Rezoning disricts idea

[Mort_Q]

Being able to rezone your city should be an option. The loss of the invested time and production is penalty enough. Make it cost production and time on top of that if you really need it to hurt.

 

[Roller123]

There is nothing on Earth that isn't reversible. This "mechanic" is just as dumb as the "you are not allowed to raze this city because we say so". The circumstances leading to these kinds of decisions are completely out of players hands and people who think they aren't are part of the problem. It's pretty much the same thing with skill points rerolls in RPGs and some people claiming to "just pick the correct skills". Luckily it's 2016 and most of not all rpgs have a reroll system now. Lets hope it doesn't take long before we get a "move a district" button.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I don't think you should be able to just MOVE it, no. Wreck it all down to nothing at a penalty, probably. Some people in here have given me reasons why that might be the wrong way, but I don't see why using a worker action/some other mechanic to remove an empty/uncompleted district should be so bad a thing.

Now granted the only time I noticed this and would have used it so far is in my first game when I didn't really know how things worked (even less than I do now, heh). I had zero build turns into the district when I wanted to change it, but of course no. Builders seemed to be able to clear every other kind of feature under the sun and I assumed it would work with district construction too . . .

 

[Roller123]

moving a district is exactly what happened in real life wars when a city was about to be conquered. As districts project some bonuses to neighboring cities and in fact it is an interesting mechanic in itself to arrange them in such a way that they form an optimal system to your future cities you don't know will even exist yet, placing a district correctly during stone age requires a psychic.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

What is the real life war in which armies picked up and moved city blocks full of large concrete buildings?

 

[UWHabs]

I would say:
-Before it's finished building, it should be free to wipe it away. You lose the hammers invested, and that's penalty enough. Would at least solve mis-clicks.
-After it's done, I'd suggest a military engineer should be able to clear things away, maybe only after researching a later tech. There are definitely times where I might consider building an aqueduct early, but by mid to late game you don't need it anymore, and now it's taking up a valuable tile. I mean, how many active aqueducts are there in the world anymore? Feels like it should be natural to simply raze it, and either throw a neighbourhood or something else in its spot. It's not like I get a massive benefit from doing that - I still lose the benefit of the district, and lose the turns it took. I guess you would need another mechanism in case if you've build a wonder that relies on the district, but if my civ decided to go atheist, maybe I should be allowed to plow my holy site into the ground.

 

[agonistes]

I don't think you should be able to just MOVE it, no. Wreck it all down to nothing at a penalty, probably

Maybe require using a builder charge to destroy a district, then having to rebuild, that is a hefty enough cost. I can't speak to faster games, but on Marathon, 100 turn districts are not unusual.

On a similar note, I wish we could rip out luxury and strat resources as well as bonus ones.

 

[Roller123]

What is the real life war in which armies picked up and moved city blocks full of large concrete buildings?

During WW2 the Russians moved their endangered industry from the western border to the holy Siberia. That's like half the globe.

http://michaeltfassbender.com/nonfi...sfer-of-soviet-factories-during-world-war-ii/

 

[CrispyCritter]

I agree that the suggestions proposed for razing a district are just wanting quick fixes to the player's own mistakes. They are very non-realistic and simplistic - the penalties suggested aren't anything like the real-life penalties of getting rid of your skilled businesses.

I could see something like moving a district might be do-able. The new site cost the normal building cost of the district, and both sites remain unproductive during the move - nothing else can be built on the old site until the new district is finished.

 

[sidiust]

Could trading your city away, then DOWing, pillaging the district and recapturing the city work? Or do you have to raze the city and start over from scratch?

 

[SammyKhalifa]

During WW2 the Russians moved their endangered industry from the western border to the holy Siberia. That's like half the globe.

http://michaeltfassbender.com/nonfi...sfer-of-soviet-factories-during-world-war-ii/

Fair enough-i thought of that example on my way home from "work" today. Though I think that'd be better expressed by "pillaging" for resources and building new elsewhere.
You're not going to just move a temple complex or a stadium district.

 

[MRM]

Nah, it's fine as it is. Without making mistakes how are you going to learn so you can do it better next game, or even next city?

I got the impression that repairing a pillaged district take longer then building a new one. So, what would be wrong with destroy a damaged distirct in order to build a new one?

 

[JosephC]

What is the real life war in which armies picked up and moved city blocks full of large concrete buildings?

Maybe not quite the same thing but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_of_Chicago. The last part of the article on relocating buildings is interesting.

Game wise, no I'd not be in favor of moving them. But I'm in favor of being able to take them down and rebuild them. The time when I would have liked to do this is after capturing a city, and didn't like where the AI placed their districts.