Is there any point destroying enemy buildings?

**QuintusSertorius** · February 22, 2008, 02:37 PM

By that I mean, when you take a province, does destroying other cultures' buildings actually make any difference to the penalty for differing culture?

Auxilia buildings you can't do anything with anyway (unless it's already at level 3), so I tend to destroy as a matter of course. But religious ones pacify (even as they cause trouble being someone else's gods), so is there any benefit in razing them?

What I've taken to doing of late is merely building around and over them, rather than sweeping clean.

Aside from the money, is there really any reason to wipe out what came before?

**Brusilov** · February 22, 2008, 04:20 PM

It's well worth destroying building from a culture different to your own. You may take an immediate hit in the happiness rating in the settlement but in the long term it is a benefit to do so.

However, many players have house rules that don't allow the destruction. Simply because the AI doesn't do similar.

If there is a building that can be upgraded by my faction then I will keep it, otherwise it is destroyed.

**Tiberius Tosi** · February 23, 2008, 10:55 AM

This is a stupid question and is probably wrong, but to get culture penalty to go down, could you have a lot of "roman" troops disband in the settlement, therefore making it more "Romanized" and in turn decrease the culture penalty?

**Solaris** · February 23, 2008, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by Tiberius Tosi

This is a stupid question and is probably wrong, but to get culture penalty to go down, could you have a lot of "roman" troops disband in the settlement, therefore making it more "Romanized" and in turn decrease the culture penalty?

If only..

**Brusilov** · February 23, 2008, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by Tiberius Tosi

This is a stupid question and is probably wrong, but to get culture penalty to go down, could you have a lot of "roman" troops disband in the settlement, therefore making it more "Romanized" and in turn decrease the culture penalty?

I have read elsewhere that if you include as part of the garrison some 'local' units then it helps to stop unrest. I don't know if that is true or not.

For instance, in formerly Gallic settlements include a couple of skirmisher warbands or slinger units.

**vancouver** · February 24, 2008, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by Tiberius Tosi

This is a stupid question and is probably wrong, but to get culture penalty to go down, could you have a lot of "roman" troops disband in the settlement, therefore making it more "Romanized" and in turn decrease the culture penalty?

I have done the same thing with small towns that I have captured and reduced the population to 500. Then I disband all my troops, increasing the population to 1200, but that does not change the cultural difference of the town.

**Quinn Inuit** · February 22, 2008, 07:54 PM

My personal rule is not to destroy any buildings in cities that could theoretically be retaken, so as not to disadvantage the computer. Otherwise, I tend to destroy them for the $.

**Tiberius Tosi** · February 22, 2008, 07:58 PM

When I pillage and move on without wanting to settle in a city, yes then I destroy every possible building. But if I intend to occupy it I only destroy their religious and Auxilliary buildings (unless above level III) and keep anything else I can upgrade, other than that, it goes bye bye.

**QuintusSertorius** · February 23, 2008, 03:29 AM

Originally Posted by Tiberius Tosi

When I pillage and move on without wanting to settle in a city, yes then I destroy every possible building. But if I intend to occupy it I only destroy their religious and Auxilliary buildings (unless above level III) and keep anything else I can upgrade, other than that, it goes bye bye.

I do the same when I'm pillaging; I was thinking more of when you actually conquer and keep.

**Tiberius Nero** · February 22, 2008, 09:04 PM

If you can upgrade them into those of your own culture, as happens with temples, it is a bad idea to destroy them. If they cannot be upgraded because they are maximum level they might be worth destroying.

As per my house rules I never destroy any buildings anyway, apart from Auxilia of extinct factions, which noone can use anyway anymoer and they don't affect your public order either. But even those I generally tend to leave in place.

**AqD** · February 23, 2008, 03:44 AM

They cause culture penality. It's good to destroy them unless they have positive effects or can be upgraded.
________
VAPORIZER WIKI

**QuintusSertorius** · February 23, 2008, 03:49 AM

Just that I've never noticed the culture penalty go down when buildings are destroyed, only when I build over them.

**Brusilov** · February 23, 2008, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

Just that I've never noticed the culture penalty go down when buildings are destroyed, only when I build over them.

I've seen that happen. It's probably more of unrest going down rather than anything else.

I've had settlements where I failed to remove all the buildings and found that many turns later when I had built all I could build I was getting a penalty. It turned out to be a building I could not upgrade was there for another faction/culture. When this was removed the settlement had less unrest.

**QuintusSertorius** · February 23, 2008, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by Brusilov

I've seen that happen. It's probably more of unrest going down rather than anything else.

I've had settlements where I failed to remove all the buildings and found that many turns later when I had built all I could build I was getting a penalty. It turned out to be a building I could not upgrade was there for another faction/culture. When this was removed the settlement had less unrest.

I guess it's about the net change; culture penalty might go down, but the greater unrest from loss of happiness makes things worse.