Buying land

[darko82]

Who do we pay when buying the free land (tiles)? Does it make sense to you at all? On the one hand, you can move around the enemy land in ancient era because "there are no boundries" yet discovered. On the other hand, you can buy a land from whom? I don't get it.

 

[MarigoldRan]

If there's like a spice a tile away, I buy it all the time.

 

[darko82]

If there's like a spice a tile away, I buy it all the time.

Yeah, the question is: who does take your money? Because it seems the land is not owned by anyone.

 

[Vandlys]

Yeah, the question is: who does take your money? Because it seems the land is not owned by anyone.

I COMPLETELY agree with this. Better would be to have a different currency for buying landtiles from no-man's-land, and have it be different for each Civ even. Some could use Culture, while others could use science or faith, if that makes sense.
I would like tiles to be able to be bought from other Civs, now that would both make sense and create a whole new dynamic.

 

[Tech Osen]

Who do we pay when buying the free land (tiles)? Does it make sense to you at all? On the one hand, you can move around the enemy land in ancient era because "there are no boundries" yet discovered. On the other hand, you can buy a land from whom? I don't get it.

It's for all the landmarks, they're not free you know!

 

[LuckyAC]

Presumably there are costs to the public coffer in a state-directed project to focus on settling and developing a particular region (rather than just letting sprawl and economic forces take their course). Whom are you paying when you buy a building or a unit? It costs money to get things done quickly.

 

[Disgustipated]

You are bartering for someone's land, I'm sure someone lives there, they just aren't your citizens. Though you should have the option to take it by force at the expense of happiness.

 

[kryat]

Presumably, you’re investing in the resources to utilize the land. Someone has to be the one living there to gather the food, gold, whatever. On the other hand, I think of the citizens working the tile more as the tax collectors you send to pick it up from the people living there.

 

[Cerilis]

Presumably, you’re investing in the resources to utilize the land. Someone has to be the one living there to gather the food, gold, whatever. On the other hand, I think of the citizens working the tile more as the tax collectors you send to pick it up from the people living there.

Tax collectors, I really like that.

 

[Scaramanga]

Like a lot of things in the game, there are things that require time but can be done quickly with gold. Switching your government cards is an example. In this case you are hiring some bumbling land surveyors to claim it, but their professionalism rises with the right policy cards.

 

[acluewithout]

If we can buy tiles, and we can buy buildings, and we can buy great people, and we can buy changing policy cards...

...why can’t we buy roads?

 

[DJ_Tanner]

Yeah, the question is: who does take your money? Because it seems the land is not owned by anyone.

You aren't buying the land, you are buying the influence over the land. You are forcing your nation's presence over that space and that is an internal cost. Sorta like how the US will pay you to live in Alaska.

 

[Scaramanga]

If we can buy tiles, and we can buy buildings, and we can buy great people, and we can buy changing policy cards...

...why can’t we buy roads?

You can buy the engineers and traders who build the roads. Some things are just projects by nature; you cannot buy the trading posts you get at the end either. I appreciate the deliverance from road spam personally.

 

[acluewithout]

You can buy the engineers and traders who build the roads. Some things are just projects by nature; you cannot buy the trading posts you get at the end either. I appreciate the deliverance from road spam personally.

True, although MEs are not great at building roads.

You can buy roads in Civ Revolution. Just seems to me that buying roads and buying tiles aren’t that different conceptually.

I wouldn’t want to lose Traders building roads - but being able just click, pay gold, and city x is connected to city y by a road would be very handy alternative late game.

It would also be pretty easy to expand something like that out to railways - ie pay another chunk of gold, and the two cities are connected by a railway.

 

[ZubieMaster]

Does it make sense to you at all?

Amusing post and seems silly on the surface, but it touches on something missing from Civ VI. There's just too much that is directly player-controlled instead of requiring the longer term strategies like planning, influence & politics. It's a fine line for game design to provide players with the tools needed to be the master of the outcome of their game via skill versus things out of their control, since the latter is often bemoaned as luck or "PRNG" or whatever. But to me a lot of it simply comes down to catering to the base instant-gratification of players. Need a tech? Boost it! Need a tile? Buy it! The religion game is another that is rife with this same simplistic control problem. Much of history forced monarchs to engage in a complex dance of power with religion, yet that's completely ignored by Civ that instead reduces to religion being something you push a button and get shiny stuff.

To me the solution would be in an immersive governor system where you allocate attributes like this -- e.g. put 1 governor point toward "enables buying of tiles" -- so at least when you buy a tile there's the fantasy of paying the governor and not the coin vanishing to the void. But this raises the danger of too much micro, so instead we have cookie-cutter governors.

Anyway, funny post and in the grand scheme it's not a huge offender on what must be fixed -- it's fine to buy a tile for game play's sake -- but the concept adds in to the grander thoughts of what's missing in Civ VI for me.

 

[Scaramanga]

True, although MEs are not great at building roads.

You can buy roads in Civ Revolution. Just seems to me that buying roads and buying tiles aren’t that different conceptually.

I wouldn’t want to lose Traders building roads - but being able just click, pay gold, and city x is connected to city y by a road would be very handy alternative late game.

It would also be pretty easy to expand something like that out to railways - ie pay another chunk of gold, and the two cities are connected by a railway.

I think buying a road to another civ and declaring war is too corny. So there would be a need for many military engineers if that was your aim. If the road is internal I would think your major cities are connected by the late era. If you could buy roads there would have to be a lot of consideration about what terrain it's going over and that would increase the cost.

 

[acluewithout]

I think buying a road to another civ and declaring war is too corny. So there would be a need for many military engineers if that was your aim. If the road is internal I would think your major cities are connected by the late era. If you could buy roads there would have to be a lot of consideration about what terrain it's going over and that would increase the cost.

I don't think the terrain point is a thing. The game could do the maths which I can't imagine would be that hard. From the players POV, you'd just have various city names in the city purchase screen (maybe at the bottom under units etc), each with a gold cost. Press the button, gold gets debited, and you get a road between those cities.

Building a road for war is more of an issue. I mean, I often do that already using traders. One solution would just be that you can only build roads between foreign cities if your allies - or with city states only if you have at least 6 envoys.

 

[Scaramanga]

I don't think the terrain point is a thing. The game could do the maths which I can't imagine would be that hard. From the players POV, you'd just have various city names in the city purchase screen (maybe at the bottom under units etc), each with a gold cost. Press the button, gold gets debited, and you get a road between those cities.

Building a road for war is more of an issue. I mean, I often do that already using traders. One solution would just be that you can only build roads between foreign cities if your allies - or with city states only if you have at least 6 envoys.

It's more realistic if a city that has value as an trade hub has more roads going to or from it. I don't know why you'd want a road going to a city that has no trading value other than military purposes, in which case you buy engineers.

 

[Inhalaattori]

I guess we could think that you are not really buying the land, but you are buying for the expenses for taking the land under your control. I dont really see any problem with this. I would say buying granary with "faith" makes much less sense. Or chopping forest to build space ships. etc.

 

[BarbarianHunter]

Who do we pay when buying the free land (tiles)? Does it make sense to you at all? On the one hand, you can move around the enemy land in ancient era because "there are no boundries" yet discovered. On the other hand, you can buy a land from whom? I don't get it.

I think it may be the same fellows that declare the emergencies. They are using their soft power and our funding to have their way with the place! I’d bet they use the funding from the land we purchase to declare these various EMERGENCIES! Have you noticed that emergencies seem random? There is a rhyme and reason, but we don’t see it, as we’re not privy to “their” plans! I suspect they may run the whole show from Mars, and plan to reconnoiter the region ASAP.