How do Sell/demolish improvements?

[MattPilot]

Okay... maybe i'm just blind or stupid, but how do you remove a city improvement you no longer want?

I'm talking about the freakin coal-plant after you've built the nuclear plant or hydroplant?

Those 2 Sick faces from the coal plant suck!

[Locutus]

You can't. No reason to, you don't pay upkeep for it. Once you've built a coal plant, you're stuck with it, that's something you have to keep in mind when building one. There is either a tech or a civic (I forgot which) that removes the bad health from buildings though.

[Harovan]

Being stuck with a building, that gives you negative effects, but no benefit anymore, disappoints even IF there is a civic or technology later to remove the effect. There should be a possibility to tear down an old building - without compensation if need be - but it is bad game concept not to allow it. The same is true for the lacking plant forest feature. It should be expensive (just as reforestation is!), but possible.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Being stuck with a building, that gives you negative effects, but no benefit anymore, disappoints even IF there is a civic or technology later to remove the effect. There should be a possibility to tear down an old building - without compensation if need be - but it is bad game concept not to allow it.

Noone's forcing you build a Coal Plant though, you can always hold out for a Hydro or Nuclear plant. It makes that choice more interesting, I don't mind that at all.

The same is true for the lacking plant forest feature. It should be expensive (just as reforestation is!), but possible.

Most definitely not. That would create huge MM issues, which is exactly what we tried to reduce. The one problem there is that there should be an option to for worker automation to leave trees alone. This was an oversight and will hopefully be fixed soon.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Locutus
Noone's forcing you build a Coal Plant though, you can always hold out for a Hydro or Nuclear plant. It makes that choice more interesting, I don't mind that at all.

That is no excuse for a lacking game feature.

It is not that I want to exploit anything, or that I expect resources back when I tear the building down. I am fully aware, that I need to devote full construction costs for both the coal plant and the plant that replaces it. I am not far enough in my first game to know the effects myself. However, given I have a coal plant in a city, which gives me a production bonus, but a health malus, and I build a new plant with another production bonus, there are 2 good and fair solutions:

a) The new building overrides both bonus and malus of the old one. It might bring in its own malue if it has.

or

b) The positive and negative effects of both buildings stack.

Everything else is poor game concept.

Most definitely not. That would create huge MM issues, which is exactly what we tried to reduce. The one problem there is that there should be an option to for worker automation to leave trees alone. This was an oversight and will hopefully be fixed soon.

I don't understand. What MM issues would that create? Could you elaborate that a bit?

[Eli]

What huge MM issues? I dont remember any issues with forests in Civ3 or SMAC.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
That is no excuse for a lacking game feature.

It's not a lacking feature, it's a design choice. You don't have to like it, but that doesn't make it bad design (and you can always mod it).

I don't understand. What MM issues would that create? Could you elaborate that a bit?

Create Forest. Chop Forest (+30 Hammers). Rinse. Repeat.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Locutus
It's not a lacking feature, it's a design choice. You don't have to like it, but that doesn't make it bad design (and you can always mod it).

For me bad design is what I perceive as such. You are free to have your own opinion.

Create Forest. Chop Forest (+30 Hammers). Rinse. Repeat.

That is not MM, it is exploiting. It has been fixed in Civ3 in the very first patch. Each tile could produce the bonus only once. Why do a step back?

There would be other possible solutions, like have the forest consume the worker (stolen from Grumbold). The shields lost would be higher than the shields gained. Voilà - exploit gone.

Creating one-way situations (build coal plants, chop forests, ...) is always bad in a game. It would be equivalent to have in Civ3 pollution, but no way to clean it - you are always free not to build factories and power plants. Soren Johnson said before the game was released, that a lot of annoyances would be taken out of the game. Why create new ones?

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
For me bad design is what I perceive as such. You are free to have your own opinion.

The Vasa was bad design. Civ3 was bad design. This is a difference of opinion.

That is not MM, it is exploiting. It has been fixed in Civ3 in the very first patch. Each tile could produce the bonus only once. Why do a step back?

Because it was horribly unintuitive and made no sense at all.

