Remove buildings from District

[Gorhaax]

This is mostly aimed at the Encampment, but is there any way to change from the barracks to the stable without destroying the encampment itself?

 

[criZp]

I dont even think you can get rid on a district like the encampment?

 

[SupremacyKing2]

No, I don't think so. The whole point is to give the player a meaningful choice. You can either get the barracks or the stable, depending on whether you want to focus on melee or cavalry units. Plus, it encourages specializing. You should have at least 2 encampments in your civ. One encampment can have the barracks and that city will pump out melee units, while another encampment will have the stable and that city will make your cavalry units.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

The question is if he can get rid of the Barracks and then build the stable.

There might be, you might have to sell off any Military Academy or Armory you have there first.

 

[criZp]

No, I don't think so. The whole point is to give the player a meaningful choice. You can either get the barracks or the stable, depending on whether you want to focus on melee or cavalry units. Plus, it encourages specializing. You should have at least 2 encampments in your civ. One encampment can have the barracks and that city will pump out melee units, while another encampment will have the stable and that city will make your cavalry units.

I don't really see why specializing needs to be encouraged.

Althought pulling a district apart and building another one would surely count as meaningful choice.

The question is if he can get rid of the Barracks and then build the stable.

There might be, you might have to sell off any Military Academy or Armory you have there first.

Where on the city screen do you sell stuff?

 

[fotonut]

This is mostly aimed at the Encampment, but is there any way to change from the barracks to the stable without destroying the encampment itself?

I had the same question about switching from Art Museum to Archeology Museum... Didn't see a way.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I don't really see why specializing needs to be encouraged.

Because making each city different from each other where one is a science city, one is a production city, one is a culture city etc is more interesting gameplay wise than having every city be exactly the same.

Although pulling a district apart and building another one would surely count as meaningful choice.

Why would you do that when you can just put a second encampment with a stable in a different city?

 

[criZp]

Maybe you dont need the encampment anymore?

 

[Browd]

There is no mechanic in the game to sell buildings.

 

[ExemplarVoss]

Because making each city different from each other where one is a science city, one is a production city, one is a culture city etc is more interesting gameplay wise than having every city be exactly the same.

Heh. My cities largely end up exactly the same. With just one district for each speciality, there isn't any reason to 'specialize.' I want as much commerce & industry as possible, and a couple science, culture and entertainment districts. Encampments and aerodromes are just more production, so go into the important cities.

 

[Mort_Q]

I don't see why the removal of buildings, or even entire districts, should be prohibited. The loss of the invested time and production is penalty enough.

If you really want to punish somebody, make it cost exrta production to rezone, or Builder Charges.

 

[Nefelia]

Heh. My cities largely end up exactly the same. With just one district for each speciality, there isn't any reason to 'specialize.' I want as much commerce & industry as possible, and a couple science, culture and entertainment districts. Encampments and aerodromes are just more production, so go into the important cities.

For those who spam more cities in less hospitable terrain, specialization is a must. As Russia, I may create a few cities in the deep tundra to spam more Lavras and faith buildings. After that I would likely build a commerce district and maybe a harbour to get more trade routes running. But certainly I would not be building an IZ, nor an Entertainment District. And why would I bother with an Encampment when I have a couple of those in my core cities? I could perhaps build a Campus or a Theatre Square, since I tend to not build enough of those in my core cities.

 

[ExemplarVoss]

For those who spam more cities in less hospitable terrain, specialization is a must. As Russia, I may create a few cities in the deep tundra to spam more Lavras and faith buildings. After that I would likely build a commerce district and maybe a harbour to get more trade routes running. But certainly I would not be building an IZ, nor an Entertainment District. And why would I bother with an Encampment when I have a couple of those in my core cities? I could perhaps build a Campus or a Theatre Square, since I tend to not build enough of those in my core cities.

You should be building an industrial zone. The primary reason I can see to build a terrible city in bad terrain is to buy a tendril back toward the core cities and build factories and power plants to radiate more production (and possibly amenities from entertainment districts) back to the core. The extra commerce is nice too, but I'd much rather have the production in the cities that matter. Otherwise, forgo the city at all and just build an extra scout and stand it out there to keep barbarians from spawning camps.