Conquering Cities

[Iconoclast]

When playing multiplayer, whenver you conquer a city you do not get the option to raze it. Is this no longer possible, or is there a setting to change to allow razing? War is kind of useless far from home if you cannot raze cities.

[Iconoclast]

Guess that's a no to pillaging a city?

[asleepathewheel]

you can always right-click and abandon the city

[Admiral PJ]

Its better to conquer a city and keep it a little while anyhow, it won't flip for a couple of turns even without many troops garrisoned.
You want to be able to see what buildings survived the takeover and its useful to have the expanded city boundary, so you can move troops out and in fast, even if its just a settler to put in place of that city.

I think ruins are a good idea, civ3 isn't a game based on graphics, if you had a game looking like quake 3 or 4 you wouldn't get the depth of gameplay.. designers only have a limited time due to economic money constraints.
The original terrain graphics do suck in general though, they should have done better with the forests and roads(though the wriggliness is nice)

[Iconoclast]

I understand why its good to keep cities, I am just not happy I can pillage them if I choose to.

[Mellian]

just abandon the city, jeez

-Mellian

[Iconoclast]

LOL, well ya but I want all them workers you get otherwise!

[Tassadar500]

Umm if you raze a city I dont think you get the workers.