Raze Building?

[Astasia]

Razing all the buildings in a captured town isn't really a negative, you already lose most of them, you just build them up one after the other until you get back to the city limit. It doesn't cost anything, just takes a few more turns. I'm not suggesting reducing the city to level 1. I'd also personally like a pop-up when you capture a city offering you the choice to keep the current race or convert it to your own, destroying all the buildings when capturing it would make this possible.

Also we are talking about soldiers, fighting in multiple wars, those silver weapons or nevril armors likely wont last very long without repairs or replacement and without the production building that can't happen right? So it makes perfect sense to me that they'd lose the perks. Likewise based on the amount of construction going on these wars take place over many years and your squads are probably getting fresh blood every once in a while, so it would make sense that buildings to train these recruits still exist somewhere in your empire otherwise they'd get inferior field training and the squad as a whole would take a penalty.

 

[unmerged(488216)]

I don't see the exploit in razing buildings. This idea has no funding, imho.

The perks are not maintained by the buildings but are given by the buildings (Enchanted Weapons, Gems, Training, etc.), losing them with the loss of the building would be illogical, in terms of realism as in terms of gameplay. What would be logical, would be that if you raze a building you could not give anymore the perk associated with it, that's all.

Why not losing all of your warriors when you raze or lose your warriors guild ?
BAMF ! They vanish because they care very much of their training room.

Beside that there's a lot of buildings that give no perk (farms, pubs, warriors guild, etc). Can we raze them ? No.

Maybe it should be balanced. For exemple, we could raze a building after X turns it was disabled (abandonned). But razing our buildings should be possible.

Even Temples. Maybe for them, we should fear the God's anger, the loss of the troops that serve him/her.

 

[unmerged(182689)]

It's worth mentioning that Helia grants a spell at 25 loyalty called Descending Fire that destroys a building on the map. It costs 45 mana and takes 2 turns to cast, and it only works on enemy buildings. If you're going to take an enemy city, you can use to to clear out some of the buildings you don't want, if it's that important to you.

 

[brifbates]

I don't see the exploit in razing buildings. This idea has no funding, imho.

Build building x on special tile, say elven bungalow, build 4 elven bowmen, burn bungalow to build casino for $$ to pay the bowmen and buy perks for them: result you have the units but the better building...

As it currently stands you have to actually make meaningful choices when you build buildings, freely allowing you to burn/rebuild at will allows too much cheesing to happen: darn, my minotaurs died, burn the labyrinth and build a palace to replace them, 3 turns later reverse the process so you can perk all the chaff out. While you will argue that since everyone can do it there's no exploit, the fact is the ai is not going to be able to be nearly as effective at using these sorts of exploits because they generally can't handle any sort of medium/long range planning.

I have no problem with the idea of allowing you to destroy any/all buildings in cities you capture, but once YOU place a building you should be stuck with it. (I'm also on board if people want to stop you from razing any city that you built and it turns out to be a mistake or to get around the no burning buildings rule).

 

[The Apprentice]

Because there is build time associated with all structures, raising and rebuilding even on special tiles wouldn't bother me. As long as the AI can apply the same tactic in the appropriate circumstance.

Come MP, if humans do this regularly it will just encourage sniping high level units even more. I would spend more resources to kill the bowman knowing it will be the last I see for 6-ish turns. (Have to destroy the building, rebuild the other, and then build the unit.) It's clear a lot of players would like the feature, and just as clear a number do not. It will be interesting what the Devs decide to do with their game.

Aren't interviews with Devs about future plans normal post-launch?

 

[Astasia]

BTW there's a loading screen tip about destroying your buildings. Something like "You can't demolish a building while a unit is standing in an adjacent tile."

 

[unmerged(488028)]

There is nothing wrong with being able to demolish buildings or raze cities. You can do it in most other strategy games. And who cares if a player destroys a perk-giving building after all of his units have the perk. If I buy a bag of apples at the grocery store and the grocery store burns down, my bag of apples won't magically disappear.

 

[unmerged(182689)]

There is nothing wrong with being able to demolish buildings or raze cities. You can do it in most other strategy games. And who cares if a player destroys a perk-giving building after all of his units have the perk. If I buy a bag of apples at the grocery store and the grocery store burns down, my bag of apples won't magically disappear.

I don't understand the reasoning that your upgrades should disappear if you lose the building that provided them. Ok, so suppose that these wars take place over the course of many years and you need replacements, etc. Does that not also apply to the troops themselves? It would make just as much sense for all of my Clerics to die or desert if I lose my Clerics Guild.