The battle of the bars

Building ownership is relatively simple and yet complex, as it affects movement costs and thus action limits, and controls the order in which buildings activate (the order of their owning City States).

The basic policy:

1. Only CityStates? may construct buildings.

2. Buildings may be constructed:

   • contiguous to the city centre
   • contiguous to a chain of buildings one of which is contiguous with the city centre
   • contiguous to a transport chain which is contiguous with a matching transport production building which is contiguous with either the city centre or a building chain which is contiguous with the city centre.

Where this gets interesting is when buildings are removed from the may due to tech upgrades in their owning city or directly connected neighbours. Possible results:

1. The subject building remains connected to the city centre. In this case there is no change.
2. The subject building is no longer connected to any city centre. In this case the building is considered un-owned and may not be used. Any product markers on it must be discarded (or left until it is owned?).
3. The subject building is no longer connected to its original owning city centre but is connected to a different City State’s city centre. In this case the building is now owned by the other City State.
4. The subject building is no longer connected to its original owning city centre but is connected to multiple other different City State’s city centres. In this case the building will belong to the closest City State with ties broken by transport technology level, distance, breadth of connection, and City State treasury size. If there’s still a tie the building is unowned and is treated as in the #1 case.