Two things from civ5 that should be different in BE but aren't

[Magma_Dragoon]

When razing a city, we can scrap one building in the city per turn. This is stupid, automatically scrap all of them upon choosing raze. There is no fun in this tedium, and the reward is trivial.

Trade route destinations list is a mile long. Sometimes, I want to push food or production really hard into one city, and I hate scrolling through the list to find the one marked previous route. When a trade route ends, put the previous route at the top no matter how the routes are sorted.

 

[Mozzington]

Trade route destinations list is a mile long. Sometimes, I want to push food or production really hard into one city, and I hate scrolling through the list to find the one marked previous route. When a trade route ends, put the previous route at the top no matter how the routes are sorted.

Annoys me every time.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

When razing a city, we can scrap one building in the city per turn. This is stupid, automatically scrap all of them upon choosing raze. There is no fun in this tedium, and the reward is trivial.

Trade route destinations list is a mile long. Sometimes, I want to push food or production really hard into one city, and I hate scrolling through the list to find the one marked previous route. When a trade route ends, put the previous route at the top no matter how the routes are sorted.

The limit is so that someone can recapture it and still have something.

Perhaps razing shouldn't allow you to choose to scrap Any buildings.. but it will randomly scrap 1 (or 2) per turn.

 

[m15a]

When razing a city, we can scrap one building in the city per turn. This is stupid, automatically scrap all of them upon choosing raze. There is no fun in this tedium, and the reward is trivial.

I bet the devs didn't really consider selling those buildings as a strategy - not to say they didn't realize it was possible, but that it's not really an option by design.

I agree that it's not ideal, but you can just not do it if it's too annoying. like you say, it's a huge loss. As for a solution, I think it'd be good to disable selling altogether and then maybe give gold at the end. Or just get rid of the building selling cap altogether - what's the point of it anyway?

EDIT: I posted before I read the post above. Guess that reason for the cap does make sense. The game could still give you a bunch of money when the city is completely raised, but, at least to me, it's a small issue in any case.

 

[Lord Shadow]

I don't see what's the problem with it. As it's been said, the cap's in place so that the city can be recaptured and still have something left in it. The actual selling of buildings could be interpreted as taking the work to dismantle and capitalize on a structure's materials and equipment, as opposed to burning it down like you're gradually doing with the city itself. Could it be automated? Maybe, but it doesn't seem like a big deal.

 

[GhostSalsa]

The thing that should be different is disembarking these people flew 240950835 miles through space to another planet but they can't unpack off a boat in less than a year come on humans

 

[gunnergoz]

They don't have aircraft right away, either. It takes time to set up production facilities and perhaps adapt native resources to best use. I have no beef with it as is.

 

[Obbu]

The thing that should be different is disembarking these people flew 240950835 miles through space to another planet but they can't unpack off a boat in less than a year come on humans

Have you played Denmark in Civ 5?

Cheap movement embark/disembark gives them an insane boost to the ability to coastal raid.

Its a far more substantial change than you might think.

 

[m15a]

The thing that should be different is disembarking these people flew 240950835 miles through space to another planet but they can't unpack off a boat in less than a year come on humans

Honestly can't tell if you're joking.

If not, Civ has always had that level of abstraction where events of different time and spatial scales are mapped to turns/tiles.

 

[lordrune]

Honestly can't tell if you're joking.

If not, Civ has always had that level of abstraction where events of different time and spatial scales are mapped to turns/tiles.

Agree. It's always important to keep in mind that Civ is a strategy game. It's not, in any sense of the word, a simulation.

 

[Mustakrakish]

Scrapping buildings when razing?! Man, I never stop to learn new exploits in civ.

 

[ggmoyang]

Scrapping buildings when razing?! Man, I never stop to learn new exploits in civ.

It isn't an exploit, did you know you pay maintenance for buildings in a razed city?

 

[Gort]

If it's intentional, then it should be automated. It's annoying busywork to have to go into the city screen every turn to sell a building. It's a bit like how a city you're razing still asks you what it should build (completed in infinity turns and you didn't care anyway).

If it's unintentional, it should be removed.

In either case, I agree wholeheartedly with the OP that it should be changed.

-----

The trade route thing is a nice quality of life thing that should be in the game as well.

 

[omniclast]

Imo it was an unintentional exploit. You shouldn't be able to sell buildings while a city is in resistance, just like you can't do anything else.

Having them scrap all immediately wouldn't be great. Not just because recapturing it sucks but also because sometimes it's a good idea to partially raze a city, knock off a bunch of unhappiness but then keep it at 1 pop so you still get nearby resources and military benefits like airport and friendly tile heal. Generally I like to hold on to important buildings in that case.

The trade route thing is super annoying though. Would be nice if that was fixed. And maybe they could rank gold/energy routes in order of output?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Imo it was an unintentional exploit. You shouldn't be able to sell buildings while a city is in resistance, just like you can't do anything else.

Having them scrap all immediately wouldn't be great. Not just because recapturing it sucks but also because sometimes it's a good idea to partially raze a city, knock off a bunch of unhappiness but then keep it at 1 pop so you still get nearby resources and military benefits like airport and friendly tile heal. Generally I like to hold on to important buildings in that case.

The trade route thing is super annoying though. Would be nice if that was fixed. And maybe they could rank gold/energy routes in order of output?

That would be a good change... ensuring that you can't scrap buildings OR get asked what to build in a city in resistance (and razing cities should stay in resistance even if you stop razing them)

 

[Gort]

And maybe they could rank gold/energy routes in order of output?

You can already do this in Civ 5 (and in BE it appears, just none of the players I've seen so far have done it) - use the drop-down at the top. You can rank in order of highest gold, highest science, highest gold delta, highest science delta...

Easy to overlook though.

 

[Kyronea]

Wait, does razing cities no longer destroy them completely? I was under the impression the whole point to it was to get rid of a city site.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Wait, does razing cities no longer destroy them completely? I was under the impression the whole point to it was to get rid of a city site.

It does destroy them completely,(if you don't stop it) some people just want to make some extra energy from the process (scrapping some buildings While razing)

 

[Browd]

You can stop the razing process any time before the city disappears. The city will remain annexed, however -- you can't return it to puppet status.

Also, you can sell buildings in any non-puppet city any time you like, not just during the razing process -- it's limited to one building per turn per city and you can only sell buildings that have a maintenance cost (so no selling circuses, markets, banks, stock exchanges, hotels, free buildings from wonders or wonders themselves).

 

[Khaim]

The thing that should be different is disembarking these people flew 240950835 miles through space to another planet but they can't unpack off a boat in less than a year come on humans

I have often been asked: if we have traveled between the stars, why can we not launch the simplest of orbital probes? These fools fail to understand the difficulty of finding the appropriate materials on this Planet, of developing adequate power supplies, and creating the infrastructure necessary to support such an effort. In short, we have struggled under the limitations of a colonial society on a virgin planet. Until now.