In the grand strategy of Civilization VI, the decision to raze a captured city is a fiery exclamation point on a successful military campaign. It’s a tool of punishment, a method of strategic denial, and often, a satisfying way to deal with a forward-settling neighbor. But what if this act of destruction carried a direct, immediate, and painful cost? Imagine a world where every city you burn to the ground instantly saps the life from your own empire’s heart: for every razed city, your capital loses one population. This single change would ripple through every aspect of gameplay, transforming the calculus of war, expansion, and even victory itself.
This hypothetical scenario fundamentally alters the cost-benefit analysis of military conquest. No longer is razing a simple matter of weighing diplomatic penalties against strategic gain. Instead, it becomes a profound sacrifice, trading the very growth of your core for the destruction of another’s. Player communities and strategy forums have long debated the merits of razing, but introducing a direct population cost elevates the discussion from a tactical choice to a grand strategic dilemma. This guide delves into the deep, game-altering implications of this scenario, exploring how it would reshape warfare, redefine victory paths, and force players to adopt entirely new strategic paradigms.
The New Calculus of Conquest: Rethinking Domination
Under this new rule, the path of the warmonger becomes fraught with a new kind of peril. A Domination Victory, which requires conquering the original capital of every other civilization, traditionally involves a wave of destruction. Players often raze poorly placed or low-value cities to streamline their empire and reduce loyalty pressure. However, with a direct population cost to the capital, this approach becomes unsustainable.
The Slow Bleed of the Capital
Many professional gamers suggest that a high-population capital is the engine of a successful empire. It generates science, culture, and gold, and it can produce units and districts at a faster rate. Losing population directly attacks this engine. Consider a typical Domination game: a player might raze half a dozen or more cities on their way to victory. In this scenario, that would mean a loss of 6+ population in the capital. This is a devastating setback, equivalent to losing multiple eras of growth. The capital’s production would plummet, its science and culture output would wither, and its ability to defend itself would be compromised.
A popular strategy on higher difficulties is to use early wars to cripple a neighbor and gain an advantage. This often involves razing a city or two to secure a better border. With the population penalty, this strategy becomes a double-edged sword. While you might weaken your neighbor, you would also be kneecapping your own capital’s development. The long-term cost could easily outweigh the short-term gain. Analysis on forums shows that players would have to be far more selective about their early-game aggression, only engaging in wars of conquest when the prize is a truly exceptional city.
The Rise of the “Puppet Master”
Instead of razing, players would be heavily incentivized to keep every city they capture. This would lead to a new style of domination play, focused on managing a sprawling, multi-ethnic empire. The challenges of this approach are well-known: loyalty pressure, amenity shortages, and the high cost of maintaining a large number of cities. However, these challenges are arguably less severe than the slow death of your capital.
This would make certain civilizations and abilities far more powerful. For example, leaders who excel at managing loyalty, such as Eleanor of Aquitaine, would become top-tier picks for a Domination Victory. Her ability to absorb nearby cities without a fight would be even more valuable when razing is so costly. Similarly, policy cards and governors that boost loyalty and amenities would become essential components of any warmonger’s toolkit. The focus would shift from a blitzkrieg of destruction to a more methodical and administrative style of conquest.
Strategic Adaptation: New Rules of War
The decision to go to war, and how that war is conducted, would be fundamentally altered. Every aspect of military strategy, from the choice of targets to the composition of your army, would need to be re-evaluated.
The “High-Value Target” Doctrine
According to the player community, not all cities are created equal. Some are strategically vital, boasting powerful wonders, crucial resources, or a prime location. Others are little more than resource drains. In this hypothetical scenario, the distinction between these two types of cities becomes paramount. Razing a city would only be justifiable if it is a truly existential threat that cannot be held or managed.
For example, imagine an enemy city that is a hotbed of religious conversion, constantly flipping your cities to a rival faith. If you cannot hold and convert it, razing it might be the only option to protect your own religious victory path. However, you would have to weigh the cost of one population in your capital against the ongoing damage of the enemy’s religious pressure. This creates a fascinating strategic tension that does not exist in the base game.
