To avoid discussing it in the Build thread, I'm opening this. I'm in favor of keeping the ability for the player to raze cities. And to demolish buildings as well. Sure the AI has no clue how to use this, but sometimes (as someone pointed out) it is better to keep the AI-placed city and demolish it later. Do the reasons matter? Maybe I don't want to risk moving in a settler into a contested area. Maybe I want to keep the city as a strong point right now, but it is in an inadequate location for later growth. Maybe I like the location, but sometimes I prefer my own UU and UB to those of the conquered civ (I play with the Assimilation option). Maybe I founded a city and later discover a resource that I want it to work, and it is just that one tile out of reach... To make the Abandon City option not an exploit, there need to be made a few modifications: -if the predominant culture (>50%) is not yours, then you get a "you razed our cities" diplo penalty with the owner of the most culture in the city. -there should be a nation wide temporary penalty for abandoning a city (small one, maybe 1 or 2 depending on size, for 5 turns on normal speed indicatively), "we cannot forget your cruel oppression" is a good one -when razing an enemy city (maybe only if running slavery, vassalage, or other appropriate civics), you should get the same amount of Workers as when abandoning said city (and this MUST be automatic for the AI as well when it razes cities) -in fact, even when abandoning your own cities, you should get Workers only if running the appropriate civics.