What is the least useful building in RFC?

[blizzrd]

Which building is the least useful in RFC?

I never build most of these buildings in my cities.

 

[Úmarth]

Hospital; I never have a problem with health in late game.

 

[kbk]

Even hospitals and security Bureaus give you something. Maybe you need health in a specific city (where you built the iron works maybe?), or maybe you're too big of an empire to do research, so you want to do spying.

But bunkers; I could cut off both hands, and still have no problem counting to the number of times I've been bombed.

 

[Evil Ernst]

Well bunkers I haven't needed too many times but I still see them slightier more useful then Bomb Shelter though. Since I haven't seen any nuclear strikes at all so far in RFC, so my vote went to bomb shelter.

 

[KnightoftheStar]

Most of these you hit the UHV before you really need them anyway in most cases.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

Hopsitals and public transportation are crucial to large, 18+ cities (even with lots of health resources). I even build recycling plants if I can get to ecology.

I have never built bunkers or bomb shelters. I used to build hydro plants when I thought they would increase the power in the city. Too bad you can blow up the coal plants.

 

[memdee]

To be honest, I've never played a game of RFC until after Industrialism (due to long waiting time between turns...and due to my impatience) , so I never even had the chance to build most of these buildings.
So I'll go for monuments - whenenver I need culture badly (which is almost never), either I'm about to (or already have) research calendar, or I build a library, which has some nice side effects and doesn't get out-of-date.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

I disagree, monuments work wonders with getting to the large cross early, plus their cultural advantage don't expire (even though you can't build them any more after calendar). Libraries are way too expensive for culture, and until you get drama (Mongolians have other concerns other than drama initially), monuments are the best bet. Especially with civs that start with 2 or more population cities, whipping a monument may mean getting that 10% land area, that particular offshore fish south of Plymouth earlier when you're England, or that extra hill in the border between Germany and Russia that eventually turns out to be uranium.

 

[Norton II]

Nuclear plants: Of all the buildings listed, the nuclear plant is the only one that can actually hurt you.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

Coal plant: 50% more production due to power but unhealthy
Hydro plant: 50% more production without the unhealthiness (cancels out the coal plant)
Nuclear plant: 75% more production but small risk of meltdown and no unhealthiness

That would make getting uranium a much higher priority besides just for war.

Make security bureaus useful by making the risk of meltdown much lower if built in a city with a nuclear plant (?less sabotage).

 

[blizzrd]

I voted for Bunker. This gets the nod just slightly over Bomb shelters. If ever the AI has tech parity with me in the modern age, I am never worried about AI bombers enough to build bomb shelters (just build fighers instead), but I am sometimes worried about AI nukes.

 

[memdee]

I disagree, monuments work wonders with getting to the large cross early, plus their cultural advantage don't expire (even though you can't build them any more after calendar).

Oh, really? I have never noticed this. Thanks

 

[onedreamer]

I think Bomb Shelters, since the AI practically never builds or uses nukes and you can defend with SDI also. Instead, SDI doesn't work against air bombing, unlike bunkers, and the AI does make use of air bombing (although it was better at it in Civ3).
I find points against Nuclear Plants pretty weak also. I find it the most useful building of all listed except Hydro plant. It can be the only building in the list that MIGHT hurt you, but for the records the Coal Plant DOES hurt you. The meltdown probability is 0.1%. I build Nuclear Plants in any game I play to modern age in RFC and in any game in normal Civ, because they don't need access to rivers and you can't have always a city on a river, which incidentally means your health will already be low enough. From the game release (is it almost 2 years or more ?) I've experienced one meltdown, and it isn't worse than RFC plague, but it happens in one city only and 1 on 1000 times.
Anyways, if someone thinks to rebalance it, I would say just drop the Uranium requirement.

 

[Norton II]

I find points against Nuclear Plants pretty weak also. I find it the most useful building of all listed except Hydro plant. It can be the only building in the list that MIGHT hurt you, but for the records the Coal Plant DOES hurt you. The meltdown probability is 0.1%. I build Nuclear Plants in any game I play to modern age in RFC and in any game in normal Civ, because they don't need access to rivers and you can't have always a city on a river, which incidentally means your health will already be low enough. From the game release (is it almost 2 years or more ?) I've experienced one meltdown, and it isn't worse than RFC plague, but it happens in one city only and 1 on 1000 times.

That low? I was under the impression that it was higher than 0.1%. Searching the forums, I found posts from people who never had meltdowns and people who always had meltdowns; better IMHO just to avoid the issue. Of course, it's possible that the risk was reduced in later versions and patches, so maybe I'll try building a few at some point.

As for coal plants, I don't find the extra unhealthiness that much of a problem. My production cities are relatively low in population (20 or lower, depending on how many useful tiles I have), so health isn't much of a problem there. As for my specialist cities, production will never be particularly high anyway, so a power plant isn't a priority--I can either wait until hydro plants are available or do without.

 

[SadoMacho]

Anyways, if someone thinks to rebalance it, I would say just drop the Uranium requirement.

A fission plant without Uranium? No way!

Unless you have fussion.

 

[blizzrd]

A fission plant without Uranium? No way!

Unless you have fussion.

Only in New Zealand do they speak of fussion. Much like they also speak of fush and chups.

Everybody else speaks about fusion.

 

[Edungeon]

the embassy, other people build it for you =D

 

[say1988]

Hmm never built one myself, would rather have a unit wandering around, but they do come in handy when the others build them. At the very least they waste AI hammers.

 

[Metal Alloy Man]

the embassy, other people build it for you =D

Since when was a free building a bad thing?

 

[blizzrd]

When you actually have to build it yourself, it's a bad thing. Good point Edungeon.