Puppet or Raze

[Numi]

Is there any real point in razing a city if you can just puppet it and not lose happiness AND gain all the other goodies?

 

[Le Roi Soleil]

Is there any real point in razing a city if you can just puppet it and not lose happiness AND gain all the other goodies?

Well, you will pay a happiness cost: the cost of the city, itself, as though it were a part of your empire. If you cannot afford that cost without going into negative happiness, then you should raze.

 

[Balkor]

There are many factors regarding this, the city could be placed in a very hard to defend or innapropiate area or it can have little usefull resources.

 

[iop]

I almost ruined my empire in my first game with puppets: The population cost can be crippling; also, you can't stop growth in puppets, so they'll quickly eat away your happiness that way as well (sure, they eventually end up building happiness buildings, but that's after you're at -X).

 

[Draknith]

In my first game (and only one thus far), I rushed the only other civ on the continent. I took three cities and made them into a puppet state. Thus far everything's been real good. However, you can turn them from puppets to actual cities of your empire when you want. This is what I plan on doing within the next few turns. That way I can begin taking control of what they are producing.

 

[Ahriman]

Do puppets really not affect your social policy costs, while still contributing their culture income? It doesn't feel that way, SPs are coming very slow with my vast puppet empire.

I guess there's an easy way to check when I get home: check culture needed for next SP, annex a puppet, recheck culture.