Why would I want to raze a city?

Question

Whenever I capture a city in Civ 4 I am offered the option to raze it or install a new governor. I almost always choose to install a new governor - after all, why not start with a partly-built city rather than build a new with a settler? The only times I raze the city are:

• The city is so far from the rest of my empire that I have no hope of keeping it
• The city is so close to my existing borders that I would automatically take over its space if it were destroyed

Are there any other reasons I might want to destroy a city rather than take it over?

Answer 1

Cities are not free.

Each city you add to your empire increases costs by (I can't remember exactly which of these is right, maybe 2/3?) increasing general maintenance costs, increasing the cost of governments, or raising inflation. One of the costs at least is dependent on how far (unit travel wise) your cities are from your capital. Because of increasing costs, its possible to send your empire into an economic depression by expanding too quickly.

Some cities add nothing to your empire.

Early in the game you might take over a barbarian city. Barbarian cities spawn where no one else is, like Tundra, Jungle, and Desert. There's a reason no one else settled there yet, those cities just won't be worth your civilization's hard earned money or even your time controlling them.

Some cities are too dangerous.

Perhaps Egypt is on the way to a cultural victory, and you decide to stop them by taking their capital. Is that one city late in the game really worth the chance of Egypt getting it back and finishing their 3 legendary cities? Burn it to the ground.