+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Destroying buildings

  1. #1

    Destroying buildings

    Is there any way to destroy buildings if one feel that a city should be converted to another focus?

  2. #2
    Lt. General Hassat Hunter's Avatar
    Majesty 2Warlock: Master of the Arcane

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,359
    The demo had a button for that (but it was greyed out) and it was mentioned in the beginners guide, but it's not in retail. Only option is to raze the city (button next to city name) and start a-new...

  3. #3
    It's discussed as one of the features of future patches instead of disabling buildings.

  4. #4
    Lt. General Hassat Hunter's Avatar
    Majesty 2Warlock: Master of the Arcane

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,359
    I've seen it mentioned as being a feature of future patches, yes. However where you see it is "instead of disabling buildings" I'm gonna need a link...

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Hassat Hunter View Post
    I've seen it mentioned as being a feature of future patches, yes. However where you see it is "instead of disabling buildings" I'm gonna need a link...
    http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...=#post13866893

  6. #6
    Lt. General Hassat Hunter's Avatar
    Majesty 2Warlock: Master of the Arcane

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,359
    "feature X doesn't work, so instead of fixing it we just remove it"
    Not to mention they both can work perfectly well together.

    I can see demolishing cost population and have a turn duration of [building time] for each building. You might not want that if all you want is a small cash influx for mana for just a turn or 3.
    (and of course I still think requirements should be taken into account. No destroying a library if that city has a wizard/cleric guild)

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Hassat Hunter View Post
    "feature X doesn't work, so instead of fixing it we just remove it"
    Not to mention they both can work perfectly well together.
    If there's no way to fix a feature, it should be removed or replaced.

    I can see demolishing cost population and have a turn duration of [building time] for each building. You might not want that if all you want is a small cash influx for mana for just a turn or 3.
    (and of course I still think requirements should be taken into account. No destroying a library if that city has a wizard/cleric guild)
    Yes, I agree. I think this will be much more strategical than hunting +/- gold with disabling buildings.

  8. #8
    Lt. General Hassat Hunter's Avatar
    Majesty 2Warlock: Master of the Arcane

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,359
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthnsk View Post
    If there's no way to fix a feature, it should be removed or replaced.
    Well, I don't know the technical side of it, but just allowing it on resource-exchange structures like I said already fixes any exploit there was. Doesn't seem that daunting a task to change... (from a player's perspective)

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Hassat Hunter View Post
    Well, I don't know the technical side of it, but just allowing it on resource-exchange structures like I said already fixes any exploit there was. Doesn't seem that daunting a task to change... (from a player's perspective)
    I mean the feature has conceptual conflict with idea of building upkeep. As we discussed in other thread, this may be not the case for pure resource building, but micromanagement for +/- gold is not important and usually considered bad thing by game designers.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthnsk View Post
    I mean the feature has conceptual conflict with idea of building upkeep.
    It doesn't.
    You can already disable any building. Then you pay no upkeep.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Gazz2 View Post
    It doesn't.
    You can already disable any building. Then you pay no upkeep.
    That's exactly what I meant
    Read the full discussion, please.

  12. #12
    Lt. General Hassat Hunter's Avatar
    Majesty 2Warlock: Master of the Arcane

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,359
    That's why I said don't allow it for buildings that are like that (generally recruitment and perk structures), only destruction there. The resource ones could still use the disable feature.
    Why have one, if you can have the best of both worlds.

    Destruction and building new buildings is also a type of micro-management after all. Delete fort (-1 gold upkeep), build whats-it-called again +3 gold structure (for a total of +4 gold upkeep). You have a hard time getting that kind of profit with turning off resource structures, so I don't see how it would be bad to keep in from a design point if demolition is in.
    It will just be one more way to keep tabs on your kingdom. Use it wisely and profit, don't use it, not that much loss. It would be there for people who want the max. gain. Why disallow that? Why, if they have 1000 mana, force them to remove that +10 mana/-4 gold structure instead of just disabling it, if future upkeep of spells cast and the cost of spells cast eventually get it low again?
    It really isn't that much micro-management. Disabling perk-structures for max benefit and least cost is, but that's obviously an exploit and should be gone... no disagreements there.

  13. #13
    The only thing buildings cost to make is TIME. Building upkeep is almost part of it's maintenance cost though. Like the smith for example, if you fire the blacksmith and close down the place to save on maintenance the building is going to fall into disrepair. Then you come back later an suddenly want to get everything up an running again instantly for free? I think it is to easy to abuse and would end up slowing down the game drastically when MP comes out as you have obsessive micromanagement types turning on/off huge section of their empire each turn to squeeze a few more coins out of their empire.

    I'm trying to think of any other 4x game that let you simply disable buildings for a few turns to save on cost and can't really think of any. If you couldn't pay upkeep the building was demolished. If you want to save on maintenance then you demolish it yourself.

