The same way the city can build a district, it should also be able to remove it without the need of armies ransacking the place, even if took some kind of production costs. Currently the only way to remove a district is ransacking it by an army which requires army presence, and more importantly, it stops any present or passing trades in the ransack process and causes political issues with everyone involved in the trade.

Yeah instead of ruins have a demolition section. Have it take a couple of turns or something. Would be a great addition. 

100% agree. 

Finding a place to build my ICBM test site required me to found a new city out of an outpost because I couldn't remove districts in my actual cities. This is a needed feature!

Yes. Strong support for this, especially if it meant no longer ransacking our own districts.

It could even be accompanied by a temporary hit to stability (-20 or -30 instantaneous to counteract the +10 from losing the district) for people being unhappy at the redistricting, but eventually getting better.

Yeah, local residents will protest this initiative.

Sublustris wrote:

Yeah, local residents will protest this initiative.

Local residents you say? Don't know who you're talking about, all I can see is eight fresh units of Rifles.

Come to think of it, applying a stability-decreasing status like Defiant for a few turns would probably work better within the game mechanics than the "instant -30" I'd originally proposed.  But yeah, I want to remove districts, but I wouldn't expect local residents would be happy.

I was actually thinking of maybe using this sometimes as a way to handle low stability caused by annoying districts that lower the stability, you can just remove the extra district that is continuously annoying the "residents" that gave (-10 stability), this may be extra helpful when re-attaching territories to cities or merging cities that were not initially ready to handle all the extra districts and their stability penalties.. so, I think there shouldn't even be a penalty to stability or dissatisfaction from the residents... but, If the penalty is a must for game balance or for some other reason or to counter some emerging exploit from the change, I wouldn't complain.

Ransacking your districts by force currently gives no stability penalty (even though the city gets the status "Ransacked"), a planned removal of the district with no brute force should be no worse.

Of course I cannot promise anything, but we have are currently thinking about the way to adress such a feature ^^

Thanks for the feedbakcs 

Non-hostile ransacking is weird to me yeah. I hope the "ransack your own city center to upgrade it with a settler" is fixed as well (I'd like for Settlers to not completely warp the metagaming in general).

SpacesuitSpiff wrote:

Non-hostile ransacking is weird to me yeah. I hope the "ransack your own city center to upgrade it with a settler" is fixed as well (I'd like for Settlers to not completely warp the metagaming in general).

Personally I never use settlers, by the time I can use them I don't need more cities. Would be nice if I could just use them to upgrade my current cities lol

Would also be a better way of dealing with all of the independent cities that insist on creating a stability timebomb by filling every tile within their borders with districts.

One of the reasons I'd really love to be able to make mini-vassals out of IP, rather than only having an option to assimilate them. Dealing with aftermath of really 'lived-in' IP territory is a bit tedious, whether it's redoing their districts or removing ruins.

Yutterh wrote:
, by the time I can use them I don't need more cities.

Who are you kidding? What kind of an Emperor doesn't ever need more cities? There is always more fertile and untouched lands to conquer. :)

It will also be good to include removing a city's main plaza and administrative center or downgrading them when needed without having to ransack and rebuild them and affecting trade routes in the process. If possible.

el-Fakir wrote:

Yutterh wrote:
, by the time I can use them I don't need more cities.

Who are you kidding? What kind of an Emperor doesn't ever need more cities? There is always more fertile and untouched lands to conquer. :)

Well if I used new world they would be useful but at the time usually I just take cities from others as I don't need to build new cities. I guess maybe I can destroy them and make new cities but they usually don't need to be upgraded with that