Logo Platform
logo amplifiers simplified

Remove Construction

Reply
Copied to clipboard!
3 years ago
Jul 3, 2022, 2:07:49 PM

Hi,


In real life, anything that can be built, can also be torn down.


In Humankind, I think there is room for that feature in several cases:

  • Infrastructures: When I accidentally built a polluting infrastructure, and had no way to undo this.
  • Districts: For better adjacency bonuses or removing unneeded polluting districts.
  • Holy Sites and Cultural Wonders: In case I have made a mistake placing them and I want some reasonable way to fix things.

This could also be turned into an economical tool if there were some kind of refund for removing unnecessary constructions.

As I see it, there could be either a full refund, partial refund, no refund, money refund, some other kind of refund, or some kind of cost.

It could make the game more interesting.

Such as if you need cash quick, what are you willing to sacrifice?


Am I the only one that thinks this relatively simple feature is missing?


Updated 3 years ago.
0Send private message
3 years ago
Jul 3, 2022, 2:15:12 PM
  • Infrastructure, I can definitely agree with being able to remove, especially polluting ones (otherwise, give us other ways to deal with pollution, possibly through civics or ideologies than having to wait an era for pollution reducing tech
  • Districts, we can already build over existing districts (and pillage districts, in an extreme case), so I've never felt serious regret over district placement because I can re-purpose that tile later (at cost).
  • Holy Sites and Cultural Wonders, I'm fairly on board with the current policy of not moving them.  I could see moving the construction project elsewhere at the cost of some completed production, but not moving it once it's done.
0Send private message
3 years ago
Jul 5, 2022, 7:52:58 AM

Thanks for your feedbacks! 

To be honest, it's one topic we plan to have a discussion about really soon with the teams to find the best solution


Have a great day

0Send private message
3 years ago
Jul 10, 2022, 6:40:51 AM

Thank you so much benblond.


I just recalled a situation where removing a Cultural Wonder would have come in handy:

When I conquered a city of another empire,

that had a wonder built in its territory.

But I intended to ransack the city.


I found that the wonder was locked in that territory and I couldn't rebuild it in one of my own cities.

There might be a different solution for this. But it's just something to take into account.

Thanks :)


0Send private message
3 years ago
Jul 10, 2022, 11:00:41 AM

Also could we please have a way to repurpose our built districts? Like getting a discount or spending some money to change commons quarter into market quarter etc.

0Send private message
3 years ago
Jul 17, 2022, 6:45:56 AM
RedSirus wrote:
  • Infrastructure, I can definitely agree with being able to remove, especially polluting ones (otherwise, give us other ways to deal with pollution, possibly through civics or ideologies than having to wait an era for pollution reducing tech
  • Districts, we can already build over existing districts (and pillage districts, in an extreme case), so I've never felt serious regret over district placement because I can re-purpose that tile later (at cost).
  • Holy Sites and Cultural Wonders, I'm fairly on board with the current policy of not moving them.  I could see moving the construction project elsewhere at the cost of some completed production, but not moving it once it's done.

Hi,

I just ran into an important situation in the game where I think "Remove District" could help and is required:

After capturing a city (from Independent People) that had several districts built in it

and therefore had a very low stability.


If I had the option of "Removing Districts" I could simply remove some of the districts in order to regain enough stability.

This is a situation where building over an existing district just isn't enough.


Yes. It's true I could have ransacked the districts, but that seems to me like a bad workaround (When have you last heard of someone ransacking their own property).

I actually even forgot that option in my game, until I read your post again today, RedSirus.


BTW: Same  problem with conquering a city that you don't intend to keep.

I think it would be much cleaner if we had an option to Raze the city upon conquering it. (Instead of ransacking it)

It's just plain unintuitive.


What do you guys think?


0Send private message
3 years ago
Jul 17, 2022, 7:56:21 AM

I'd agree with removing districts and razing cities, which seem like nice hobbies for sunday workers.

However, I find weird to be able to destruct and rebuild wonders. 

The only case I wish could be changed is when it is placed but suddenly realize there's a better possibility (or simply missclicked) and there wasn't any production put into it.

0Send private message
3 years ago
Jul 17, 2022, 10:18:03 AM

What about Holy Sites?

I think there should be a Remove option for them. I'm not such an expert on Holy Sites, but perhaps if you reached the Max and wanted to move one to a more strategic location.


As for Wonders, since in real life they don't get moved around (except maybe for the Statue of Liberty, which I understand was transferred from France to the US)

I think the factually correct option should be to be able to Remove them.

I see in my mind's eye one empire destroying the Taj Mahal completely

and then the Indian culture rebuilding it in a different city (perhaps with less effort, aka industry cost, because they already have the blueprints and the idea).


The only situation I see reasonable to a Moving a structure, is in the already available Move Outpost feature,

since an outpost isn't really tied down to anything and isn't really a building.


What do you think? Shouldn't we maintain the similarity to reality?


0Send private message
3 years ago
Jul 17, 2022, 11:52:10 AM

Removing a holy site should come at a huge penalty cost, except for atheists. Furthermore, I'd wish that they would not be constructible again: if one gets destroyed volontarily, the limit of possible total holy sites should drops one below. I'd explain this position by the sites themselves. In many cases, the place where they „stand“ is in itself sacred or meaningful. For example, animism and shamanism, druidism but also more clergy like religion like shintoism, taoism, christianism, in which many sanctuaries are tied to apparitions (sanctuary of Fátima or Lourdes make good example) or closer to contemporary era, the jewish „Garden of the Righteous Among the Nations“, for which an uprooting might be very complicated. My knowledge of religions is too thin to help you much on the topic but I'm pretty sure most of them have some kind of holy places which would never be „movable“. Religions tend to incorporate very well the concept of tradition and to be identity anchors for many people who follow their beliefs and see them as immutable paradigm of their existence.

So holy sites should be „removable“, by atheist for example, but should not be movable, their placement is part of their value in the eye of the believers.


Actually, I can find another example of wonder that has been moved: Abu Simbel (link to wikipedia:en) but it sure is not a common thing.
Destroying wonders should give a huge malus, as people tend to feel tied to their countries „great achievements“. I see no reason to just „move“ them if they are not under threat, as it is not a simple task! I'd see reasons to destroy one (atheism for wonders counting as holy sites, fighting „old stuff“ in the name of progress), but moving a wonder to get the place for another district seems weird.


Outposts are different kind of beast, they do not require as much work and have value only through utility.


0Send private message
?

Click here to login

Reply
Comment

Characters : 0
No results
0Send private message