How do Sell/demolish improvements?

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Look, I can understand WHY they decided to go the way they did with forests and buildings, but I think 'deal with it' is a little dismissive. I think a key factor is: Can you Mod it? If so, then problem solved and I have no further issues (and, who knows, if Firaxis likes a solution put forward, maybe they will even adopt it officially). I certainly think, though, that the Civ3 approach to power stations is better, where a new power station replaced all the good/bad elements of every other improvement with the 'power plant' flag. Hopefully we can do that again via modding. Any clues Locutus.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[pmaura]

Agree completly they should of not removed the ability to destroy a building as well as we should be able to replant forests.

[Grumbold]

I've said all I want to say on the forest on the other thread. Naturally we can have anything we like in a mod, but we know full well that will not apply in multiplayer unless its an officially adopted one.

Practically every industrialised city on earth built a coal power plant when they were at that stage of technological development. The fortunate ones have now moved on to alternative sources and closed their coal and oil plants down. In London Bankside Power Station has been transformed into Tate Modern art gallery. Battersea Power station remains awaiting redevelopment. Neither are sources of much unhappiness or unhealthiness any longer.

If there is to be a strategic choice, make it whether to build something that will cost a significant amount to decommission, not make it impossible to turn off. The cost of decommissioning a Nuclear plant should put Coal in the shade!

[RGBVideo]

You can't.

And again, the same old defence...

"It's not a bug, it's a feature!"

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph

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.

It is silly that a coal plant lingers to create pollution after you've built cleaner power plants.

In RL, places supplied by nuclear/hydro power don't have their early-20th-century coal plants still stinking up the place.

[inca911]

The effects of the coal plant are long term to health, even if you change to cleaner power and destroy the building. Hasn't anyone ever heard of superfund sites, strip mining, slag heaps, cancer cells, asbestos removal and illnesses, etc? The game actually represents reality to some extent in this. Moreso than I would expect.

Pollution was replaced by health, so you have long term health issues to deal with instead of whack-a-mole polllution as the downside from a coal plant. Don't like that? Don't rush to build one.

[Akaoz]

inca911: Best argument against tearing down coalplants so far...

No sure I agree though. Like Grumbold said: Give it a cost to decomission then, but at least give us the option.

[Jubala]

Then maybe there should be some sort of project one can build that will shut down the coal plant and over time remove the health malus it generated. Like turn it into a park or a museum of som sort as a previous poster mentioned.

[sabrewolf]

i'm completely with sir ralph on this one.

independent of personal opinions: not being able to remove an obsolete building with a negative impact (be it financially, morally or healthwise) surely limits and restricts... restriction is something which civ4 is famous for not having.

replanting forests it is NOT a MM issue, and his argumentation does make a lot of sence



and one request: guys, please stop saying "... then mod it out." of course we can mod things in or out. but people who bring up issues in these boards want to improve the GAME itself, not their personal modifications of it. we have seen historically, that very many ideas that came from the civ community were later integrated into a patch or into an add-on (think: overpowered industrial trait, forest chop exploit, too strong/weak UUs, defensive bombard (=civ4's first strike), etc, etc, etc).
please let people have different opinions and then reason for or against it. if 80% think it is fine, then firaxis will likely add it. if <50% agree with it, it will probabaly not be considered...

thanks

[MattPilot]

BREAKING NEWS!

STAND BY FOR DISSIMINATION!



I think it is a non issue (the building part, not the forest part - i'm still PO about the forest issue). I found something interesting. But i am surprised Mr. Betatester didn't know it.



When moving the curser over the Health "thingie", it breaks it down for you. It says +2 power, +3 buildings +20 whatever.

If you build a nuclear powerplant after that, the coal plant is still there in the improvement list, but the +2 power negative health effects are gone.



Now back to discussing the forest issue I want my FOREST!

[polarnomad]

So what you're saying is that upgrading to a nuclear power plant automatically presupposes that you would have removed the coal power plant anyway?

[MattPilot]

Yes.... I suppose if you were to have a Nuclear meltdown, it will jump back to the coal plant?

I haven't built a Hyrdo plant yet, but i suppose it would also trump the coal plant.

[polarnomad]

Well, that certainly is nice then.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by MattPilot
BREAKING NEWS!

STAND BY FOR DISSIMINATION!

I think it is a non issue (the building part, not the forest part - i'm still PO about the forest issue). I found something interesting. But i am surprised Mr. Betatester didn't know it.

When moving the curser over the Health "thingie", it breaks it down for you. It says +2 power, +3 buildings +20 whatever.

If you build a nuclear powerplant after that, the coal plant is still there in the improvement list, but the +2 power negative health effects are gone.



Now back to discussing the forest issue I want my FOREST!

That is good news. I am still not that far in my first game to see the effects of power plants (shouldn't have chosen "epic") and have to trust your words, but if it is really as you describe, the lacking destroy improvement option is not an issue anymore. Btw, I knew that mousing over thing - the information policy in this game is very good, everything is transparent.

Forest planting is still an issue, though.

[zeit]

Originally posted by inca911
The effects of the coal plant are long term to health, even if you change to cleaner power and destroy the building. Hasn't anyone ever heard of superfund sites, strip mining, slag heaps, cancer cells, asbestos removal and illnesses, etc? The game actually represents reality to some extent in this. Moreso than I would expect.

Pollution was replaced by health, so you have long term health issues to deal with instead of whack-a-mole polllution as the downside from a coal plant. Don't like that? Don't rush to build one.

Of course the ill-effects linger, but they also tend to decay over the course of years and decades, which is equivalent to one turn or so in most parts of the game.

Buildings simply must be destructible, it just makes no sense they are not, a player should have the option to flatten out his city in the face of conquest, or tear down a polluting factory if he wants to- it seems awfully wrong to prohibit this.

As for the forest issue- I kind of like it that you can't replant a forest- makes them kind of a valuable resource (as they are in reality). Reforastation (or more precisely- de novo forestation) in many parts of the world actually has bad effects on the local ecology, and isn't nearly as bountiful as a natural one. Mother nature just does it better. There should, however, be an option to have automate workers without any axe-swinging, and as mentioned, this bit seems like an oversight by the developers.
(another option that would be fitting is having workers or any other unit capable of planting "pseudo-forests" which don't give any special benefits, but what is the point then?).

These two problem seem quite, well, problematic, but I'm sure the good folks at Firaxis will take care of these little annoyances in a jiffy.