Does anyone else do this?

[Viking]

It`s a smart way to boost population, yes.
So far I haven`t found myself doing it other than disbanding a couple units of peasents so that the city got upgraded that turn and not the next.

[CMcMahon]

Hrm. I'm going to have to try that; I was wondering why you couldn't just simply force some of your people migrate your people from point A to point B, in order to colonize new territory.

[Marquis of Roland]

It also reduces cultural penalty if you send enough people from your cities that started off as your original culture. So say you're Romans and you have a rather rebellious gallic town, you can exterminate and then bring in a bunch of good Roman peasants from Italy to live there and you will no longer have a rebellious town.

[Kekvit Irae]

Exterminating Rome and bringing in some friendly Gauls is one way I deal with culture penalties ^_^

[player1]

Culuture penalty is only dependent from type of buildings you have (are their yours or of some other culture), so "colonizing" won't help it any way.

[Krauser]

After you've already taken a city is there any way to exterminate the population? Maybe leave and wait for them to revolt but is there an easy way to do it?

[Viking]

After you've already taken a city is there any way to exterminate the population? Maybe leave and wait for them to revolt but is there an easy way to do it?

Take out the garrison in that city, gift it away to an enemy, re-occupy it and exterminate.

Is that true? I've always wondered about tearing buildings down, especially their temples that I can't upgrade

Replacing a building from a different culture wit one from your own reduces culture penalty with 5%(more if there`s very few buildings in that settlement), if you upgrade the settlement you will remove something like 20-30%. I haven`t tested upgrading out good enough to give you a clear answer.

[Carth]

Culuture penalty is only dependent from type of buildings you have (are their yours or of some other culture), so "colonizing" won't help it any way.

Is that true? I've always wondered about tearing buildings down, especially their temples that I can't upgrade.

[Afro Thunder]

I use this method all the time whenever one of my cities gets more than 6000 people, that is until I have finished all the necessary construction for that city.

[Celt Centurion]

Is that true? I've always wondered about tearing buildings down, especially their temples that I can't upgrade.

This is Celt Centurion.

When I come into a town I have just taken over, I "usually" destroy whatever temple they have, and build my own. Warning, sometimes this results in an immediate getting thrown out on my buttocks.

I have also noticed that buildings such as "secret police" headquarters and the like actually have a negative effect on public order when it's not part of my own technology.

Taverns and the like from the barbarian cultures tend to result in "drunken" governors, no matter which faction they are from. I do without them, and often destroy them as well.

The only building along that line which I usually leave intact is the Greek influenced Odeum, Lyceum, Theater, whatever. I'm sure you got the point.

This may shock a few people, but usually, an Arena, or Coliseum does NOT help when I am playing a Roman faction. It just gives the "citizens" another excuse to riot if they are not having games often enough. This may shock a few people, but if I take a city from another Roman faction, the second building I destroy is the arena or coliseum. As a result, there are actually fewer riots.

There have actually been occasions when the "public order" symbol had a blue or red face, and when I destroyed the arena/coliseum, it usually turned yellow, and a few times, GREEN!

Just thought I would share that.