• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Removable Buildings and infrastructure

Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
800
Location
Adelaide, Australia
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.
If only that was the only reason why I would abandon Civ6 games.
On the other hand, I abandonned quite two handful of them because "just bored".
Last Civ game I tried was Civ4. There, I realised that the boredom may have come from "too slow". (eventhough that's totally not the impression I keep from Civ4 multiplayer)
 
I like this idea a lot. In Civ3, buildings cost maintenance (gold per turn). When one conquers an AI city, one can either a) raze the city, destroying all the buildings (*) or b) keep it. If you choose "keep", you may go in and sell buildings that you don't want. The AI just loves to build unnecessary buildings, so selling them to save on maintenance costs is a good tactic.
Noting that Civ4 (and Civ5) changed the economic incentive. In those games, one paid maintenance on the cities themselves and the roads between them. It's been so long since I played them, I don't remember if selling buildings was allowed or not. In both Civ3 and Civ4, one could use worker turns to change the improvement on a tile -- convert mines into irrigation (Civ3) or convert farms into workshops (Civ4). Granted, builder charges were not a scarce resource in either of those games.

In Civ6, I could see wanting to demolish certain districts in a newly conquered city, to get cash or to re-use that tile for another reason. Say, I'm invading an AI which has not founded a religion; it would have no reason to build Holy Sites. But if I have founded a religion, I might want a Holy Site instead of an Encampment or a low adjacency Campus -- especially if I am pursuing a religious victory. Or a tundra city with low population where the AI started an Encampment, but it really needs a Harbor.

(*) In Civ3, razing a city also destroyed any wonders built in that city. Yikes!
 
That's a good idea. They should bring back the sell button not only for buildings but for districts as well.
 
Razing a city completely was actually pretty rare historically. That's largely because any city that has been around for any length of time is there because there are a lot of reasons to live there: food sources, trade routes, a good harbor, etc. Even Carthage, destroyed by the Romans and supposedly left without a 'single stone upon a stone', was occupied again within 20 years - a single turn in the Classical Era in-game!

On the other hand, 'Urban Renewal' is Prehistoric. I remember doing a site report on a city site in southwestern Anatolia: Beyce Sultan, which had 22 or 23 layers of occupation. Aside from foreign invasion, it is in a very active earthquake zone, so was guaranteed to get whacked, burned, crumbled almost every generation or three, and was rebuilt every time - and you can bet they did not just rebuild the same old buildings every time, either: Palaces, markets, and other public buildings got moved around, replaced, enlarged.

So, if Cv VII keeps the distinctive Districts, I suggest that, with suitable costs, you should be able to 'relabel' Districts into a different type and pull down and replace any Building in those Districts. This would also allow some interesting Upgrades to the city as opposed to the individual buildings: the old Granary of 3000 BCE in the middle of the city should be replaceable with a new Grain Elevator structure as part of a new District on the outskirts of the city, next to a Railroad or Harbor District for better shipping in of Food from all over. Or, replicate Paris or Saint Petersburg by turning the old Palace in the middle of the city into a major Museum (Louvre, Hermitage) when your government is a modern Democracy, Kakistocracy and the monarchial palace is no longer appropriate.

I don't think it would be such a bad thing to have some City (Re)Building as part of the greater game . . .
 
There are several mods on Steam (and here I imagine) that allow you to remove resources and districts

As well as ones that allow you to relocate districts
 
I think if we had to manage structures too, having to destroy them and rebuild them elsewhere or move them around for maximum efficiency... That would be even more headache than it already is with improvements and districts.
 
Top Bottom