It isn't actually "applied twice" in C2C, there is a bug so that the gold you get is based on the hammer cost on normal gamespeed. The gold it says it gives is scaled by gamespeed while the gold you get is not. This modmod has fixed that bug.
Must be that the gold was based on the production cost of the building drawn from the functions that would tell you how much you needed to build it if you were trying to. I can see the logic in this and also how it might make it harder to audit how the value gets from pt A to pt B.
Hah! Cool!
Sure, I'll make it my next goal to complete.Is it possible to separate map, manufactured and culture bonuses in resource list (city screen)? My resource list looks like total mess in endgame save
I agree this would be highly useful.
The value of demolishing all buildings would naturally be subtracted from the abandon city cost under this set-up.
I'm thinking from a perspective of what would happen in RL. The AI using it for benefit can come later. I don't think at a return of 20% that there would be much selling off for gold... though maybe. And if you would just subtract the value of the buildings sold from the cost, that could still end up in later game settings either costing too much or too little - the balance would be tough. So better to limit how many buildings can be 'sold' for gain in a round.
So where is the money coming from for the building demolition? Are the employees doing that job supposed to not get paid? And monthly wages would be reflected in upkeep, though many buildings are assumed to pull a profit and contribute taxation.
Surely its a bad idea to keep building and then destroying buildings though? This kind of cycle would be better answered by expanding on the city's ability to manage crime. You'd really have to be in an impossible situation to improve your crime management to want to start selling off crime buildings, given many of them add XP, new unit options, a lot of compensatory gold, and more. The unit upkeep to control the crime is usually a profit for the city in the end, particularly when the crime has come down to 0 or less.
How is it more micromanagement to limit it to one per round so you cannot profit from sacking the city? Profiting from sacking the city is what I'm firmly against. Profiting from SOME reclamation from a building makes a little sense but not if you're abandoning everything in your wake.
You do pillage gold the moment you capture the city, so why should it be so lucrative to demolish the city after it is pillaged?
DH is the python king of C2C, and this is a python modmod.
The government system in C2C would not assume total control of all buildings. If a shopping center is there, it becomes naturally worked. If a Bandit's Hideout exists under governmental authority, bandits will use it (most not realizing whether state supported or not). So we must assume it is only by dismantling a building and its operations can it be 'removed' from the city. Which requires effort and labor and possibly some bureaucracy as well. In fact, the creation of a building should be seen as a bureaucratic effort of applying for and obtaining permits and such in addition to the actual construction itself. It is as much an act of the government endorsing the building if it's not a completely social program. Obviously, in Civ we don't have a system that declares private or national control over a building so some of this discussion would almost have to get into that.
Why would the government get the people's gold? It's supposed to be an administrative act to disband the city, not a hostile razing. The people are probably mad enough about that without you having to steal their gold in the process. It's more of an evacuation than a punishment.