    Since the only thing buildings cost is TIME then I think the only thing you should lose in destroying them is TIME. Ive heard they are considering a population cost for destroying them but Population is to important. There is no real reason to no allow tearing down buildings and rebuilding other stuff, or having a cost to tear them down. I have yet to hear a valid arguments against it.

    The only remotely valid thing I hear is tearing down low tier buildings while keeping the high tier ones. Besides the fact that this can already happen when capturing a city it is also easy to address. Simply don't allow lower tier buildings to be demolished until the higher tier ones have been done first. This solves the one and only close to valid point.

    As for tearing the buildings down I figure querying up a building for demolish just like you would for building a new one is the best way to go. Highlight the building on the map in Red or something so it's obvious to the player it's being removed and not built. Then it either takes 1 turn or number of turns equal to it's original build time. Up to Devs and balancing. Combine this with the fact buildings take 2-3 turns to make already then just changing 3 buildings in a city could take 9-12 turns which is a HUGE amount of time.

    So I don't see what the big deal is. Considering in most of my games I'm well on my way to winning by turn 100 and usually won by turn 150, I think taking 9-12 turns to retool a small part of a city a fair trade off. I play on Huge map, Great Land, and Impossible Diff. You could build a decent number of troops in that those 9-12 turns and lay waste to whole sections of land. So while your retooling the other players are still on the move. Time lost is enough of a penalty as is.

  14. #14
    Lt. General Hassat Hunter's Avatar
    Majesty 2Warlock: Master of the Arcane

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,359
    Yeah, the blacksmith turned out exploitable. So no for them, but still yes for the X for Y resource structures.
    As for not being in another 4X game, this one seems a lot "faster" than others of that kind. This kind of management fits right in there. That it isn't in another game isn't a reason not to have it. With that kind of mentality we only would get clones, not good...
    Population is just "time" too. It prevents switching quickly between various buildings, say +cash in the begin, then the upgrade variation for that special mapresource once you have enough gold to upgrade, then back again.
    Obviously (I think, as I agree) if you have a 'following' structure that's a requirement you shouldn't be able to tear it down. But some of those can become useless or a pain, like the library. Which is another good reason to keep disabling in aside from demolishing.
    "changing 3 buildings in a city could take 9-12 turns which is a HUGE amount of time."
    Not really, getting any additional structure for your city usually takes longer than that, even when cities are small.

    Also, I find it funny how everyone says that disabling should be gone because it is micro-managing cities and drastically exploitable in MP (why so, you have a slot which is esentially wasted), but then so very pro- just turning your city around into a very different purpose with just a few turns cost. How is that in any way LESS micro-management... or LESS exploitable. It's not... it's actually more management, and has far bigger advantages, making it impossible to ignore in MP, or you loose...

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Hassat Hunter View Post
    Also, I find it funny how everyone says that disabling should be gone because it is micro-managing cities and drastically exploitable in MP (why so, you have a slot which is esentially wasted), but then so very pro- just turning your city around into a very different purpose with just a few turns cost. How is that in any way LESS micro-management... or LESS exploitable. It's not... it's actually more management, and has far bigger advantages, making it impossible to ignore in MP, or you loose...
    Surely, the cost should be enough to not convert it to micromanagement.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Hassat Hunter View Post
    As for not being in another 4X game, this one seems a lot "faster" than others of that kind. This kind of management fits right in there. That it isn't in another game isn't a reason not to have it. With that kind of mentality we only would get clones, not good...
    Actually the point wasn't that it hasn't been done before so we shouldn't do it. It was more along the lines of there is a reason curtain things aren't done, and that's because they are too easy to exploit. I also brought up other 4X games in the hopes someone might actually know of one that had it so we could see how well it worked there or if it was just as exploitable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hassat Hunter View Post
    Population is just "time" too.
    Yes it is. But it's too much time as larger cities can take 10 or more turns to increase in population. If a city losses a pop every time a building is destroyed then the only cities I'll be using the option on is ones I capture to clear out junk buildings. Taking 10 turns plus the time to build the new building just to redo a single building in the town is too much. The larger the cities get the slower the population grows and thus the larger the penalty would be to scrap a building which is why it's a bad idea. Large cities can take over 20 turns to gain a population which at that point it's like why bother to scrap it because odds are if your economy is that bad that 1 building is going to make a major impact you've got more serious problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hassat Hunter View Post
    It prevents switching quickly between various buildings, say +cash in the begin, then the upgrade variation for that special mapresource once you have enough gold to upgrade, then back again.
    I think my suggestion would accomplish that quite well. It would take about 8 turns, 4 to switch to one and 4 to switch back, during which time they would not be getting any of the income from that building.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hassat Hunter View Post
    "changing 3 buildings in a city could take 9-12 turns which is a HUGE amount of time."
    I'd also like to point out looking at the game again I misremembered the figures. Only things like Farms, Craftsman and couple others have build time of 2 turns. The vast majority have a build time of 3 turns with a few higher end having 4 turns. That means the retooling of 3 buildings is likely to take 12-16 turns not the 9-12 I originally stated. 1 Turn to Dismantle plus # Turns to build the new building type. Again it all depends on which buildings are being swapped out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hassat Hunter View Post
    Not really, getting any additional structure for your city usually takes longer than that, even when cities are small.
    That's an ADDITIONAL structure which is completely different then simply changing some structures. Your basically arguing that changing some buildings in a size 5 size is fair exchange vs getting an extra building by increasing to size 6. Which I don't believe the two are comparable at all which is why I'm arguing population loss is not a reasonable penalty.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hassat Hunter View Post
    Also, I find it funny how everyone says that disabling should be gone because it is micro-managing cities and drastically exploitable in MP (why so, you have a slot which is esentially wasted), but then so very pro- just turning your city around into a very different purpose with just a few turns cost. How is that in any way LESS micro-management... or LESS exploitable. It's not... it's actually more management, and has far bigger advantages, making it impossible to ignore in MP, or you loose...
    It's not so much that it will be exploitable in MP as it will a drag on the game. People will have to wait on players taking the time to check their cities to make sure all the various buildings are properly turned on/off, which means turns will take even longer.

