I wouldn't usually raze a city if I wasn't going to rebuild one of my own nearby or if my borders won't take over the area to stop other civs filling the cleared space.

Relatively small city + stupid location + not bothered about furious enemy = RAZE!!!

However, I've found Civ IV the AI is much smarter in placement of cities. In previous Civ games I focused my attention on making sure I rarely had any city overlap... in Civ IV city overlap doesn't seem as damning. Back in those days I'd raze cities all the time, so that they'd fit in my civilization layout.

But yeah, though I agree a few tiles is no problem, when AI cities are packed in on themselves far too much and when they build right up to your own borders it's definately time to get the torches out as well!

Another aspect is if you raze cities and keep later on the enemy civ. as satellite state it is preferable not to raze too much of his cities. My satellite states should be treated good to get as much as possible out of this relation as for example his votes for a diplomatic victory.

So it depends on the situation......

Cumatz

What would really be nice is if, sometimes, depending on the rival situation, when you try to raze a city you wind up with a Stalingrad 1942 situation: you get flipped to a tactical map, and your units get reprsented as sub-units (companies or maybe brigades). You then have to fight it out to take control of the city!

Course I would like there to be a tactical blow up map like in Forge of Freedom anyway. But then I'm always criticizing Patchaxis for being behind the curve on actual game play, though admittedly ahead on graphics!