I should be able to destroy my own buildings whenever I want too, regardless

[Wabnosa]

I should be able to destroy or overbuild any building whenever I want. I should get to pick which building to overbuild. This game is great but there are a few restrictions that are unhistorical, unfun, and maybe stupid. Its not a good concept because you have to plan not just for this age, you have to plan for "ageless" buildings in the next 2 ages. Throughout history buildings, castles have been leveled to make way for the new age. Also the suzerain bonus buildings, I should be able to put them where I want. Arbitrary rules don't help me to make something I believe in.

 

[bumpyglint]

I should be able to destroy or overbuild any building whenever I want. I should get to pick which building to overbuild. This game is great but there are a few restrictions that are unhistorical, unfun, and maybe stupid. Its not a good concept because you have to plan not just for this age, you have to plan for "ageless" buildings in the next 2 ages. Throughout history buildings, castles have been leveled to make way for the new age. Also the suzerain bonus buildings, I should be able to put them where I want. Arbitrary rules don't help me to make something I believe in.

The problem with "canceling" building is that it would be incredibly easy to cancel all the buildings in every city that will be conquered soon. This would definitely become a meta "cheesy" annoying strategy.

 

[Uberfrog]

I think it’s fine to be stuck with a building for the age - it encourages thoughtful placement. But I agree that ageless buildings are usually dead weight in cities by the late game and you should be able to build over them. And of course you should be able to choose which building to replace.

 

[Melkus]

I kind of like that the system forces you into this kind of inefficiencies. (And I certainly don't need more clicks to build out my cities than I already have to perform.)

But there is indeed the issue of plausibility - why would I keep a historic granary close to my city center (where it was very useful in Antiquity), when I have a rail station, a grocer and farming towns that produce most of the food?

 

[UWHabs]

I kind of like that the system forces you into this kind of inefficiencies. (And I certainly don't need more clicks to build out my cities than I already have to perform.)

But there is indeed the issue of plausibility - why would I keep a historic granary close to my city center (where it was very useful in Antiquity), when I have a rail station, a grocer and farming towns that produce most of the food?

Yeah, this is the whole gameplay vs reality. Just because Paris opted for a sawmill 500 years ago in a spot, it doesn't mean it should be stuck there for all time.

When they first announced them, I sort of thought that stuff like the Granary, you would keep getting the yields for them in future ages, but that they would essentially obsolete like the other buildings. Like, to me it feels like any medieval town should basically default in all the yield bonuses from a Granary/brickyard/etc.. like how in earlier civ games when you did an advanced start you would just get those basic infrastructure pieces for free. Basically then the only real difference between warehouse buildings and others is that they have free maintenance.

 

[wesplaysciv]

The problem with "canceling" building is that it would be incredibly easy to cancel all the buildings in every city that will be conquered soon. This would definitely become a meta "cheesy" annoying strategy.

They can figure it out, maybe you can do it with your own military units but take some permanent war weariness penalty (like razing an entire captured city), or you use your own production, no penalty as long as you rebuild something there...

Didn't that kind of thing happen throughout history?

 

[King Flevance]

You should be able to overbuild ageless buildings. This would allow you to use them in the early game and relocate them in the later ages. I also think you should be able to choose which building to overbuild so long as both options were not built this age.

I would also like to see city production be able to remove/plant forests in the same way you repair farms or mines. That way grassland and plains are interchangeable between farms and woodcutters.

 

[StargazingDog]

I agree that ageless buildings should be able to be overbuilt. The more I play, the more arbitrary this design seems to be. Now I am specifically placing my warehouse buildings together just to avoid bad situations. I don't want to have to think about this.

An alternative is to differentiate between warehouse buildings and other ageless buildings. Warehouse should always be allowed to be overbuilt following the normal rules.

 

[playshogi]

If the buildings are ageless they should scale with age. Double yields in exploration and triple yields in modern.

 

[Krikkit1]

You should be able to overbuild ageless buildings. This would allow you to use them in the early game and relocate them in the later ages. I also think you should be able to choose which building to overbuild so long as both options were not built this age.

I would also like to see city production be able to remove/plant forests in the same way you repair farms or mines. That way grassland and plains are interchangeable between farms and woodcutters.

Well I would make an exception both for Unique Buildings and Wonders, since they can't get rebuilt.... which means specifically the Warehouse buildings

So possibly just have Warehouse buildings be in their own Category
Ageless (always has benefits, can't be overbuilt)
Regular Buildings (become "Obsolete" when out of the age, where they lose most benefits and can be overbuilt)
Warehouses (can be built in any age, go "Obsolete" if they were built in a previous age, so can be overbuilt, but retain their benefits even if Obsolete)

 

[Wabnosa]

The Civipedia doesn't seem to show future ages. So if your planning the placement of the Eifel, you just have to guess while you keep open that square in the middle of your city.

