Destroy buildings and districts

[kbmodigity]

Why on Earth is there no way to destroy buildings or districts? In real life buildings are destroyed all the time.

If I am in a situation where I need to make more money and deem some buildings with a maintenance cost not worth it I should be able to destroy them. If I start with a coal power plant but then after a while i have researched renewable energy and put enough solar farms down I should be able to destroy the power plant.

As for districts I should be able to destroy and rebuild in a new spot. With how specific some of the wonders are on where they need to be placed it makes no sense to not allow the districts to be rebuilt in a new location. If I am 30 turns into the game I am not thinking about a wonder that I wont be able to build for another 300 turns and also that needs to be on a certain type of tile and adjacent to a specific district. If I am going for a science victory and take over a city with a holy site I should be able to destroy it to use the tile for what I deem useful.

This is such a basic thing that should be in the game that isnt. I can see no justification for it either from a development standpoint.

Yes i know there is a mod to be able to remove districts but none for buildings. This is something that I shouldnt have to use a mod for in the first place.

[leandrombraz]

Originally posted by kbmodigity:

If I start with a coal power plant but then after a while i have researched renewable energy and put enough solar farms down I should be able to destroy the power plant.

If you have renewable energy, your city will use the renewable energy first and only then use the power plant. If you have enough renewable energy to sustain your city, the power plant won't be used for energy, it will give you production only (and science if it's the nuclear plant).

Maintenance cost for buildings is so meaningless it's barely noticeable. You can make way more gold than you will ever spend with maintenance. I can't imagine someone needing to delete buildings to improve their economy. The only situations where you might go broke in Civ VI is in really early game or if you're not counterspying in late game and there's a lot of spies eating your gold.


Some justifications for districts to be permanent:

- Civ VI give a lot of emphasis to planning and thinking ahead, so it's certainly by design that a lot of decisions are final. Yes, you need to plan your wonders early or rely on luck to find a spot;

- The ability to delete districts would be exploitable, since you could just delete everything before you lose a city, to ruin the city for your opponent;

- It's a function that wouldn't be used by any player on their right mind. Deleting a district would waste a lot of production, there's nothing worth wasting this kind of investment. Adding it and checking for bugs would be a waste of development time, mostly when there's already mods that cover this for people who wants it.

[LazyBone9]

removable districts by TC

it will be your new best friend. In the Workshop

[kbmodigity]

Originally posted by LazyBone9:

removable districts by TC

it will be your new best friend. In the Workshop

Thanks,, like I said,, i did find the removal districts mod,, were using it.

[tempest.of.emptiness]

Originally posted by kbmodigity:

This is such a basic thing that should be in the game that isnt. I can see no justification for it either from a development standpoint.

Being able to destroy buildings was a very exploitable feature of previous versions of Civ. It allowed a player to essentially ruin a city that they were about to lose to an enemy, essentially denying the enemy the reward that they had earned through victory. It also allowed an attacker to take a city that they wouldn't be able to hold, and then trash it before it was taken back, potentially ruining that city.

Civ VI eliminated those exploits by preventing the destruction of buildings and districts. (Being able to destroy districts would have made those exploits even more damaging, which may explain why they were removed in this version.) The unfortunate side effect is that you can't change your mind about district placement, so it is important to make the best choice the first time (subject to limitations). If you capture a city and it is just a complete wreck then you can fix it by razing and rebuilding it, but of course that comes with some diplomatic consequences.

[gimmethegepgun]

Originally posted by tempest.of.emptiness:

It also allowed an attacker to take a city that they wouldn't be able to hold, and then trash it before it was taken back, potentially ruining that city.

Though they did add the ability to instantly raze the city upon capturing it :/

[tempest.of.emptiness]

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

Though they did add the ability to instantly raze the city upon capturing it :/

Yeah, and that is even more crippling and exploit-y - but that's why they added the diplomatic penalty, I assume.

[kbmodigity]

Originally posted by tempest.of.emptiness:

Originally posted by kbmodigity:

This is such a basic thing that should be in the game that isnt. I can see no justification for it either from a development standpoint.

Being able to destroy buildings was a very exploitable feature of previous versions of Civ. It allowed a player to essentially ruin a city that they were about to lose to an enemy, essentially denying the enemy the reward that they had earned through victory. It also allowed an attacker to take a city that they wouldn't be able to hold, and then trash it before it was taken back, potentially ruining that city.

Civ VI eliminated those exploits by preventing the destruction of buildings and districts. (Being able to destroy districts would have made those exploits even more damaging, which may explain why they were removed in this version.) The unfortunate side effect is that you can't change your mind about district placement, so it is important to make the best choice the first time (subject to limitations). If you capture a city and it is just a complete wreck then you can fix it by razing and rebuilding it, but of course that comes with some diplomatic consequences.

