Is there any way to destroy buildings if one feel that a city should be converted to another focus?
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...
"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)
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)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)
It doesn't.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.
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...
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.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...
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.Population is just "time" too.
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.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'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."changing 3 buildings in a city could take 9-12 turns which is a HUGE amount of time."
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.Not really, getting any additional structure for your city usually takes longer than that, even when cities are small.
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.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...
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.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.
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...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.
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.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.
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.1 Turn to Dismantle plus # Turns to build the new building type.
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.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.
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...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.
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?The players can not simply turn on a building for a single turn just to gets it's bonus then turn it off again.
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.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, 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.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.
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.Also one perk is not likely to sway the game at that point.
I do hate that. I think any conquered city should just be wiped clean myself. But... that's a whole other discussion .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.
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.THIS is the main reason people want to be able to destroy buildings so that they can rebuild their conquest