As well as providing pop, the Settler HQ acts as a storehouse and, therefore, is not 'movable'.
The only way to reposition one is to demolish it and rebuild in the new spot, at which point any tokens spent to upgrade it will be lost.
Printable View
As well as providing pop, the Settler HQ acts as a storehouse and, therefore, is not 'movable'.
The only way to reposition one is to demolish it and rebuild in the new spot, at which point any tokens spent to upgrade it will be lost.
Not a design flaw, several buildings are like this i.e. storehouse.
Yes, I know this, but you are missing the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by geezer123
Originally the HQ did not act as a storehouse and used to be 'movable'. After one update, it was unintentionally changed and nearby buildings started delivering their goods to it and so forth. After investigating the issue, BB decided just to leave it, however because it was movable, this lead to issues for players who tried to move it into a different sector when there were no other stores in the sector it was being moved from. Therefore it was made non 'movable' like any other storehouse. At the time it was no issue as you could just demolish it with no consequence, just as long as you had another store in the sector.
With the introduction of the token system, though, suddenly the fact that this building cannot be moved becomes a really big deal. Every other building you can spend non-tradable tokens on can be moved without losing the tokens invested in it. This is not the case with the Settler HQ because of it's (originally unintended) second function as a storehouse.
In my opinion, this is a flaw in the token reward system and should be addressed in some way, if only in the form of a specific warning about it in the confirmation pop-up for upgrading the Settler HQ.
Storehouses cannot be upgraded with tokens, so they are irrelevant in this instance. The problem is that we have a building that can be upgraded with non-refundable tokens which will be lost if there is ever a need to move the building, because the only way to move it is to demolish and place, meaning the upgrades are lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by geezer123
It would almost be preferable to have the Settlers HQ designated as non-upgradeable, IMO.
Not really as it should be up to the player to decide. Some people have had it in same place for years and most likely will remain so. I think BB also knew this and all the limitations as when they added the upgrade support since the building has greater population threshold.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wulfmeister
I did say "almost". Then again, I have also moved my original Settlers HQ a couple of times since originally placing it....Quote:
Originally Posted by Mannerheim