Disband is way too powerful

[Voker57]

By spending ~2 PP, you can instantly remove whole assets, leaving your enemy with nothing. Closing down assets is more realistic and balanced. Disbanding should be disabled, and possibly remade with much higher costs and preparation needed.

[Disturbance20]

Agreed, no need for this and too easy in multiplayer to destroy the entire city at the last moment before capture. Destroying an entire city's worth of buildings should be more difficult.

[Twotribes]

in mp just make a house rule.

[Voker57]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

in mp just make a house rule.

You already have to have a whole separate house manual for MP. Anyway, why not just fix it for everybody?

[Twotribes]

Some people might like it

[Vic]

I hear you. I guess maybe I could make the PP cost a bit higher. Other idea might be it should have accrued some damage to having been closed for a couple of turns. I'll give it some thought.

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: Vic

I hear you. I guess maybe I could make the PP cost a bit higher. Other idea might be it should have accrued some damage to having been closed for a couple of turns. I'll give it some thought.

The issue is that as building HS Rail works right now, we must be able to scrap the Railway station.

Woul be less of a issue if we could "sidegrade" from Normal to HS rail. Or if HS rail was a track thing.

[Elver]

At a minimum, you should have to have control of an asset for a turn to disband it (i.e., make it work like razing roads). Right now if you can hold an asset for any time at all you can disband it entirely if you have the PP to do so. There's something to be said for raiding and sabotaging but this seems excessively strong.

Something that could possibly work is drastically increasing PP costs per subsequent level per turn, so if you draw it out it would be reasonable but it'd be ruinous to take it all down at once.

[zgrssd]

There are currently tow purposes for that System:
1. Removing something the Private Economy build that you do not want (there)
2. Removing Basic Railstations so you can upgrade to Highspeed Rail Stations

At least for 2, it working quickly is mandatory.

Also if the enemy can get close enough to your city that he can capture, hold and scrap the asset he propably deserved that success.

[Voker57]

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

There are currently tow purposes for that System:
1. Removing something the Private Economy build that you do not want (there)
2. Removing Basic Railstations so you can upgrade to Highspeed Rail Stations

At least for 2, it working quickly is mandatory.

Also if the enemy can get close enough to your city that he can capture, hold and scrap the asset he propably deserved that success.

It's not about the enemy, it's about somebody scrapping all the assets in city in one turn to deny them to the enemy.

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: Voker57

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

There are currently tow purposes for that System:
1. Removing something the Private Economy build that you do not want (there)
2. Removing Basic Railstations so you can upgrade to Highspeed Rail Stations

At least for 2, it working quickly is mandatory.

Also if the enemy can get close enough to your city that he can capture, hold and scrap the asset he propably deserved that success.

It's not about the enemy, it's about somebody scrapping all the assets in city in one turn to deny them to the enemy.

I admit this is a issue.

They had the same in numerous other games, like Civilisations and Stellaris. Their best Idea was to turn off Planet/City trading while at war. However the game had repeated issues with Warstates sticking around long after the enemy was wiped of the map - so experience taught us that is propably the wrong way. Bad enough when Vassaal Card are locked out.

That realy only leaves a option to turn it off completely in MP via a option. But that would be coriest core mechanic to ever have been put on such switch. It fixes too many other issues to miss.

MP houserule are about the only way right now.

[Elver]

ORIGINAL: zgrssd
Also if the enemy can get close enough to your city that he can capture, hold and scrap the asset he propably deserved that success.

The point is that they don't need to hold it to scrap it. They just need to capture it. To combine two threads of discussion, if there's a front where you're having a back-and-forth battle, if you can capture (or recapture) something you can't hold long-term, you can swiftly and easily destroy it to deny it to the enemy. This is not necessarily unrealistic, but it's what is being complained about here.

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: Elver

ORIGINAL: zgrssd
Also if the enemy can get close enough to your city that he can capture, hold and scrap the asset he propably deserved that success.

The point is that they don't need to hold it to scrap it. They just need to capture it. To combine two threads of discussion, if there's a front where you're having a back-and-forth battle, if you can capture (or recapture) something you can't hold long-term, you can swiftly and easily destroy it to deny it to the enemy. This is not necessarily unrealistic, but it's what is being complained about here.

Yes, I understand what you are talking.
Yes, I understand it is a problem.

But to fix a host of other issues, Disband as we have it now is nessesary.

[eddieballgame]

Maybe a poll to see what would be a 'fair fix'.
Per multiplayer, a 'house rule' (as suggested) seems fine.
Personally, I don't see it as an issue, & in my multiple 'MP' games this has never presented it self as a problem; but increasing the 'PP' costs seems like a reasonable penalty as Vic suggested.

[Moat_Man]

If you are talking only about assets in a city that's one thing but I immediately disband higher level captured buildings out in the field so that my workers from the nearby zone don't get siphoned off. It can really mess with your logistics if you capture a Level IV Farm with 10's of thousands of workers required. Better to disband it immediately and get the resources refund than to try an absorb those things.

[Culthrasa]

I very much welcomed the ability to scrap assets. The AI builds lvl1 stuff nilly willy and it's a pain in de butt. Being able to remove them in a timely fashion is very welcome in SP.

The question raised here is for MP and its potential abuse. On the other hand, IRL it is more then doable (and frequently done) to place a few satchel charges and blow up a bridge or factory. Countless examples in WW2 alone. So being able to quickly demolish an asset near the frontline to deny it to your enemy seems perfectly fine to me.

Only thing that remains is the fact that the player gets some material back. But since no one raised that particular point (unless i missed something) that doesn't seem to be the problem..

just my 2cents...

[Dogetor]

Maybe destroying assets should be made by workers or troops over time?

[nscrutable]

1. Increasing the political power necessary to disband infrastructure makes sociopolitical sense to me; you're relegating public servants to unemployment and removing the infrastructure that they've gotten used to on a political whim. 2pp is a pittance. Of course, this would also be true for the "instant" (2 month) mothball... and workers don't care about losing their job at any other point in this game.

2. Increasing the time necessary to disband structures also makes some sense if you're trying to recover resources from them instead of simply sabotaging them. Ironically, the multiplayer behavior OP finds problematic, destroying infrastructure before it's captured by the enemy, is realistic if you disregard the element of stripping structures for building materials in a city that's surrounded... though even that is plausible so long as the resources are being used within the city for war materiel rather than being teleported through enemy lines to a resource stockpile.

[Thrake]

I hear you. I guess maybe I could make the PP cost a bit higher. Other idea might be it should have accrued some damage to having been closed for a couple of turns. I'll give it some thought.

A change of the rules would still be most welcome.

Here's an exemple of the kind of cities that are commonly conquered in multiplayer.

ghost town.png (1.6 MiB) Viewed 214 times

ghost town 2.png (1.78 MiB) Viewed 214 times

Every single asset has been disbanded including private ones (there has been no fight in the city destroying anything), the road has been removed. This did not happen in this screenshot but sometimes it's done ahead enough of time that the populace is starving for several turns (no private farm), resulting in depopulated cities with lots of freefolks, hardly worth being called a city anymore. In some games this happens to every single city I conquer.

No qol means no happiness means nobody wants to work. It can be fixed eventually but it's a slow process (that's at least 4 turns before civilization can even start ticking upward, likely more due to manpower shortages). Leveling an entire city including hospitals and schools feels like a feat worthy of some of the worst autocracies. The kind of which the populace cheers for their liberators.