The Guerilla War and Scorched Earth Dilemma
A popular strategy for a weaker civilization facing a stronger invader is to use scorched-earth tactics. This involves pillaging your own tiles and, if necessary, allowing cities to be captured and then retaken and razed. In this scenario, this tactic becomes a powerful deterrent. A player could intentionally settle a line of disposable cities on their border, knowing that if an enemy captures and razes them, they will be weakening their own capital in the process.
This would lead to a new kind of defensive warfare. Players might intentionally create “firebreaks” of low-value cities, designed to be captured and razed. The goal would be to bleed the attacker’s capital of population, making them vulnerable to a counter-attack. This would be a high-risk, high-reward strategy, but it could be a viable way for a smaller empire to defend against a larger one.
The Ripple Effect: How Other Victory Paths Are Changed
The impact of this rule change would not be limited to domination-focused players. Every victory path would be affected, as the dynamics of war and expansion are so central to the game.
Science and Culture: The Peaceful Imperative
For players pursuing a Science or Culture Victory, the incentive to avoid war would be even stronger. These victory paths rely on a small number of highly developed, high-population cities. The loss of even a single point of population in the capital could be a significant setback, delaying the construction of a key district or the completion of a crucial technology.
This would make diplomatic and defensive strategies more important than ever. Players would need to invest heavily in their relationships with other civilizations, using alliances and trade to create a stable and peaceful world. They would also need to maintain a strong enough military to deter aggression, but without engaging in offensive wars that could lead to the temptation of razing. According to the player community, this would make for a more tense and politically charged game, where every diplomatic interaction carries significant weight.
Religion: A New Weapon in the Arsenal
A Religious Victory could become an even more attractive option in this scenario. Religious combat does not involve the capture of cities in the same way as military combat. You can convert a city to your faith without ever declaring war. This allows you to weaken a rival and spread your influence without risking the population of your capital.
Furthermore, a clever religious player could use their faith to manipulate the new razing mechanic. By converting an enemy city and then inciting a rebellion, you could create a free city that another civilization might be tempted to capture and raze. This would allow you to indirectly weaken a rival’s capital, all without firing a single shot. Analysis on forums shows that this kind of indirect, manipulative strategy would become a hallmark of high-level religious play.
Civilization and Leader Synergies: Who Wins and Who Loses?
The introduction of a population cost for razing would create a new tier list of civilizations and leaders. Some would find their existing abilities greatly enhanced, while others would see their primary strategies severely nerfed.
The Winners: Masters of Loyalty and Growth
As mentioned earlier, leaders who excel at managing loyalty would become incredibly powerful. Eleanor of Aquitaine is the most obvious example, but others like Tamar of Georgia, with her ability to gain envoys and suzerainty over city-states, would also see their stock rise. City-states would become even more important, as they provide a way to expand your influence and gain resources without capturing and managing new cities.
Civilizations with bonuses to growth and housing would also have a significant advantage. A civilization that can quickly grow its capital back to its former size would be better able to absorb the cost of razing a city. Leaders like Montezuma, who gains builders from capturing cities, would be in a strong position, as they could immediately begin improving the captured city and integrating it into their empire.
The Losers: The Razing Specialists
On the other side of the coin, civilizations that are designed around early aggression and razing would be at a severe disadvantage. Leaders like Tomyris of Scythia, who gains a combat bonus when attacking wounded units and heals upon killing a unit, are often played with a highly aggressive, city-razing style. This strategy would be far less viable when every razed city comes at such a high cost.
Similarly, civilizations with unique units that are strongest in the early game would be indirectly nerfed. The window of opportunity for these units is often short, and players are incentivized to use them to their full potential by going on the offensive. With the new razing penalty, the rewards for this aggression would be greatly diminished.
A More Deliberate and Strategic Game
The hypothetical scenario of losing one population in the capital for every razed city would transform Civilization VI into a more deliberate, strategic, and arguably, more interesting game. It would force players to think more deeply about the consequences of their actions, and to weigh the short-term gains of military conquest against the long-term health of their empire. The simple act of razing a city would be elevated from a tactical choice to a profound strategic sacrifice, with ripples that would be felt across the entire game. This change would reward careful planning, diplomatic acumen, and the ability to build a stable and prosperous empire, rather than simply a powerful war machine. While the path of the warmonger would not be closed, it would be a far more treacherous and costly one, reserved for only the most desperate or the most cunning of leaders.