Occupy vs Puppet vs Raze

[Thalassicus]

When figuring out what to do with a captured city, here's a guideline:


Occupy - higher science output (good for big cities).
Puppet - better policy generation (efficient for small cities).
Raze - when short on happiness, and the city is very undeveloped.


What we consider "big" or "small" depends on circumstances of the game and our overall strategy. Small cities with important resources we need to develop might be more desirable to occupy than they otherwise might be. Puppets also tend to not prioritize happiness buildings, so it's sometimes necessary to occupy a city to rush Colosseums or Theaters in it.

 

[Tomice]

So what exactly is the disadvantage of having a puppet city vs. not having the city at all?

Sure, I'll probably have a happiness hit except for those rare cases where the puppet has a lot of happiness buildings. But in terms of gold it will usually benefit me (except it has high-upkeep buildings), and if I understood it right, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the puppet to actually lower your science, culture, production.... Right?

To clarify: By culture I mean the effective rate at which you aquire SPs.
Also, what about maritime food? does it "steal" food from your other cities?


As example, I have a city I only conquered to weaken an agressor. I wanted to raze it since I have no real need for it, but then I thought: "Why not leave it as buffer against his invasion attempts?" Better than fighting in my real territory I thought. So is it really only the happiness (and gold in rare cases) I need to sacrifice?

 

[Sneaks]

So what exactly is the disadvantage of having a puppet city vs. not having the city at all?

Sure, I'll probably have a happiness hit except for those rare cases where the puppet has a lot of happiness buildings. But in terms of gold it will usually benefit me (except it has high-upkeep buildings), and if I understood it right, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the puppet to actually lower your science, culture, production.... Right?

To clarify: By culture I mean the effective rate at which you aquire SPs.
Also, what about maritime food? does it "steal" food from your other cities?


As example, I have a city I only conquered to weaken an agressor. I wanted to raze it since I have no real need for it, but then I thought: "Why not leave it as buffer against his invasion attempts?" Better than fighting in my real territory I thought. So is it really only the happiness (and gold in rare cases) I need to sacrifice?

Happiness is the biggest reason I often raze. That being said, I also LOVE selling those crappy buffer cities to some cranky warmonger that does not like my neighbor. Instant gold, and it secures my flank.

One thing to keep in mind though, is that Puppet Gold pumps also mean easy trade route additions, for extra gold.

 

[Ahriman]

*edit*
nvm I have no idea why I wrote what I did, it was incorrect.

 

[Thalassicus]

Puppets usually have no effect on policy rate. They don't increase costs, and can add to income, but usually not. Culture buildings are destroyed upon conquest and the puppet does not prioritize culture, so the Liberty policy is typically the only source of puppet culture.

The only direct downside I can think of with a puppet is unhappiness. There's also indirect effects all cities have on AI attitudes. More cities means they consider us a bigger threat, and if the city is lightly defended they might be more likely to declare war.

 

[jacktannery]

What is the difference between occupying a city instantly vs pupetting a city and then occupying it once it has come out of rebellion?

I get the impression that the former is slower and has less impact on happiness. Is this correct? Or is there no difference?

 

[Thalassicus]

You always want to do #2. The city can't do anything while in resistance, so occupying it early increases unhappiness with no upside. I'm not even sure why they provide the option.