Tomice
Passionate Smart-Ass
Only roads and railroads need maintainance! No need to remove tile improvements.
Disbanding buildings
- Thread starter Ahriman
- Start date
Only roads and railroads need maintainance! No need to remove tile improvements.
WeaselSlapper
Prince
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2009
- Messages
- 505
Well that's good to know, this game can be quite unspecific at times
Of course if you really want to remove an improvement you could send a solider and pillage the improvement
r_rolo1
King of myself
I'm pretty confused in the reasons that left firaxis to make people unable to sell buildings. This is a simple issue: if buildings cost money ( and worse, sometimes spend resources ), there needs to be a disband option. it is a balance issue ... think on this, it is the exact equivalent of being unable to disband units , especially units that cost resources.
Like i said elsewhere, i thinked firaxis already had learned that lesson with civ III... but it looks that it didn't
And for now we are forced to keep up with build decisions that aren't ours ( no, I'm not just talking of the puppet states ... even if you aneex a city right away , the city will still have builds made by the previous owner that might not be of your taste ) or even of your own bad decisions.
P.S I'm aware that for now the real penalty of puppet states is to not be able ( atleast without going through backchannels that should exist in the first place ) to control their builds, but that is not enough of a reason to not be able to sell buildings at all. others suggested that you could make another kind of penalty to disbanding buildings, like happiness hits and/or a hefty cash fine. IMHO it would work far better .
Like i said elsewhere, i thinked firaxis already had learned that lesson with civ III... but it looks that it didn't
And for now we are forced to keep up with build decisions that aren't ours ( no, I'm not just talking of the puppet states ... even if you aneex a city right away , the city will still have builds made by the previous owner that might not be of your taste ) or even of your own bad decisions.P.S I'm aware that for now the real penalty of puppet states is to not be able ( atleast without going through backchannels that should exist in the first place ) to control their builds, but that is not enough of a reason to not be able to sell buildings at all. others suggested that you could make another kind of penalty to disbanding buildings, like happiness hits and/or a hefty cash fine. IMHO it would work far better .
Tomice
Passionate Smart-Ass
Good points, R_Rolo!
Hadn't even thought much about conquest. But you're right. We have to stick with the city specializations the AI made, instead of using our own strategies. What's the point of a strategy game when I can't choose my strategy?
Hadn't even thought much about conquest. But you're right. We have to stick with the city specializations the AI made, instead of using our own strategies. What's the point of a strategy game when I can't choose my strategy?
First of all, they shouldnt build any military buildings. One thing is building things you wouldnt build and that's ok since there has to be a drawback. But another thing is doing buildings they can't use by design. That needs to be adressed.
If they stop building military buildings, Ill consider myself satisfied whith how they work
If they stop building military buildings, Ill consider myself satisfied whith how they work
