Give us the option to demolish buildings

    • Give us the option to demolish buildings

      Let's say, you have no use for a building, or you accidentally constructed a building and had no time to deconstruct it and it's already built, this has happened to me every time. I find it annoying to have to ignore the city or building. It will also be useful to demolish your building from other important buildings to give pain to the enemy once they get close to you and you know you are going to lose that city, or building that is important to you, you can demolish it, and hope the enemy doesn't use it. This was used a lot during World War 2, and I think this would be important and possibly a game-changing mechanic. The only side effect you would get from demolishing your building is you will get half of the resources you used back to you, instead of getting the full resources to balance it out. Again, this is only a suggestion, so please tell me if it's a good idea.
      My favorite saying is this one quote that I heard one day.
      All good things must come to an end
      That doesn’t mean all bad things must continue though

      Have a nice day!

    • Great suggestion! It is would be very helpful to demolish buildings, sometimes you make it accidently or sometimes you don't want it to be used by the enemy (once the province is captured). I also think destroying a building should take 50% of its construction time and you would have to spend 25% of the original cost to destroy it. You shouldn't gain resources from destroying a building afterall..... its very illogical to gain resources from destroying something.

      Say I made a building which costs 2000 goods and took 10 hours to build, then for demolishing it, a time frame of 5 hours would be needed and you would need to pay 500 goods (25% of CP) for the same.
      "We can be wrong, or we can know it, but we can't do both at the same time." ~ Heisenberg

      SENIOR ELECTION MANAGER
      HEAD OF THE FPD

    • I would really hate this. Everyone suggesting this only looks at themselves destroying their own building, but they never consider that their enemy could use it as well. Combined with the hefty damage already done to buildings when you take over a province, it would basically mean that you never conquer a building anymore, making all your conquered lands look like a waisteland.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      I would really hate this. Everyone suggesting this only looks at themselves destroying their own building, but they never consider that their enemy could use it as well. Combined with the hefty damage already done to buildings when you take over a province, it would basically mean that you never conquer a building anymore, making all your conquered lands look like a waisteland.
      That's why this is a suggestion, probably why it was removed in the older version. Though that would bring much more challenging situations, it would encourage you to start building at buildings that were demolished by your enemy.
      My favorite saying is this one quote that I heard one day.
      All good things must come to an end
      That doesn’t mean all bad things must continue though

      Have a nice day!

    • Strange, I have been playing this game for eight years now, and I can't remember EVER having been able to destroy buildings...
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • NEPTUNE the great wrote:

      Joe Bartolozzi wrote:

      It will add a sense of realism.
      Yes, it would because this was used a lot when the French were retreating from the Germans I believe, correct me if I am wrong.
      Never heard about that one either? I guess you could call the giant Soviet operation to move entire factories from European Russia to the Urals and beyond something like this, and the German were pretty good at it towards the end of the war as well... still for example, they put in a HUGE operation to destroy the harbor of Cherbourg when they were about to lose it, yet it was operational again in two weeks iirc. So no, blowing up your own buildings so they were unusable to the enemy didn't happen much actually. Infrastructure was another matter; many bridges were blown of course.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      NEPTUNE the great wrote:

      Joe Bartolozzi wrote:

      It will add a sense of realism.
      Yes, it would because this was used a lot when the French were retreating from the Germans I believe, correct me if I am wrong.
      Never heard about that one either? I guess you could call the giant Soviet operation to move entire factories from European Russia to the Urals and beyond something like this, and the German were pretty good at it towards the end of the war as well... still for example, they put in a HUGE operation to destroy the harbor of Cherbourg when they were about to lose it, yet it was operational again in two weeks iirc. So no, blowing up your own buildings so they were unusable to the enemy didn't happen much actually. Infrastructure was another matter; many bridges were blown of course.
      Didn't the Germans do this when they were retreating in 1944?
      My favorite saying is this one quote that I heard one day.
      All good things must come to an end
      That doesn’t mean all bad things must continue though

      Have a nice day!

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      NEPTUNE the great wrote:

      Joe Bartolozzi wrote:

      It will add a sense of realism.
      Yes, it would because this was used a lot when the French were retreating from the Germans I believe, correct me if I am wrong.
      Never heard about that one either? I guess you could call the giant Soviet operation to move entire factories from European Russia to the Urals and beyond something like this, and the German were pretty good at it towards the end of the war as well... still for example, they put in a HUGE operation to destroy the harbor of Cherbourg when they were about to lose it, yet it was operational again in two weeks iirc. So no, blowing up your own buildings so they were unusable to the enemy didn't happen much actually. Infrastructure was another matter; many bridges were blown of course.
      What about the soviets burning entire village infrastructures in early Barbarossa? Scorch fire was greatly used in ww2.
      "We can be wrong, or we can know it, but we can't do both at the same time." ~ Heisenberg

      SENIOR ELECTION MANAGER
      HEAD OF THE FPD

    • Infrastructure, yes. But not much steel works, factories, shipyards, etc


      (and maybe not even recruitment offices ;)
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Strange, I have been playing this game for eight years now, and I can't remember EVER having been able to destroy buildings...
      I joined right at the end of 1.0 but couldn't you only disable them?

      BladeFisher wrote:

      You certainly could destroy buildings in 2020/21. IIRC it was a little bit difficult to find but it was there. Id prefer if we had portable prefabs. . . .

      Take your buildings as you advance.
      Yes because with WWII era technology you could have moving factories which could produce tanks directly onto the battlefield. This isn't Command and Conquer and I'd prefer a semblance of realism. Building plants near the front line is already easy enough.

      I mean yes you could do what the Chinese or Soviets did and rebuild everything in Chungking or Magnitogorsk but that's a bit harder and took huge resources to do. Portable prefabs doesn't cut it.
      Aeroplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.
      — Marshal Foch

      A pretty mechanical toy [...] the war will never be won by such machines.
      — Lord Kitchener, on tanks