I would like an option to destruct a district and build it somewhere else. As you can see, I'd rather have the harbor district one tile to the east. It would be an option, and options are always good in strategy games. Getting +2 gold from sea resources and building the commercial hub an the jungle by the river is so much better.
Destructing and Rebuilding Districts
- Thread starter zyx
- Start date
TomKQT
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2010
- Messages
- 525
It would be great if you could destroy districts. Especially when you consider the sometimes very strict requirements on wonder placement, you can realise that a district is in a way and it would be beneficial to sacrifice it for the wonder.
Another use - when you capture a city which has a pillaged spaceport/airport district which you really don't want and you will never waste the time to repair it. Removing it would allow you to build something else (if already at the district population limit).
I cannot think of any reason why this couldn't be in the game. It makes sense (everything can be demolished in real life) and the penalty would be the wasted production (well, except for the captured city case, but I don't think it's too big "exploit").
Another use - when you capture a city which has a pillaged spaceport/airport district which you really don't want and you will never waste the time to repair it. Removing it would allow you to build something else (if already at the district population limit).
I cannot think of any reason why this couldn't be in the game. It makes sense (everything can be demolished in real life) and the penalty would be the wasted production (well, except for the captured city case, but I don't think it's too big "exploit").
RealAntithesis
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2016
- Messages
- 239
I agree we should be able to destroy districts. Perhaps Firaxis decided not to allow this because it would potentially conflict with various placement rules for Wonders. You could place a wonder that is required to be next to its respective district and then destroy the district. And then there will be a Wonder whose placement rules have been circumvented.
Yes, this sort of thing can be resolved in the game design, but Firaxis likely ran out of time like they obviously did with many other parts of the game so probably decided to just omit the feature.
Yes, this sort of thing can be resolved in the game design, but Firaxis likely ran out of time like they obviously did with many other parts of the game so probably decided to just omit the feature.
Ryika
Lazy Wannabe Artista
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 9,393
Not being able to move districts is generally a good thing in my opinion. I don't think it would lead to good gameplay if you had to figure out whether it's a good idea to move a district whenever a better spot has become available.
I'm all for adding a system that allows you to patch some of the errors you made though, maybe something that becomes very expensive very quickly, allowing you to move a total of 3-4 districts or so over the course of the game.
But then again, implementing that properly may be rather difficult if you have to catch all the weirdo-situations, such as a wonder requiring the district. May not be worth the effort.
I'm all for adding a system that allows you to patch some of the errors you made though, maybe something that becomes very expensive very quickly, allowing you to move a total of 3-4 districts or so over the course of the game.
But then again, implementing that properly may be rather difficult if you have to catch all the weirdo-situations, such as a wonder requiring the district. May not be worth the effort.
Aren't tile requirements and adjacency to mountains or rivers for wonders enough? I mean, why does a wonder have to be next to a certain district anyway? Does this add anything gameplaywise?
Losing the production and having higher building costs as the "new" district will be built later are enough drawbacks that building a district somewhere else won't be abused.
The only abuse I could think of is destructing a district and building another one ( e.g.: destructing a holy site for a campus ). But again this would add a new option. If the AI would place districts better, then there would be no need for relocating districts - I mean, the only reason to put the harbor where it is would be build two wonders left an right to the harbor - which should be no reason, as one could build one of those wonders in another city.
As you can change your cards, why not also your district placement?
Losing the production and having higher building costs as the "new" district will be built later are enough drawbacks that building a district somewhere else won't be abused.
The only abuse I could think of is destructing a district and building another one ( e.g.: destructing a holy site for a campus ). But again this would add a new option. If the AI would place districts better, then there would be no need for relocating districts - I mean, the only reason to put the harbor where it is would be build two wonders left an right to the harbor - which should be no reason, as one could build one of those wonders in another city.
As you can change your cards, why not also your district placement?
Similar threads
