Sell buildings, disband cities
- Thread starter ctiberius
- Start date
ohioastronomy
King
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2005
- Messages
- 714
This is especially true because puppet states can build lots of expensive buildings that you have to pay to maintain...meaning that you spend cash on things you didn't actually even build.
I thought there was an option in the city screen to raze that city. Can't be done on City State cities, or other players capitals though.
I agree though. Should be able to raze them. Let the AI rebuild on the rubble maybe.
And the inability to sell buildings is a little WTH too. Thought it would be an obvious thing to include.
I agree though. Should be able to raze them. Let the AI rebuild on the rubble maybe.
And the inability to sell buildings is a little WTH too. Thought it would be an obvious thing to include.
Then that would make the decision-making for buildings (and city-states) less important if you can undo. There has to be consequences.
Gath
Warlord
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2008
- Messages
- 221
You mean I should be stuck with a stupid temple for all eternity even when I'm broke? Why? I'm not stuck with my soldiers. Thats stupid.
hecubus
General Specific
Build a market? Build some trading posts? Or don't build the temple in the first place if you have no plan to pay for it.
Then don't make the decisions that would lead you towards bankruptcy. Even if you are broke, there are decisions you can make to gain a positive net income.
DalekDavros
Prince
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2010
- Messages
- 303
Why? Buildings are demolished all the time in the real-world. Should we sacrifice realism for the sake of sacrificing gameplay too?
Tomice
Passionate Smart-Ass
Oh come on! While I somewhat understood the guys who argued that SPs should be permanent, this is just plain stupid! A puppet builds some crap, and I have to live with it? Why? I specialize my cities, lose a few through war, now I can't change the specialization of the remeinaing to get a working empire again? Why shouldn't I build armories just for short-term use?
That's as much as not being able to change your weapon in WOW once you equipped any...
Selling buildings should be in the game. Razing hs own cities not so much.
I was right-clicking on buildings in the city screen hoping there was some secret menu for destroying them. If this was a usability test, that would be a good sign that the feature is missing.
If they cost maintenance, darn right I should be able to turf them. It's MY empire.
If they cost maintenance, darn right I should be able to turf them. It's MY empire.
Tavenier
King
Somewhat on topic. Does disbanding units gives some hammers to the city, like in Civs before Civ4?
dannythefool
King
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2009
- Messages
- 657
This is a hard one for me to decide. On one hand, you end up with cities that have improvements you don't want or that are plain useless (puppet cities that build military improvements, for example). On the other hand, this adds some depth to the actual decision.
In Civ IV, you had the same decision to make. Adding a city to your empire increased maintenance for all cities. But you could count on eventually balancing the effect by building improvements that make money.
Now it seems that in Civ V, you can't count on getting rid of all the negative effects of an acquisition. So the decision has more meaning. If you add a city, you are stuck with paying for it. Adding pointless cities is a much worse mistake. As we don't have to conquer every city for a domination victory anymore, we can actually choose to only conquer the key ones.
As I said, it's a hard decision for me to make which is better, I'm not trying to say one is better than the other, just some food for thought.
Oh come on! While I somewhat understood the guys who argued that SPs should be permanent, this is just plain stupid! A puppet builds some crap, and I have to live with it? Why? I specialize my cities, lose a few through war, now I can't change the specialization of the remeinaing to get a working empire again? Why shouldn't I build armories just for short-term use?
That's as much as not being able to change your weapon in WOW once you equipped any...
Selling buildings should be in the game. Razing hs own cities not so much.
I agree you should be able to at least destroy buildings, even with no money return (ie destroying it saves maintenance cost, enough reward) but if you're tired of puppets building what you can't control, stop getting puppets or raze them.
You can always raze a puppet even after annexing (unless it's a capital/state). The other solution is to sell them to the IA wich cant get you good amount of money. Plus in someway. Bye selling conquered city you can try to rebalance the division of power in the game (by selling to smaller civ for exemple).
