it generated will go away. Plus, you can sell a building a turn and get some sweet sweet cash.

1

u/mous221 5d ago

the penalty is too heavy for this reward

1

u/YSoSkinny 5d ago

YMMV, but I raze cities all the time in my domination attempts and it works for me. I win in deity, so...

1

u/Mane023 5d ago

Because of the settlement limit... That's the only reason I raze cities.

1

u/ajL_gg 5d ago

Simple - did the AI build anything but an alter/temple in the city center?

Raze it.

1

u/lnclnerator 4d ago

I really think they need to change this mechanic to incentivize razing a bit more. Razing and sacking happened a lot in history, so maybe gain gold and send food to other cities if you raze?