City Trade/Colonialism Trade Window..poor job

[angelus512]

Been mulling over this for a while.
Now everybody draws to real world situations which is fine but for the most part its still a game so...

Anyway in the real world when the great european powers of yesteryear conducted wars when they came to the peace table they often traded colonies/cities around to reach agreement.
Or even during peace sometimes would swap cities for various reasons.

In civ4 I think the ability to actually trade cities has been seriously missed. For example I play as England a great deal due to the Redcoat.
Plus I try to stay true to life and establish a vast overseas empire. And oftentimes on world map Japan does this and so does Ceasar.

Now i just think its a bit pathetic that the designers didn't include a true ability to "reasonably" trade cities between nations.
Say I want a base in the pacific, I ask Japan for one of their pissy little colonies in exchange for something i've got in South Africa maybe.

Or maybe Japan likes all their land so I have to give them 2 cities for one. Etc like I guess what I'm saying is if i offer my ENTIRE empire of 15 cities for 1 damn city its RIDICULOUS that the computer refuses me.
Not that i'd do that but the point is that I can't even if i wanted to.

 

[Xanikk999]

How many nations outside of war actually traded developed territory with actual cities?

The options already there for war. And its just not realistic to trade cities in peace time.

Do you think the U.S would trade new york city to Japan for kyoto?

 

[angelus512]

Of course not but like i said real world...its still a game. We can draw real world examples but its still a game.
And in the game I reckon no option should be denied so long as its reasonable. Specifically the city trading.

But if you want RL scenarios then france and england traded important coffee and cotton supply colonies many a time due to war or circumstances outside of that.

Plus Alaska was sold to america. An undeveloped land yes but turns out nowdays alaska is jam packed with oil.

Point is I'd like to actually be able to make trades. I mean wouldn't you?

 

[Tulkas12]

Yea, remember that Napoleon sold a third of the modern US to finance his european conquests. Where would the US be minus the infamous Louisiana Purchase. There is plenty of real life, peace time, sells, trades of territories. I think the OPs point is very very valid.

 

[Chamaedrys]

Anyway in the real world when the great european powers of yesteryear conducted wars when they came to the peace table they often traded colonies/cities around to reach agreement.
Or even during peace sometimes would swap cities for various reasons.

But when you make peace in the game, all the city you've conquered are yours! In the real world the winner of a war usually get less than he had conquered.

 

[Commander Bello]

How many nations outside of war actually traded developed territory with actual cities?

The options already there for war. And its just not realistic to trade cities in peace time.

Do you think the U.S would trade new york city to Japan for kyoto?

It actually would be. The US bought Alaska from Russia, and Louisiana from France, if I remember correctly

 

[SkippyT]

...Hmm.. I think land trading would be nice - fx. I want these plots, this one, this one and maybe this city there, oh yeah,.. and that gems mine over there. The price would determine on how weak/strong to you the person is who you are buying from. Fx. If you were England in 1900, and were talking to Egypt (which was...not a big empire) it would cost less. - Resources cost more and cities cost more, size determines something and culture something... I would think that's fair, but you can't really buy a city, like even though England was much bigger than Germany, you can't go buying Munich, because it's of huge cultural values, so the max culture (for a city) would have to be around 500, perhaps