Right now we can't trade city along with gold or tech, that's unreasonable and unrealistic. In history many kings sold their conquered city, like Richard the lionheart.
Capture enemy city, ask for ransom, that would be a good realisic feature. Shall we enable it?

I would like to test this feature in both RFC and RFCE.

I have long wanted this feature in vanilla civ, but since that's not happening anytime soon, having it in RFC is the next best thing.

AFAIK, peace deals can only have tribute by one side. So you can't have peace + get gold + give away city.

I don't like the purely give and no-take or take but no-give treaties. I would love to be able to get a tech but buy it a little cheaper from my wars, or give back some of my conquered cities for a price. Arguing borders line by line might be a little much but at least I can choose which cities to give back.

Ah, Civ5 when is it coming...

I don't like the purely give and no-take or take but no-give treaties. I would love to be able to get a tech but buy it a little cheaper from my wars, or give back some of my conquered cities for a price. Arguing borders line by line might be a little much but at least I can choose which cities to give back.

Ah, Civ5 when is it coming...

Yes for techs, but No for cities! I don't want a situation where cities are just bought and sold. That really didn't happen in history because the cost in prestige would be unacceptable to the monarch who sold part of his birthright for "a mess of pottage". Occupation is less clear-cut than already owned cities, but where do you draw the line?

I agree, but maybe only make city exchanges possible if it's voluntary (e.g. the AI liberating cities to you or vice versa) or from war (the area between France and Germany probably have changed hands too many times to count).

I don't want a situation where cities are just bought and sold. That really didn't happen in history because the cost in prestige would be unacceptable to the monarch who sold part of his birthright for "a mess of pottage".

The Louisiana purchase begs to differ. Napoleon wanted to rid himself of it since slavery couldn't be reestablished, so it was not profitable to him (what short-sightedness).

I agree, but maybe only make city exchanges possible if it's voluntary (e.g. the AI liberating cities to you or vice versa) or from war (the area between France and Germany probably have changed hands too many times to count).


The Louisiana purchase begs to differ. Napoleon wanted to rid himself of it since slavery couldn't be reestablished, so it was not profitable to him (what short-sightedness).

There is another point of view : Napoleon wanted to strengthen USA to "balance" England, by the cheap trade of Louisiana. He succeeded, US became superpower in 20th century and UK went down. Of course, why France still failed is another problem.

The Louisiana purchase begs to differ. Napoleon wanted to rid himself of it since slavery couldn't be reestablished, so it was not profitable to him (what short-sightedness).

It was short-sighted because he lost the Napoleonic Wars. If it helped finance the Napoleonic Empire of French Europe, it would have been genius!

Still, a one-off act by Napoleon's not comparable to those of any real monarch.

OK so the Alaskan purchase (Seward's folly) was a folly on the Tsar's part too, and the Platte Purchase (of Indian land) was a folly on the Indians' part. Maybe the Americans should have a 2nd UP called purchasing land from others by a pittance.:)

OK so the Alaskan purchase (Seward's folly) was a folly on the Tsar's part too, and the Platte Purchase (of Indian land) was a folly on the Indians' part. Maybe the Americans should have a 2nd UP called purchasing land from others by a pittance.:)

2nd UP, get benefits whenever two European countries fight.

The American Dream UP could also be tied with the Statue of Liberty and replaced with the city-buying option.