Annoyed I Can't Modify Districts In Conquered Cities

[kamex]

Is anyone else agitated that you can't move or demolish the districts in captured AI cities? The AI tends to built its districts in sub-optimal locations or it may contain ones you don't want at all counting towards the cap. The only choice you have is to raze the whole city, which means I raze more than I should, which can be problematic as the warmonger penalty is huge. I'd like to see the option to remove unwanted districts upon conquest, but I have a feeling its not going to happen. This puts me off domination games...

 

[teks]

"I dont like AI placement." Haunting conquest perfectionists since civ1.

Maybe the AI will improve their placement a bit, but most players have found adjacencies to be too weak to bother with anyway. It'd be a little goofy to move districts around after conquest and also rather exploitable in some cases maybe.

 

[ShinigamiKenji]

I usually grow them until I can place the districts that I want. Usually a Commercial Hub and my victory district, so that's 7 pop, which isn't that hard to get.

 

[Browd]

Is anyone else agitated that you can't move or demolish the districts in captured AI cities? The AI tends to built its districts in sub-optimal locations or it may contain ones you don't want at all counting towards the cap. The only choice you have is to raze the whole city, which means I raze more than I should, which can be problematic as the warmonger penalty is huge. I'd like to see the option to remove unwanted districts upon conquest, but I have a feeling its not going to happen. This puts me off domination games...

You know you can raze a captured city and start over with a new settler at that location. A bit costly in terms of lost population, districts, buildings and improvements, but it is an option. (But, sadly, not for cities received in a peace treaty.)

 

[ShakaKhan]

I was under the impression that captured districts don't add to future district cost increases, which makes them an extremely awesome thing to get, no matter what type they are.

 

[joncnunn]

I was under the impression that captured districts don't add to future district cost increases, which makes them an extremely awesome thing to get, no matter what type they are.

Captured districts don't increase other district costs; but neither do the ones you build increase district costs. It's instead placed on percentage of the tech tree / percentage of the civic tree you've completed (whichever is higher) at the time you zone the tile for construction.

 

[Tamir Lenk]

I hate how the AI seems to always settle just out of range of natural wonders or puts a holy site one hex away from a better adjacency bonus. Even worse, the AI seems to build Petra in a city with only one or two desert tiles.

 

[Lanthar]

Wait, someone built Petra?

 

[isau]

I hate how the AI seems to always settle just out of range of natural wonders or puts a holy site one hex away from a better adjacency bonus. Even worse, the AI seems to build Petra in a city with only one or two desert tiles.

They do this mostly because their borders dont grow fast enough and they dont seem to buy tiles. If you increase the rate of border pops they do a little better. Not great, but better.

 

[ShinigamiKenji]

Wait, someone built Petra?

Petra is one of the few that gets built some time or another. Nothing as competitive as Stonehenge, but still I've seen it sometimes.

 

[kamex]

"I dont like AI placement." Haunting conquest perfectionists since civ1.

Maybe the AI will improve their placement a bit, but most players have found adjacencies to be too weak to bother with anyway. It'd be a little goofy to move districts around after conquest and also rather exploitable in some cases maybe.

I'm aware of the historic 'struggle' of AI city placement, but in previous iterations only the city centre (1 tile) was an issue, in Civ 6 there are lots of unmodifiable tiles due to districts, and even though I can raze regular cities I can't do anything with capitals. Civ IV you could raze anything.

You know you can raze a captured city and start over with a new settler at that location. A bit costly in terms of lost population, districts, buildings and improvements, but it is an option. (But, sadly, not for cities received in a peace treaty.)

Yes, I'm aware of that but as I said in the OP, you get a giant warmonger penalty for each city razed, making it almost impossible to manege your warmongering if you are bothered about that sort of thing, also you can do nothing with crappy capitals.

Another thing I've came across, is if I raze a non-capital containing a wonder, that wonder is then available to build again for all civs who meet the conditions rather than being destroyed permanently. Now I hope this is a bug which will be addressed in future patches, because otherwise in can skew the game in weird ways: Even if I consider rebuilding it to be an exploit and don't do it, i can't stop another AI from doing so which is weird from a general immersion point of view and gameplay balance point of view, especially potential big impact wonders like Petra.

 

[VeronicaCardican]

Meh. Petra!

Why not try this: Build Terracotta Army, lose city, reconquer and raze, build Terracotta Army again. And again. And again.

 

[FurballRocker]

I see it as adding some choice to the game.
When you capture a city with sub optimal districts or even general city placement you have to decide if the sub optimal placement is more of a negative than the positive you get from keeping an established city.

If the sub optimal city/district placement is that bad you can just burn it down and built it to your liking.

If their not that bad you want to burn down the city and start again then yes they could be better but you can't always have everything.

 

[joncnunn]

I'm aware of the historic 'struggle' of AI city placement, but in previous iterations only the city centre (1 tile) was an issue, in Civ 6 there are lots of unmodifiable tiles due to districts, and even though I can raze regular cities I can't do anything with capitals. Civ IV you could raze anything.

You weren't allowed to raze capitals in Civ V either. That normally wasn't a problem for major AIs, but there were numerous games in which I wanted to relocate city states by one or two hexes because not only was the city state in a very suboptimal hex in its own right, but it was preventing me from placing a city in an excellent spot.

Adjacency bonuses in Civ VI don't seem worth enough to be enough to raze a captured city whose center was in the correct spot but the districts weren't; but if deciding if the city itself was "good enough", a poor enough choice of district types could push the entire city towards the raze side simply from how much post conquest the city would have to grow to before being allowed to put the district types desired.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Its easy to change AI district placement.

All you need is
1. a settler
and
2. a decent amount of production

Steps.
1. raze the city
2. place the settler where you want the city center district
3. use the production to place the other districts where you want.

 

[ShinigamiKenji]

Its easy to change AI district placement.

All you need is
1. a settler
and
2. a decent amount of production

Steps.
1. raze the city
2. place the settler where you want the city center district
3. use the production to place the other districts where you want.

Everything is fine until you conquer their unrazable capital, or a Settler either takes 2456 turns to be built, or costs 9,845,174,521,000 gold (give or take)