What you are talking about has been done throughout history. In a war a faction knows they will lose some ground they will hold and thus destroy the assets there. Look in the Iraq Kuwaity war. Iraq took over and then when they knew they were going to get beaten back they lit the oil fields on fire. For you saying why it should not be it still makes no sense as it happens in real life.

[kbmodigity]

I mean if I have a city that supplies power to cities A-B-C but then I see a spot for a city that if I put down an industrial spot that will power cities A-B-C-D-E-F-G, why should I not be allowed to tear down the power plant in city A???

[tempest.of.emptiness]

Originally posted by kbmodigity:

What you are talking about has been done throughout history. In a war a faction knows they will lose some ground they will hold and thus destroy the assets there. Look in the Iraq Kuwaity war. Iraq took over and then when they knew they were going to get beaten back they lit the oil fields on fire. For you saying why it should not be it still makes no sense as it happens in real life.

Games imitate life, they don't replicate it. There are many things that happen in real life that Civ glosses over, ignores, or contradicts. It is a game. The goal is to be enjoyable and entertaining, not a perfect replica of human existence.

In the context of the game, what happened is Kuwait is simulated by pillaging.

[kbmodigity]

Doesnt mean its not stupid that you cant destroy your own buildings or districts.

[tempest.of.emptiness]

Originally posted by kbmodigity:

Doesnt mean its not stupid that you cant destroy your own buildings or districts.

It isn't my place to tell you how to feel about anything. I gave you a reason for it. If you choose to continue believe that it is stupid, then that's your prerogative.

[kbmodigity]

Originally posted by tempest.of.emptiness:

Originally posted by kbmodigity:

Doesnt mean its not stupid that you cant destroy your own buildings or districts.

It isn't my place to tell you how to feel about anything. I gave you a reason for it. If you choose to continue believe that it is stupid, then that's your prerogative.

Thank you, and I respect what you think. But we have differing opinions on this, thats all.

[alfaluso1956]

Originally posted by LazyBone9:

removable districts by TC

it will be your new best friend. In the Workshop

And where can I find that Mod that allows to remove a district?

[Aviator11]

Originally posted by tempest.of.emptiness:

Originally posted by kbmodigity:

This is such a basic thing that should be in the game that isnt. I can see no justification for it either from a development standpoint.

Being able to destroy buildings was a very exploitable feature of previous versions of Civ. It allowed a player to essentially ruin a city that they were about to lose to an enemy, essentially denying the enemy the reward that they had earned through victory. It also allowed an attacker to take a city that they wouldn't be able to hold, and then trash it before it was taken back, potentially ruining that city.

Civ VI eliminated those exploits by preventing the destruction of buildings and districts. (Being able to destroy districts would have made those exploits even more damaging, which may explain why they were removed in this version.) The unfortunate side effect is that you can't change your mind about district placement, so it is important to make the best choice the first time (subject to limitations). If you capture a city and it is just a complete wreck then you can fix it by razing and rebuilding it, but of course that comes with some diplomatic consequences.

I can understand how that would be an "exploit" but it is completely realistic and a real military tactic called scorched earth warfare, just the defensive use of that military tactic. Russia used it famously against Napoleon but burning down all their own resources and just retreating, they allowed the Russian winter to deal with them.

Personally, I have a city dying because I have 5 neighborhoods but only 2 farms for it so I need to get rid of the neighborhood districts and plant more farms because it's WAY too much housing

[General Eclectic]

Originally posted by Aviator11:

Originally posted by tempest.of.emptiness:

Being able to destroy buildings was a very exploitable feature of previous versions of Civ. It allowed a player to essentially ruin a city that they were about to lose to an enemy, essentially denying the enemy the reward that they had earned through victory. It also allowed an attacker to take a city that they wouldn't be able to hold, and then trash it before it was taken back, potentially ruining that city.

Civ VI eliminated those exploits by preventing the destruction of buildings and districts. (Being able to destroy districts would have made those exploits even more damaging, which may explain why they were removed in this version.) The unfortunate side effect is that you can't change your mind about district placement, so it is important to make the best choice the first time (subject to limitations). If you capture a city and it is just a complete wreck then you can fix it by razing and rebuilding it, but of course that comes with some diplomatic consequences.

I can understand how that would be an "exploit" but it is completely realistic and a real military tactic called scorched earth warfare, just the defensive use of that military tactic. Russia used it famously against Napoleon but burning down all their own resources and just retreating, they allowed the Russian winter to deal with them.

Personally, I have a city dying because I have 5 neighborhoods but only 2 farms for it so I need to get rid of the neighborhood districts and plant more farms because it's WAY too much housing

This post, is almost 2 years old... How in the world did you find it?