Why a penalty for razing afterwards?

[Torodeboro]

I am wondering why the game gives you the increase of social policy cost when you raze a city after you have puppeted it.

In a game I am currently playing with Japan I puppeted a city for strategic reasons, so my army can heal over there and can go on with the war when they are healed.
When this has been done I actually want to get rid of the city due to potential happiness problems.
I actually find it quite annoying that I have had to raze the city immeditiately to don't get the increase of socialy policy costs.

What do you people think of this and should it not be more attractive to raze cities afterwards?

 

[Cicerosaurus]

How would it work if you just gave the city away to another player?

 

[pilot00]

How would it work if you just gave the city away to another player?

Probably not so good cause eventually he might need to resiege it. I can understand where the OP comes from and it is quite an annoying oversight.

Liberation and razing should be options given at any time and not only when you capture the city. And if I might say so, even when you opt to annex a city you might want to reverse it and puppet it again instead. Sometimes I grow tired in dom victories having to manage 10 cities that right now are useless to me. Had them annexed only because I need to control them to expand the front.

 

[FeiLing]

Well if you never raze more than 1 city at each time it's not too much of a problem, as then your sp costs will never be more expensive than if you had 1 city more than you actually do have (unlike when you are razing for e.g. 3 formerly puppeted cities at the same time you'd permanently be up at x+3 cities sp costs).

 

[Browd]

I would argue its not an oversight. He chose to puppet the city to obtain particular short term advantages. The cost of those advantages included short term happiness hit and, when he later chose to raze (because the city was no longer useful), culture cost increase. Mind you, his next annexed city would be free of additional culture cost, so you can think of it as a "prepayment" towards his next annexed city (presumably the AI capital he is bee lining for).

 

[Torodeboro]

Well if you never raze more than 1 city at each time it's not too much of a problem, as then your sp costs will never be more expensive than if you had 1 city more than you actually do have (unlike when you are razing for e.g. 3 formerly puppeted cities at the same time you'd permanently be up at x+3 cities sp costs).

That's absolutely true. Sort of forgot that. If i am going to annex the capital or raze another city that will be 'free'.
Still I am wondering why you have to annex anyway to raze a city. It's not that big of a problem and it also gives some more strategic considerations, but still.

 

[pilot00]

I would argue its not an oversight. He chose to puppet the city to obtain particular short term advantages. The cost of those advantages included short term happiness hit and, when he later chose to raze (because the city was no longer useful), culture cost increase. Mind you, his next annexed city would be free of additional culture cost, so you can think of it as a "prepayment" towards his next annexed city (presumably the AI capital he is bee lining for).

The oversight is the mechanic and how it works. The oversight is the missing option to completely raze a city you own without annexing it first (puppeting IS ownage). Puppeting is puppeting, whatever benefits you reap are taken into consideration when you hit the button, razing is a completely different issue to annexing, it has nothing to do with benefit by using other options and as such should exist in a completely different context. After all you choose to forgo ALL benefits from now on (and not only what the city had but the effort to connect it to your empire and the surrounding improvements and GPT and effort paid before hand). Should you pay cultural penalties for healing in Allied territory as well?
If there was an actual cost for puppeting a city in the first place I would consider it just to pay it. Since there isnt and you choose to forgo a city by been forced to annex (BUT I ALREADY OWN IT!) and administrate it (BUT I WANT TO SET IT ON FIRE!) and pay the bill for long term benefits (BUT I WONT BENEFIT!) is bad game design.

And what about when you decide to stop the razing and automatically you annex the city without the option to return it into puppet status? Is that the developers magically knowing what I wanted to do before I do it as well? Nop, its bad game design.

TLDR: If you want to fly to Alaska from New York you don't go to Hawaii first.