dagriggstar
King
Buildings, districts (should they exist) and improvements should all be removable.
From a gameplay perspective, recently I lost a city to an AI, who proceeded to build a holy site in a terrible location, ruining my plans for a preserve. The fact I couldn't raze the city because it was originally mine, meant I had to keep the bad holy site. I abandoned the game.
Secondly, having permanent buildings/infrastructure/districts actually makes the game harder for the AI. The AI understands "I want x district, best place right now is location y" but doesn't understand future implications like "I am about to chop the rainforest here". So for instance AI Brazil will end up with districts with poor adjacencies because it chops its own rainforest tiles. If said infrastructure could move, then the AI doesn't have this problem (Aside from, y'know, AI rainforest civ cuts down it's own bonuses)
Thirdly, the appearance (or potential disappearance) of resources as the game goes on could (should) alter where the ideal placement of a building/infrastructure/district is. Play and adapt to the map.
Finally it would allow for a wider variety of buildings in the game. Buildings can be upgraded over time.
From a history perspective, I mean there are plenty of examples of stuff being torn down and rebuilt. Or just torn down for the materials to use in other projects.
I'm not too fussed about the implementation side of things (the main point is that buildings are removable but if you want some 'how might that look in game' stuff) for me
Improvements denote land intensive human activities, like farming, mining, pastures etc They take up an entire hex.
Buildings denote small structures like a water mill, granary, monument etc They are place on the corner of a hex (So each hex can fit 6 buildings).
Districts I would despecialise (no campus/industrial zone etc). Urban/neighbourhood 'districts' naturally appear when a tile is surrounded by 3 buildings, replacing any tile improvement there. Buildings that provide specialists can only be built 'on' these tiles (still on the 'corners').
Removing buildings gives a production boost to that city for that turn.
By untying buildings from districts we have more building 'slots' with more flexible placement rules. This leads to a wider array of building choices, allowing civilizations to specialise further.
We keep the idea of a city sprawling out with the urban/neighbourhood concept. Through this concept cities will evolve and different buildings will be ideal in different places. For instance a granary giving +1 food to two adjacent farms, loses one neighbouring farm to an urban tile, so the granary is torn down and replaced with a market (+1 amenity if adjacent to a farm but must be adjacent to an urban tile).
From a gameplay perspective, recently I lost a city to an AI, who proceeded to build a holy site in a terrible location, ruining my plans for a preserve. The fact I couldn't raze the city because it was originally mine, meant I had to keep the bad holy site. I abandoned the game.
Secondly, having permanent buildings/infrastructure/districts actually makes the game harder for the AI. The AI understands "I want x district, best place right now is location y" but doesn't understand future implications like "I am about to chop the rainforest here". So for instance AI Brazil will end up with districts with poor adjacencies because it chops its own rainforest tiles. If said infrastructure could move, then the AI doesn't have this problem (Aside from, y'know, AI rainforest civ cuts down it's own bonuses)
Thirdly, the appearance (or potential disappearance) of resources as the game goes on could (should) alter where the ideal placement of a building/infrastructure/district is. Play and adapt to the map.
Finally it would allow for a wider variety of buildings in the game. Buildings can be upgraded over time.
From a history perspective, I mean there are plenty of examples of stuff being torn down and rebuilt. Or just torn down for the materials to use in other projects.
I'm not too fussed about the implementation side of things (the main point is that buildings are removable but if you want some 'how might that look in game' stuff) for me
Improvements denote land intensive human activities, like farming, mining, pastures etc They take up an entire hex.
Buildings denote small structures like a water mill, granary, monument etc They are place on the corner of a hex (So each hex can fit 6 buildings).
Districts I would despecialise (no campus/industrial zone etc). Urban/neighbourhood 'districts' naturally appear when a tile is surrounded by 3 buildings, replacing any tile improvement there. Buildings that provide specialists can only be built 'on' these tiles (still on the 'corners').
Removing buildings gives a production boost to that city for that turn.
By untying buildings from districts we have more building 'slots' with more flexible placement rules. This leads to a wider array of building choices, allowing civilizations to specialise further.
We keep the idea of a city sprawling out with the urban/neighbourhood concept. Through this concept cities will evolve and different buildings will be ideal in different places. For instance a granary giving +1 food to two adjacent farms, loses one neighbouring farm to an urban tile, so the granary is torn down and replaced with a market (+1 amenity if adjacent to a farm but must be adjacent to an urban tile).