City Ceding

[Slax]

We have heard that City Flipping has been replaced with City Ceding. An enemy civ is basically pressured into giving or trading the city to the pressuring civ.

To quote Thunderfall: "as your nation expands, other nations will have trouble keeping the citizens happy near your borders, as they look with green envy at all that your nation has to offer. The rival nation will eventually be spending so much cash on the city to just keep the people happy that it will no longer be worth it for them to keep the city, so they may wind up seeding it to you through diplomatic terms."


I guess this solves the problem of how to deal with units in a Flipping City, they will be moved out voluntarily.

I'd really like more information on this. I thought domination by culture was a great addition to the game, albeit with problems (lost unit stacks, for example).

Will the pressures be enough for you, the human player, to give up a city?

 

[Himalia]

Cities flipping is an anoying thing at the very least couldnt it be some kind of battle between your units and the actual people there who try to overthrow there oppresore.

 

[narmox]

This actually makes flipping controllable to an extent and bearable, because you can prevent it by paying money until you can fix the problem or cede the city on better turns - if you can afford enough to last that long.

 

[Slax]

Cities flipping is an anoying thing at the very least couldnt it be some kind of battle between your units and the actual people there who try to overthrow there oppresore.

In my opinion, the idea of cities changing hands without military force being the major reason was a good gameplay decision, since it allowed peaceful methods of gaining territory. But you are right that some kind of battle should have been implemented in some flipping instances.

 

[Himalia]

Dont get me wrong i like the sound of this new idea. Some kinda combination of the two is what im hoping for tho.

 

[Bluemofia]

Yay! Now you can actually buy/sell cities so it's possible to gain Alaska from the Russians.

 

[Commander Bello]

This seems to only make sense if the ceded city would loose all of its currently accumulated culture.
Seems to offer quite some potential, as long as the AI can cope with such a concept.

 

[tcjsavannah]

Yay! Now you can actually buy/sell cities so it's possible to gain Alaska from the Russians.

Or Manhattan from the American Indians.

 

[Willem]

Or Manhattan from the American Indians.

No, that would be New Amsterdam from the Dutch. And the Dutch acquired New Amsterdam from the Indians.

(Don't mind me, I'm just being picky about historical facts.)

 

[Napo981]

In real history, does any city flipped that way 'cause of culture??

I don't think so.

When people get angry or don't fit in "culture", they ask for independance. Why our cities should flipped that way??

Personnally, I don't like this idea of ceding territory because of "unhappiness". Kind of weird thing. I would prefer revolt or independance poll. Units could just be transferred to nearest city, so we wouldn't lose them.

 

[vbraun]

I rember a old teacher saying that there was some country(lets call it X) where it was surrounded with another country(Y). Eventually a whole bunch of X's moved to Y over a period of time, eventually there was enough Xs in Y that Y became a part of X becasue it was mostly X to begin with. At least it was something along those lines.

Firaxis is doing a great job at fixing the culture flipping.

 

[Reinhard]

Well, you could say that during the 90's a whole bunch of entire countries flipped away from Russia / Soviet Union to Europe / European Union. The Soviets conquered them 1944-1945, held on to them for about 20 turns after which they flipped back due to them having built thousands of points of culture before being conquered.

 

[Himalia]

Thats does sound about right its not so noticeable in real life as many years do past for such a thing to occur. Many years may pass in the game but as its only an hour or so if that, thats gone pass it can seem very harsh.

 

[Akka]

In real history, does any city flipped that way 'cause of culture??

I don't think so.

When people get angry or don't fit in "culture", they ask for independance. Why our cities should flipped that way??

Not because of culture, usually, but the territory gains after wars in the XXth century were more or less all due to this "culture thing". Just look at the aftermath of 1918.

 

[Commander Bello]

Not because of culture, usually, but the territory gains after wars in the XXth century were more or less all due to this "culture thing". Just look at the aftermath of 1918.

Maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say, but the territory changes after WW1 were in almost no way due to "culture".
The German Reich (official name of Germany at that time) lost big portions of its former territory to Poland, although people were asked to vote for with which state they wanted to stay. Those votings were completely neglected by the victorious powers.
For Austria-Hungary (to become Austria) things were similar. A lot of people understanding themselves as Germans now found themselves to be forced to live in new states being dominated by the non-German majority. This was a big problem for Czechoslovakia, just to name on of those countries.
For Austria, it was forbidden to join the German Reich and even, to be called "German-Austria", as many people would have liked.

So, the territorial changes in mid-east Europe after 1918 were NOT due to "cultural" influences, but just forced by pure military power.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

In real history, does any city flipped that way 'cause of culture??

Sure. Even the capital of the Teutonic Order (Marienberg) flipped to Poland. After WW1, Tondern flipped from Germany to Denmark. And within Germany, Coburg flipped from Thuringia to Bavaria .
How many territories (not exactly cities) and tribes flipped to Rome? How many cities flipped to Greek culture (there was no Greek nation, but almost half the classical world 'hellenizid' voluntarily)?

 

[jmp_nyc]

In real history, does any city flipped that way 'cause of culture??

Off the top of my head, I'd say various Texas cities in the 19th Century suceeding from Mexico in favor of US rule, and the Algerian population turning away the French after over a century.

One could also make a strong argument that the regime change in South Africa in the late 20th Century was due to cultural pressures from neighboring nations.
-JMP

 

[Gogf]

We have heard that City Flipping has been replaced with City Ceding. An enemy civ is basically pressured into giving or trading the city to the pressuring civ.

To quote Thunderfall: "as your nation expands, other nations will have trouble keeping the citizens happy near your borders, as they look with green envy at all that your nation has to offer. The rival nation will eventually be spending so much cash on the city to just keep the people happy that it will no longer be worth it for them to keep the city, so they may wind up seeding it to you through diplomatic terms."


I guess this solves the problem of how to deal with units in a Flipping City, they will be moved out voluntarily.

I'd really like more information on this. I thought domination by culture was a great addition to the game, albeit with problems (lost unit stacks, for example).

Will the pressures be enough for you, the human player, to give up a city?

Note: Thunderfall was quoting the article in the quote you mentioned.

If a city is losing me money, and has no important value to me or the AI, I may give it away.

 

[Sub]

I see one problem with this new idea. Why would any human player give a city to the ai when he could just disband the city?

 

[Albow]

I guess it all depends on cost - if it is costing you 30 gold/turn to keep a city you don't really care about, of course you will trade it for something ... (and not just disband, because then you get nothing at all for it ...).But if it is strategically important, than all that cost and unhappiness might just force me into war ...