    As for how redoing your city is not as exploitable that is quite simple. The players can not simply turn on a building for a single turn just to gets it's bonus then turn it off again. They will have to plan ahead and potentially keep it up and running for several turns because the time to tear it down and rebuild will be longer then the time they will need to reactive it. So like with my system mentioned above it will take 4 turns to demolish and rebuild a structure, such as smithy, meaning if you need that bonus every 3 turns because of the units being built there then you have to leave it up if you want that bonus.

    As for exploit of changing out a resource building from production to perk bonus, I don't really see this as a problem. I have yet to play a game where having this ability would of made a bit of difference. The impact on your economy is so small, especially compared to the current ability to disable high upkeep buildings, that it's unlikely to make a difference. By the time you have the money to buy that perk upgrade odds are you have found another source of it and simply build the perk building there. That is what I've done in all of my games thus far. Resources are more important early on and perks once you have the resources sure but by then you've found extra resource nodes for the perks so there is little reason to need the switch over. Also one perk is not likely to sway the game at that point.

    The main reason people want the ability to destroy and rebuild structures is not for some mythical non-existent micro-management uber strategy. It's because sometimes you make a mistake and build the wrong thing. Or more importantly you capture an enemy city and it's got a few high upkeep buildings you don't want, need, and can't use taking up valuable space leaving your with the option to either just live with it or Raze the city and get a clean start. THIS is the main reason people want to be able to destroy buildings so that they can rebuild their conquest. And since captured cities already take a major population hit losing more population for each building your tear down will make it so that the city only gets a marginal bonus using destroy buildings vs the raze city and using settler to instantly rebuild it at size 1.

  17. #17
    Lt. General Hassat Hunter's Avatar
    Majesty 2Warlock: Master of the Arcane

