1.0.1.511 Puppets don't matter for 'need x in all towns', but towns being razed do

If you make a wonder like Oxford you need a specific building in all towns, a university in Oxford's case. Your puppets don't need to have them.
What I noticed, however, that if you capture a town and select to raze it, Oxford gets abandoned next turn if the razed town is still there - razing takes some turns, depending on the amount of citizens.

Yeah that is a pretty stupid game mechanic. A razed city should just be in puppet state - not temporarily annexed.

Wait.. I never realised you don't need Puppets to possess the University to build Oxford o.O

and I rarely ever raze :/ but that does sound like bit of an annoyance. But doesn't the progress reset once the city is razed (you start where you left off with the Oxford)

Well it does get more expensive (just like your SPs) and that does not reset to the point before you razed a city. For e.g. you have 5 own cities and then raze a captured one, then SP and natural wonder costs will forever be like you had 6 cities, even after the raze is complete. However when you raze another city after that or build another own one, there won't be another increase to 7 - it still will be like 6. That's the good news about it. However when you raze 4 cities at the same time, your status will be like 9 (!) own cities for the rest of the game, so it's highly advisable to not raze more than one city at a time, even if your happiness could support that.

FeiLing said:

. However when you raze another city after that or build another own one, there won't be another increase to 7 - it still will be like 6.

Click to expand...

So it sounds like the "total cities" variable only goes up, never down. Like every time you take or settle a city, it will count all of your non-puppet cities; if the number is higher than current "total cities", it will change it, but if it's lower, it will not.

Yeah, the way you just said it probably makes it easier to understand
That's how it works.

I don't think this is a bug. Though it could be.

Razing to me is a pretty extreme course to take, it means there is no chance to reclaim the city.

The added cost of treating it like your own city, complete with the extra unhappiness /without the courthouse is part of it.

As I don't raze cities at all, will the national wonder costs adjust itself after the razed city is gone or are you stuck at the higher hammer cost for having 1 extra city? If it doesn't adjust, that could be the bug. But kicking you out of a national wonder build during razing is IMHO, part of the cost of razing.

There is no logical reason why a city you decided to be unworthy to exist counts for a NW but a puppet does not. The devs were just lazy - it's a confusing unrealistic and unneeded mechanic - that would have been prevented if they weren't lazy. Imho the high unhappiness is enough disadvantage already - however if it turns out not to be enough, the disadvantages could be raised without confusing and/or pissing off the players.

PS: I'd probably bet on NWs keeping the increased cost, just like with the SP cost staying high after razing.

Dexters, I don't disagree with you if you're defending a (heavier) penalty for razing.

I remember Civ III was pretty off in this respect, when you nuked a town in Civ III you got a huge diplo hit, usually resulting in some other civs immediately declaring war on you. But the nuked city was at least still on the map.
At the same time you could wipe a whole metropole with 1000's of years history off the map in one go, simply by razing it, and nobody even blinked an eye?
This was hugely inconsistent. In any version of Civ you shouldn't be allowed to raze a huge city with a long history just like that without consequences in my view (for the record, it's those ugly in-between towns that the AI puts down later that I'm razing).

But any penalty for razing should be a suitable penalty, reflecting that you've been destroying culture or committing genocide or something. It should perhaps result in a diplo hit, or a loss of influence with friendly city states, or chances of rebellion in other not self-founded towns, you name it, but a management niggle when constructing a national wonder is hardly effective and an unlogical consequence.
The 'need x in all towns' rule has been invented for a different reason, we all know that.