 

[bahamut19]

I've just been considering not to build the ageless buildings in most cities, just use them in towns. I'm going to try this on my next game to see how it goes.

 

[icon41gimp]

I think it's fine as is, you have to make the trade off decision whether the real estate is worth saving for later compared to the yields now. Can't just sim city with your eyes closed.

 

[Yzman]

Being able to remove old buildings gets rid of the point of buildings going obsolete but still having maintenance costs. Seems to reduce strategy. If you want to demo them, overbuild them.

 

[Krikkit1]

Being able to remove old buildings gets rid of the point of buildings going obsolete but still having maintenance costs. Seems to reduce strategy. If you want to demo them, overbuild them.

The issue is ones that you can't overbuild (especially Warehouses)

 

[franzacq]

You should be able to select which building to overbuild in each quarter if both are of a previous age. But I think any building should be able to be destroyed/moved by spending the production equal to, or a large percent of, what it took to originally build it. That would also solve the problem of spam-deleting buildings during a war, it wouldn't be possible.

 

[Krikkit1]

You should be able to select which building to overbuild in each quarter if both are of a previous age. But I think any building should be able to be destroyed/moved by spending the production equal to, or a large percent of, what it took to originally build it. That would also solve the problem of spam-deleting buildings during a war, it wouldn't be possible.

I think the buildings being destroyed and then repairable is OK. The only really serious issues are
Warehouses (because in big cities they can Effectively go obsolete)
and
AI unique buildings placed badly in conquered settlements

the second can be eased by improving the AI a bit
For the first, I think there needs to be a way to Relocate Previous Age Warehouses in Cities. (almost never any reason to in towns)
Perhaps if you want to put a building in a tile with a Warehouse from a previous Age, the Warehouse relocates like a Pop unit does.

 

[stealth_nsk]

We've discussed it in another thread. I think Firaxis idea was to not allow overbuilding of anything what could be built in the current era, including previous ageless buildings. But I'm not sure why not just allow to overbuild anything except wonders.

 

[UWHabs]

I think the buildings being destroyed and then repairable is OK. The only really serious issues are
Warehouses (because in big cities they can Effectively go obsolete)
and
AI unique buildings placed badly in conquered settlements

the second can be eased by improving the AI a bit
For the first, I think there needs to be a way to Relocate Previous Age Warehouses in Cities. (almost never any reason to in towns)
Perhaps if you want to put a building in a tile with a Warehouse from a previous Age, the Warehouse relocates like a Pop unit does.

When I first heard about the "overbuilding", I was thinking that it would be something more akin to the old building still being there on the tile to give you yields. So basically you are allowed 2 "active" buildings on any tile, but anything that's not active anymore still gives you an underlying yield. So if I overbuild my library, I should keep the +2 science on the tile for eternity. I don't know what the balance for maintenance on buildings should be, maybe obsolete buildings should be 1/2 maintenance from what they are now. So you do have a permanent penalty to them, but you also have a permanent bonus.

I kind of feel that would also solve a lot of these annoyances. In that case, you never worry about what you're overbuilding, since the new building just goes on the tile. A Quarter would be any district with 2 active buildings on it. The warehouse buildings would count as active in all eras, but you could still overbuilt the ones from the previous era, but they would still be around and give you yields. So if I build a Granary and a Library on a tile in the ancient age, if I build an Observatory on it in the exploration age, then it would be considered a quarter (Granary+Obs), but I could still actually overbuild the granary too while keeping its yields.

 

[Krikkit1]

When I first heard about the "overbuilding", I was thinking that it would be something more akin to the old building still being there on the tile to give you yields. So basically you are allowed 2 "active" buildings on any tile, but anything that's not active anymore still gives you an underlying yield. So if I overbuild my library, I should keep the +2 science on the tile for eternity. I don't know what the balance for maintenance on buildings should be, maybe obsolete buildings should be 1/2 maintenance from what they are now. So you do have a permanent penalty to them, but you also have a permanent bonus.

I kind of feel that would also solve a lot of these annoyances. In that case, you never worry about what you're overbuilding, since the new building just goes on the tile. A Quarter would be any district with 2 active buildings on it. The warehouse buildings would count as active in all eras, but you could still overbuilt the ones from the previous era, but they would still be around and give you yields. So if I build a Granary and a Library on a tile in the ancient age, if I build an Observatory on it in the exploration age, then it would be considered a quarter (Granary+Obs), but I could still actually overbuild the granary too while keeping its yields.

I prefer actually removing the obsolete building. It keeps things cleaner, and they can still store the info for Artifacts later.