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,359
    Quote Originally Posted by Spyre2000 View Post
    Actually the point wasn't that it hasn't been done before so we shouldn't do it. It was more along the lines of there is a reason curtain things aren't done, and that's because they are too easy to exploit. I also brought up other 4X games in the hopes someone might actually know of one that had it so we could see how well it worked there or if it was just as exploitable.
    Not really. From what I gather most 4X games structures have a cost, not so much an upkeep, and have that permanently. So getting 4 mana would be just that, mana. So yes, it would make sense to destroy and rebuild if you want something else.
    But here with +3 mana, -1 gold having JUST a destruction system that means if I just want some extra gold for a few turns but not so much mana I need to rebuild my entire cities around every 5 turns. Don't tell me that doesn't take time for a player to do. So just quickly disable, enable is fine. In the meanwhile it acts as a "+0 building"... hardly as exploitable as some people make it out to be.
    As for the argument it takes too long, when forts, recruitment structures and perk structures no longer have disable, so just the resource units, it's not going to take long to find all (in)active structures and swap them to desired, even swapping to many cities (although hopefully the "going back to main city when clicking next" issue would still be solved).
    It wont be needed, but would be very helpful if you need additional mana, some gold, your research is done, or you just want a bakery build in advance, and rather keep it on backup when food gets scarce. All valid tactics, adding depth to the game. Don't take that away by needing to restructure your city for every such plan.
    The larger the cities get the slower the population grows and thus the larger the penalty would be to scrap a building which is why it's a bad idea.
    Or exactly the point. Scrapping a small mistake or change early on? Almost free. Restructuring a major city, major pain. Makes it still way more valuable to not use it but plan ahead, but in case you do use it you still have the advantage of lower cities growing faster, so it doesn't take as long as the new slot would have been. And if you *just* want a little less mana or research or so for a few turns, turn off instead of destroy instead...
    (of course you can't do that with, say, the one with the Magisters then, and demolishing does give +10 gold for the duration of rebuilding the city slot)
    I think my suggestion would accomplish that quite well. It would take about 8 turns, 4 to switch to one and 4 to switch back, during which time they would not be getting any of the income from that building.
    Still sounds rather fast. Against other players, 100 turns isn't the end of the game yet. Infact, the game will just begin as both players having "turn 100 power" turn on each other.
    1 Turn to Dismantle plus # Turns to build the new building type.
    I still think dismantling should take the same turns as construction. Citizen loss probably right away though, somewhat lessening the "loss" of an entire level. Depends on balancing, can't say yet if that really is needed.
    That's an ADDITIONAL structure which is completely different then simply changing some structures. Your basically arguing that changing some buildings in a size 5 size is fair exchange vs getting an extra building by increasing to size 6. Which I don't believe the two are comparable at all which is why I'm arguing population loss is not a reasonable penalty.
    It's both an additional structure you want. If you are demolishing one, obviously, you don't want it. So "you have to give up a building" isn't much of an argument. In most cases the replacement saves you on gold or mana, depending what you demolish.
    It's both really just an additional slot. And additional slots shouldn't be gained that easy...
    It's not so much that it will be exploitable in MP as it will a drag on the game. People will have to wait on players taking the time to check their cities to make sure all the various buildings are properly turned on/off, which means turns will take even longer.
    See my first argument about only a selection of structures having the on/off. It wont really take that long than. Remember I do agree no disabling the buildings which are an obvious exploit now, like the perk and recruitment (so they become "free" basically). That shouldn't be happening...
    And turning on and off wont happen that often that it would take so much additional time. Otherwise the same could be said for demolishing ("they have to check all their cities for what to keep and what should go").
    The players can not simply turn on a building for a single turn just to gets it's bonus then turn it off again.
    However if they do so for the mana structure, that means no mana. Yes, they gain +1 gold, but no -3 mana. That's a fair trade right. That would be the same as if they didn't have a building. Not having a building isn't an exploit is it?
    So like with my system mentioned above it will take 4 turns to demolish and rebuild a structure, such as smithy, meaning if you need that bonus every 3 turns because of the units being built there then you have to leave it up if you want that bonus.
    Well, as I mentioned, the smithy wouldn't be able to be turned off. Just production structures. I don't think people are really getting that point when they are all against me and keeping turning off for production structures. Obviously turning off the smithy, saving 2 gold, then turn it on just for 1 turn so a new unit gets the boost should be gone, I agree with that. However that shouldn't affect judgement on how well it would be for strategy, resource collection and planning if production structures still had a turn off button instead of needing to be demolished just to be no longer active for a small duration.
    As for exploit of changing out a resource building from production to perk bonus, I don't really see this as a problem. I have yet to play a game where having this ability would of made a bit of difference. The impact on your economy is so small, especially compared to the current ability to disable high upkeep buildings, that it's unlikely to make a difference. By the time you have the money to buy that perk upgrade odds are you have found another source of it and simply build the perk building there.
    Well, that exploit should obviously be gone. No doubt about that. And yes, the impact will be heavy on one's early economy. And in multiplayer, that's already half-a-game won. Not to mention in MP a second structure of the same kind would be much harder to acquire than the AI would allow the player, making it even more of an impact if possible.
    Also one perk is not likely to sway the game at that point.
    Perks add up. As one already obviously notices when fighting foes with heavily perked units. Now imagine when those enemies have the same... that will be the future in MP. And the amount, it will make a much larger difference than it does now.
    Or more importantly you capture an enemy city and it's got a few high upkeep buildings you don't want, need, and can't use taking up valuable space leaving your with the option to either just live with it or Raze the city and get a clean start.
    I do hate that. I think any conquered city should just be wiped clean myself. But... that's a whole other discussion .
    THIS is the main reason people want to be able to destroy buildings so that they can rebuild their conquest
    As stated, inventing Y to solve problem X isn't really a good solution. Solving X is. But yeah, destruction can still be useful. And powerful, hence the need to curve it.

    I just would find it very annoying if feature Z gets tossed out because of it, because while it has it's issues, it's really great to add depth to the game, strategy, keeping units in backup, not just the combat ones, and generally keep a tighter leash on your city if you so desire. Many people already complain about the lack of depth. I personally don't. But don't take away our options on what to do. On how to plan, to stategize, to get the most out of our cities...

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts