Give us the option to demolish buildings

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • 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.
      Cherbourg “ was operational again in two weeks iirc. ” is at odds with my recognition.
      In brief, at the time of two weeks, it's not like it have fully recovered.
      Although first ships were able to use the harbor in late July, but the port was only not brought into limited use until the middle of August.

      The post was edited 3 times, last by pod_than ().

    • Lord Crayfish wrote:

      I joined right at the end of 1.0 but couldn't you only disable them?
      Yes, indeed. Some buildings required maintenance, and you could stop that by disabling the building. But you didn't destroy the building by that, it stayed there but inactive.
      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.

    • pod_than wrote:

      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.
      Cherbourg “ was operational again in two weeks iirc. ” is at odds with my recognition.In brief, at the time of two weeks, it's not like it have fully recovered.
      Although first ships were able to use the harbor in late July, but the port was only not brought into limited use until the middle of August.
      I stand corrected; it took a month. This is from Wikipedia:
      "After a month of demining and repairs by American and French engineers, the port, completely razed by the Germans and the bombing, welcomed the first Liberty ships and became, until the victory of 1945, the busiest port in the world, with traffic double that of New York.[47] "

      Still a month is not a lot...
      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:

      pod_than wrote:

      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.
      Cherbourg “ was operational again in two weeks iirc. ” is at odds with my recognition.In brief, at the time of two weeks, it's not like it have fully recovered.Although first ships were able to use the harbor in late July, but the port was only not brought into limited use until the middle of August.
      I stand corrected; it took a month. This is from Wikipedia:"After a month of demining and repairs by American and French engineers, the port, completely razed by the Germans and the bombing, welcomed the first Liberty ships and became, until the victory of 1945, the busiest port in the world, with traffic double that of New York.[47] "

      Still a month is not a lot...
      This is because the United States had an unusually population and large industrial capacity.

      So if that historical fact replace this game, it's like spending a huge amount of gold, which is the in-game currency to fix the port, Cherbourg.

      The post was edited 3 times, last by pod_than ().

    • There's no such thing as "gold" in the REAL world. Let's say they built new port buildings with iron and goods and stuff and keep it at that.
      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:

      There's no such thing as "gold" in the REAL world. Let's say they built new port buildings with iron and goods and stuff and keep it at that.
      My poor and bad English may have caused the reader's misunderstanding.
      I apologize.
      The main point I wanted to make was the concept that if you contrast what the United States has done with what countries other than the United States have done without careful coordination, you will end up with modeling that feels strange.
      I'll study more about English.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by pod_than ().

    • pod_than wrote:

      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      There's no such thing as "gold" in the REAL world. Let's say they built new port buildings with iron and goods and stuff and keep it at that.
      My poor and bad English may have caused the reader's misunderstanding.I apologize.
      The main point I wanted to make was the concept that if you contrast what the United States has done with what countries other than the United States have done without careful coordination, you will end up with modeling that feels strange.
      I'll study more about English.
      Dude, your English is really good. I didn't even realise it wasn't your first language for, like, a week after I saw your profile lol
      "Imma play CoW to calm down" - Literally nobody ever

      Talvisota of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • NEPTUNE the great wrote:

      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?
      No it was the Russians who did not want to give germans anything to eat or to use in war against them or help them. Worked pretty well but then other countries had to feed them after the war due to them doing this.. Scorched Earth thing

    • Scorched Earth Tactics. The Soviets, Chinese and Germans especially loved this one.

      en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorch…lves%20and%20the%20allies.

      A Eastman wrote:

      NEPTUNE the great wrote:

      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?
      No it was the Russians who did not want to give germans anything to eat or to use in war against them or help them. Worked pretty well but then other countries had to feed them after the war due to them doing this.. Scorched Earth thing
      Not World War Two, but rather Communism. Failed agricultural reforms in the 60’s were what forced the USSR to begin importing food. Production would have been just fine and was had the Communist government not failed… still, prior to the failed invasion of Ukraine both Russia and Ukraine were some of the largest grain producers on Earth…

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • Carking the 6th wrote:

      Scorched Earth Tactics. The Soviets, Chinese and Germans especially loved this one.

      en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorch…lves%20and%20the%20allies.

      A Eastman wrote:

      NEPTUNE the great wrote:

      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?
      No it was the Russians who did not want to give germans anything to eat or to use in war against them or help them. Worked pretty well but then other countries had to feed them after the war due to them doing this.. Scorched Earth thing
      Not World War Two, but rather Communism. Failed agricultural reforms in the 60’s were what forced the USSR to begin importing food. Production would have been just fine and was had the Communist government not failed… still, prior to the failed invasion of Ukraine both Russia and Ukraine were some of the largest grain producers on Earth…
      Which happened after ww1 but also the czars did not help the people much either. Ukraine was not part of Russia until after ww2. I feel Stalin could have ended the war faster but he was more interested in gobbling up all the land he could first.

    • What did you smoke? Ukraine only became independent in the nineties. Ah maybe they were in medieval times, for a few decades... otherwise, always part, or at least heavily under the influence, of Russia. (for example - they were technically not part of Russia in Soviet times; both were "equal" republics under the USSR umbrella... wink, wink)
      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:

      What did you smoke? Ukraine only became independent in the nineties. Ah maybe they were in medieval times, for a few decades... otherwise, always part, or at least heavily under the influence, of Russia. (for example - they were technically not part of Russia in Soviet times; both were "equal" republics under the USSR umbrella... wink, wink)
      I guess technicalities will eat you up. lol I guess you are smoking the same thing I am.

    • 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.

      Joe Bartolozzi wrote:

      It will add a sense of realism.
      In the light of these two comments I might mention that entire campaigns were focussed on capturing enemy buildings for reuse by one's own side.
      E.g.
      - The Japanese conquest of South-East Asia was intended to seize oil refineries to control the rubber and petroleum production in Malaya and Indonesia.
      - In the Western Desert campaign the strained logistics meant the capture of railheads and supply depots and battles including the Second El Alamein were fought to control these.
      If we added the historical and realistic feature, we would lose the historical, realistic, and arguably more important feature of capturing buildings.

      Defending or capturing buildings rather than flattening everything is more realistic, trickier, and in my opinion more fun. Buildings are already destroyed or damaged when a province is captured, even without fighting, presumably this is the work of saboteurs. IRL it isn't feasible to sabotage everything and in many cases sabotage efforts failed.
      To the extent that it is realistic at all, it is already represented.

      That said, as I think has been mentioned a way to make this work could be that it costs resources and takes time to demolish a building. This disincentivises doing it in most cases and still allows them to be captured.
      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

    • Talvisota wrote:

      pod_than wrote:

      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      There's no such thing as "gold" in the REAL world. Let's say they built new port buildings with iron and goods and stuff and keep it at that.
      My poor and bad English may have caused the reader's misunderstanding.I apologize.The main point I wanted to make was the concept that if you contrast what the United States has done with what countries other than the United States have done without careful coordination, you will end up with modeling that feels strange.
      I'll study more about English.
      Dude, your English is really good. I didn't even realise it wasn't your first language for, like, a week after I saw your profile lol
      Is it true?
      I'm so happy for you said so.
      But even though I studied for more 20 years, still at this level...
      As you said, my “ cryptography ” was deciphered within just “ a week ”.
      And I can write English, but I can't speak.
      I also have to thank AI for assistance and guidance.

    • pod_than wrote:

      Talvisota wrote:

      pod_than wrote:

      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      There's no such thing as "gold" in the REAL world. Let's say they built new port buildings with iron and goods and stuff and keep it at that.
      My poor and bad English may have caused the reader's misunderstanding.I apologize.The main point I wanted to make was the concept that if you contrast what the United States has done with what countries other than the United States have done without careful coordination, you will end up with modeling that feels strange.I'll study more about English.
      Dude, your English is really good. I didn't even realise it wasn't your first language for, like, a week after I saw your profile lol
      Is it true?I'm so happy for you said so.
      But even though I studied for more 20 years, still at this level...
      As you said, my “ cryptography ” was deciphered within just “ a week ”.
      And I can write English, but I can't speak.
      I also have to thank AI for assistance and guidance.
      I honestly didn’t even notice you were using AI
      "Nuts!"
      Brig. Gen. Anthony McAuliffe

    • Lord Crayfish wrote:

      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.

      Joe Bartolozzi wrote:

      It will add a sense of realism.
      In the light of these two comments I might mention that entire campaigns were focussed on capturing enemy buildings for reuse by one's own side.E.g.
      - The Japanese conquest of South-East Asia was intended to seize oil refineries to control the rubber and petroleum production in Malaya and Indonesia.
      - In the Western Desert campaign the strained logistics meant the capture of railheads and supply depots and battles including the Second El Alamein were fought to control these.
      If we added the historical and realistic feature, we would lose the historical, realistic, and arguably more important feature of capturing buildings.

      Defending or capturing buildings rather than flattening everything is more realistic, trickier, and in my opinion more fun. Buildings are already destroyed or damaged when a province is captured, even without fighting, presumably this is the work of saboteurs. IRL it isn't feasible to sabotage everything and in many cases sabotage efforts failed.
      To the extent that it is realistic at all, it is already represented.

      That said, as I think has been mentioned a way to make this work could be that it costs resources and takes time to demolish a building. This disincentivises doing it in most cases and still allows them to be captured.
      A person can bomb the cities into nothing left with air, artillery railguns, navy etc so that option is there

      when I attack someone and want minimize their resources and money I bomb it until nothing is left including morale than walk in other times i want the buildings and do as little damage is necessary