Annexation....

[James I]

What about the posibility of annexing city square s as part of peace treaties etc.....

Say you had a city which had lost useable squares to a neighbouring AI city, or was in danger of flipping......

When you 'won' a war, you could demand those squares instead of whole cities.......

The AI would be more likely to accept such a small loss..... and you could stabilise borders etc.....

Perhaps acceptance would be more likely/ 'cheaper' in areas that still contained population native to ur civ (lost cities)....

Just a thought

 

[Scuffer]

I rather like this idea, especially as it would allow you to secure resources like oil without razeing a city/taking over a city and have flip back.

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

Well, we already have annexation. It works like this:

Alexander: (with 100+ cities, 100+ modern armor, 230MI, etc.)
Lincoln: (with 13 cities, 20 tanks, 20 cavalry, asst spearmen and pikemen)

Alexander: "Give me New York, Buffalo, and Miami, NOW!"
Lincoln: "You know where you can shove that, Alexander."

In come the Modern Armor. WHAM! CRASH! Kansas City falls. Los Angeles falls. Minneapolis falls.

Alexander: "Give me New York, Buffalo, and Miami, NOW!"
Lincoln: "Alright, alright, already! Take 'em! Jeez!"

 

[Davidizer13]

I think they mean like what the US did to Texas, you know, bought them out to become part of the country. If you have enough culture, you probably know another kind of annexation. But I guess you could buy individual sqares from other nations, but if they don't have enough culture, the nation could take them back for free.

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

I don't think the AI should be willing to bargain away resource/luxury squares like that, it would make things too easy. Why should the AI hand you resources on a plate, when normally it makes you pay up the nose for them, or fight a war? If it's about negotiation to end a war, just ask for the whole city anyway, why not?

 

[sir_schwick]

Because the AI cannot give you cities now. They decided it was better to not trade cities at all, then have traded and lost.

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

If the AI won't give you a city for free than I don't think it should give you a potentially game-breaking resource square in negotiations, either, hope that makes things clearer.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Decided to bump this thread by bringing up something I experienced in SuperPower 2 which might be cool. Basically the idea between Occupation and Annexation. Essentially, Occupation is a MILITARY act, wheras Annexation is Political. When you occupy territory or cities, you will find it hard to gain anywhere NEAR the full benefits of them in the short to medium term (resources cannot be fully reaped, cities remain angry and defiant etc). If, however, you can get the previous owner to 'Give Up' his claim to the city/territory, then things become a LITTLE bit easier-though you still require the culture to truly claim land, and still need to completely pacify a city and make them into 'happy little campers' ! It just becomes a little bit easier is all!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Aramda Master]

Nice idea, better than to aquire cities from the AI.

 

[dh_epic]

I'd like to see war seperated into this "winning the war / winning the peace", or "occupation / liberation", "breaking in / claiming ownership" dichotomy.

Especially because it might make razing a city entirely a much more important strategy. I invade Paris. I can't seem to get control of the city, though, even though I have strong troops in position. Forget it, I'll just burn Paris to the ground -- this is taking too much time and money.

 

[Dida]

Land purchase rarely happens, I think, in real life. Mostly, land change owners by war. US seems like an expection, but thats maybe due to that US was a new nation, and this part of the world wasn't very important back then to many old world powers.

 

[DBear]

It should work more like the Gadsden Purchase, where the U.S. bought land from Mexico so it would have a cheaper southern route for a transcontinental railroad (which was never built).

 

[James I]

I never said it had to be cheap