Buildings destroyed

[caranorn]

Would there be any way to limit destruction of advanced buildings due to volcanoes, raids etc. What I mean is that if Etna erupts and the city walls are targeted that those only be reduced a level and not right down to nothing. In my current game I've had a region lose it's entire Harbour, another the walls etc. And yes, I would not mind big calamities hitting multiple buildings once in a while. But for an average one to whipe out all levels of a construction can be a huge setback.

[loki100]

think the problem is that when you build further along a tree (walls/justice/schools/harbours etc) the game removes the earlier one, so all you have is the current level of building, so yes, if that is targetted then the effect is to strip out 2-3 iterations of building up

[caranorn]

think the problem is that when you build further along a tree (walls/justice/schools/harbours etc) the game removes the earlier one, so all you have is the current level of building, so yes, if that is targetted then the effect is to strip out 2-3 iterations of building up

Yes indeed...

[Pocus]

Good point, I'll make sure to replace a destroyed building by its predecessor in this case. Thanks for the feedback.

[wrlertola]

Good point, I'll make sure to replace a destroyed building by its predecessor in this case. Thanks for the feedback.

While I really like and appreciate that you're going to change this I want to play devils advocate for a moment...
Since the building was upgraded the previous one no longer exists (presumably having been torn down for the upgrade in my opinion) so the destruction of the building should result in having to build it up from scratch.

[Pocus]

Perhaps it should be limited to buildings that are clearly incremental, like Walls 2 > Walls 3.

[loki100]

I'm not sure to be honest.

This wasn't the era of Vauban etc, so I presume that if a city improved its walls it basically built a better version of what was already there.

so while complete destruction due to earthquake/volcano is a bit of a shock to the player, it seems to reflect the catastrophic damage that could be done better than simply knocking you back a single level? My preference is for the current system

[Shrandar]

I also prefer the current system. The consequence of destruction (and not just a downgrade) is that the building RNG is reset, while with a downgrade the next upgrade in line would be more likely to pop up (if I understand the system correctly). True this makes it more annoying but also makes a natural disaster a more impactful event, in opposition to so many other games where you just click to rebuild. For example, downgrading a harbour into an anchorage would not impact your ability to import goods at all and the likelihood of the harbour upgrade popping up relatively soon is bigger than getting an anchorage in the first place.

[Pocus]

On second thought, I can't say there is a definitive argument for one way or another. I'll probably do nothing in the end, so to save time and do another thing instead