Keeping unique improvements/districts/buildings upon conquest.

cuso210

Warlord
Joined
Apr 6, 2012
Messages
124
How many of you would like this to be a feature? There is a great mod here in the forums called "Not so unique improvements" that lets you keep unique improvements upon conquest, but how many of you would like it to be implemented in the base game?
I've had games with these mod where I've seen cities with architecture both from conquered and conqueror, and it reinforces the idea of a multicultural empire. Letting districts and buildings be retained also makes some historical sense
What are your thoughts?
 

PhoenicianGold

Emperor
Joined
Jan 30, 2018
Messages
1,828
I have generally disagreed with the removal of uniques upon conquest, so I support this.

The biggest complication I see as reasoning for erasing uniques is that if players were allowed to benefit from other civs' uniques, it could make for some very broken gameplay that overly encourages warmongering over other playstyles.

The solution, to my mind, is keeping the uniques on the map, but removing or significantly reducing their bonuses upon conquest.

* Unique districts - function as regular districts.
* Unique buildings - function as their regular building counterparts.
* Unique improvements - provide no bonus, or provide a bonus roughly equal to a basic universal improvement. This would include CS improvements.

The aim here is to provide players with some cost-benefit to conquering cities with a lot of uniques. There shouldn't be any reason to renovate districts since they would function the same as if you built them yourself. But the more improvements a city has, the more one would have to consider all the dead land they would be acquiring and how much demolition might be necessary to make the land useful again.

The reason I would like districts to also retain unique districts as well is that you could then have a visual tracker of how a city has changed hands over the course of the game, and whether civs have anything to regain in reconquering them. It might even be possible to tweak district models that could combine different uniques, like say building a Grand Bazaar next to a Sukiennice, or a Marae inside an Acropolis.
 
Joined
Feb 5, 2017
Messages
660
Location
Minneapolis, MN
There shouldn't be any reason to renovate districts since they would function the same as if you built them yourself.

Most conquered cities the unique building of the former owner get torn down to make the point that the cities belong to the new owner. I agree it would be nice from a game perspective to be able to keep unique buildings but it feels like it should be tied to a mechanic like a policy or a government.
 

PhoenicianGold

Emperor
Joined
Jan 30, 2018
Messages
1,828
Most conquered cities the unique building of the former owner get torn down to make the point that the cities belong to the new owner. I agree it would be nice from a game perspective to be able to keep unique buildings but it feels like it should be tied to a mechanic like a policy or a government.

I don't think this is true at all. Defacement happened all the time, but not wanton destruction.

Even if it weren't historically accurate, neither is Civ VI. I'd mostly want uniques kept around for aesthetics; it always feels like something is lost when a unique building model is wiped from the map. One less interesting thing to look at.
 
Top Bottom