collateral infrastructure damage

[Wahazar]

Attack on city causes random damage of city improvements, while killing units on the field doesn't affect local infrastructure.

I propose to add option of random damage of high-tier infrastructure on the tile where defending stack is killed
(percentage probability should depend on attacker strength, for example 5*Attack % - nukes always destroy infrastructure).

Only high-tier infrastructure or bases should be affected, i.e. those build on top of another - railroads, farmfields, fortress (on top of pre-fort), airbase (on top of airstrip) etc. Low-tier infrastructure such roads, irrigation etc remain intact, even if there are no other improvements here.

Such change is not just to increase realism, but to improve strategy. Currently players afraid to make fortress or railway to avoid enemy to use it against them in case of defeat. Probability of collateral damage would make brute nuke attacks less profitable for attacker, if he want to capture given terrain (on the other side, nuking enemy city protected by one unit, far from the front line, is more effective method of decreasing enemy power). Or you may use sacrifice some infantry instead of tanks, to capture fortress or railroad intact.

[Corbeau]

Why should roads and irrigation remain intact?

[Wahazar]

Why should roads and irrigation remain intact?

It is rather hard to destroy ordinary dirt road unintentionally. Or unpaved airstrip. Or underground mine. Or simple irrigation trench.
While railroad, airbase, oil well or modern farmlands (with irrigation pipes) are more vulnerable.

It is about rationalization, and from game point of view, damage of anything would yield too high impact on strategy.
Now you can attack enemy base and get it intact for yourself. It is unfair from defender point of view.
My idea is to get probability of getting something worse.
Getting nothing is too harsh and unfair for attacker point of view.