There would be other possible solutions, like have the forest consume the worker (stolen from Grumbold). The shields lost would be higher than the shields gained. Voilà - exploit gone.

That could've been an option, albeit unintuitive and a newbie death trap. Soren thought this was the best option. Deal.

Creating one-way situations (build coal plants, chop forests, ...) is always bad in a game.

Again, a difference of opinion, not bad design. This is nowhere NEAR the level of annoyance (if at all, which is the case for many) as pollution and you know it

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Locutus
Because it was horribly unintuitive and made no sense at all.

You mean to eliminate the possibility to plant forest makes more sense?

That could've been an option, albeit unintuitive and a newbie death trap. Soren thought this was the best option. Deal.

You mean the construction of fish nets is unintuitive and a newbie trap too, because it consumes the work boat?

Nonsense.

Again, a difference of opinion, not bad design. This is nowhere NEAR the level of annoyance (if at all, which is the case for many) as pollution and you know it

I am by far not as annoyed when I have a bad situation and a method to counter it (planting forest... destroying a building... cleaning pollution...) than if I have a bad situation and no method to counter it.

And rolleyes make posts look way better!

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
You mean to eliminate the possibility to plant forest makes more sense?

Yes.

You mean the construction of fish nets is unintuitive and a newbie trap too, because it consumes the work boat?

Boat gives you a resource, forest loses you shields.

Who's talking nonsense?

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Locutus
Boat gives you a resource, forest loses you shields.

Along with giving you the desired effect of planted forest with a +health bonus perhaps? A fair trade if you ask me. And like with the work boat, a warning in red letters "this action will consume the unit" would suffice.

Stop making up nonsense.

Who's talking nonsense?

You do. Let's look at this thread post by post:

- I say, that planting forest should be expensive (for obvious reasons - I know the exploit in Civ3 well), but possible

- You say, "it would create huge MM issues"

- I ask which MM issues

- All of a sudden it's not MM anymore. It's the IFE. Which 1) everybody knows, 2) is easily avoided otherwise and 3) not "MM issues", let alone huge ones, as you aren't enforced or even encouraged to use it.

- I give some easily implemented suggestions how to address this exploit in a more immersive way without taking options out of the game.

- You call these "a newbie trap" and "unintuitive"

- I name a feature in the game very similar to Grumbolds proposal.

- Oh wonder - this makes sense! It gives me a resource and costs the workboat. The foresting only "costs shields". Of course the smart debater would conveniently ignore the benefits it would give (+health)


I tell you what a newbie trap is. A newbie trap is to have the players chop forest in the hope to research a technology, which would enable to replant it. Just as it always was. A newbie trap is to have somebody build a building with a tradeoff of a bonus and a malus and later remove the bonus but leave the malus. This is unintuitive and a newbie trap! And an even much worse trap than losing a worker! I can rebuild a worker with ease. I can't for the love of god replant forest and tear down an old defuctioned building.

[Akaoz]

Not being able to tear down buildings anoy me to. I can't see it as "good design" to take away options.

Also, Ralph is spot on when it comes to comparing the workboat to the worker. I was a bit shocked the first time I killed a workboat to get a resource, but I still accepted it. I've seen two good suggestions for allowing replant of forest so far, and both are better designs then not allowing it all.

But since I can regrow forests naturaly, I don't mind that too much. It does add tonns of MM because I can't automate my workers, but hey...

Being able to tear down buildings has to come back in though. Esp. since I can't raze my own cities anymore. How am I supposed to implement a scortched earth tactic?

[aneeshm]

Extremely simple solution - why not make the yield of forests proportional to their age ( upto a limit ) ? This way , forests torn down and rebuilt in one turn will give you about three of five shields , while older forests can give upto thirty .

[Jubala]

How about creating a tech called "Forestry" or something that enables you to build a new unit called "Forester" that can plant a forest and is consumed in the process? It would take this unit some time, say 4-5 turns or so, to do this and it wouldn't go any faster with more foresters. Don't know about cost, but say same as work boat, half of worker or 30 shields, whichever is lowest. That should pretty much kill the chop/plant exploit and give the player the option to plant forests when needed/wanted.