Do You Buy Cities?

[Marlos]

I often find that the more Civ2 I play, the more I just buy out my enemies. A well-constructed game with ASTC and good trade routes makes cash generation so easy that I am hard-pressed to not buy every strategically-located city. Sometimes, I will concentrate my forces on the capital, whose capture makes buying the remaining cities much easier.

Also, considering that if a city is bought, the improvements are not destroyed makes their purchase a very attractive option. With spies, you generally do not have to re-commission the "buyer".

So, do you buy cities?

Perhaps we should have a GOTM where everyone goes on the honor system and doesn't buy any cities... Just a thought.

 

[starlifter]

Yup, I buy cities (revolt & subvert). Nice way to take a city relatively intact, if ya got the gold!

We just did a Deity + 1 (the next higher level above Deity) in the Succession thread, and played by that rule (no revolts or subversions, but unit bribes OK). Makes the conquering a bit slower, and you get fewer city improvements as you steamroll along. The outcome for the AI is inevitable: Resistance is Futile!

 

[Titi]

Originally posted by Marlos
Also, considering that if a city is bought, the improvements are not destroyed makes their purchase a very attractive option.

So, do you buy cities?

Yes, I buy cities, for this reason and also because it's quicker to buy it than destroy all the defending units inside ! Not to mention that you don't have to create (and thus waste shields) your attackers to win the city.

 

[TimTheEnchanter]

Most definitely! Another big advantage: If it doesn't have walls you don't have to worry about population decrease and possible destruction of the city as the defenders are taken out.

 

[ferenginar]

I buy cities whenever I can as it protects improvements and gains military forces for less than the Full rush buy costs, the city is thus pre-defended and not reliant on the protection of the Howie you used to capture it.

Marlos, perhaps we should have a game where you can only take an enemy city by buying it. Could be interesting as it precludes early conquest.

ferenginar 86

 

[Marlos]

Originally posted by ferenginar
...perhaps we should have a game where you can only take an enemy city by buying it. Could be interesting as it precludes early conquest.

Hmm, also a good idea! In a game like this, I could see commissioning even more diplomats/spies than I already do!

The military production would change somewhat as well in a game like this, since there would be no need to build a sufficient attack force to take the capital. You would only need to build enough catapults/cannon/artillery etc. to fend off enemy invasion.

Good idea, feringinar!

 

[Old n Slow]

I think rather than a yes/no, the poll might be better slanted:
Purchase?

Never
Occasionally
Often
As a preference
Always -- (only fight Capitals & Democracies)

 

[GenShwartzCough]

I agree with OnS. Another consideration might be whether or not you buy them in multiplayer games. I myself prefer the "No City Bribe" rule in multiplayer games. But I did vote "yes" because I do form time-to-time in SP games, if I can afford it.

 

[KingWilly]

Originally posted by ferenginar

Marlos, perhaps we should have a game where you can only take an enemy city by buying it. Could be interesting as it precludes early conquest.

Sounds OK, except IIRC, you cannot capture AI capitals by buying them. All other cities OK, but capitals No. I'll have to confirm this though.

On the topic of buying cities though, I never used to, but like Marlos, find myself doing so more and more. It uses less resources (1 spy, rather than numerous howies and armors) and you do not need to rebuild the city (defense force and improvements) after you have conquered it as they are already there.
Capitalism at its best.

 

[ferenginar]

KingWilly is correct that you cannot buy capitals, so the game would either have to be completed by SS, or allow the taking of capital cities by force as an exception to the rule.

ferenginar 84

 

[Marlos]

Originally posted by Old n Slow
I think rather than a yes/no, the poll might be better slanted

Good point, old chap, I should have included more choices. As I stated, I always seem to be buying cities, so my initial thought was to see if others always bought.

Given the overwhelming "yes" response (14 Yes to 0 No at this point ), it would seem that the curve would still be heavy on the affirmative side.

 

[Ace]

IMHO, the longer you play civ II, the more you will buy cities. I have long been a strong advocate of blitzkrieg with howies and tanks led by spies, but of late, I only build offensive units to capture capitals and buy all the rest (assuming the AI is not in democracy).

While buying cities does not have the same sense of satisfaction as blasting them with howies, the purchased city is in much better shape than a captured one.

 

[Old n Slow]

A buy only game is doable, but it will put a crimp on the fast conquest specialists like Smash. For the capitals & democratic cities, military forces can simply grind down the population & the city crumbles to dust -- no conquest. For an exciting log, read Kev's journal in last month's GOTM -- 'nuff said.

 

[Fundamentalist]

I have to admit to buying out my enemies citiesa hell of a lot, in fact I do it a damn site more than making my own, I do it partly for the improvements doing so can bring but also the feeling that im killing two birds with one stone, crippling my enemy and expanding my civilisations size, its also a damn site better than invading them for the reasons you have all outlined.

 

[eyeball]

When I forst played Civ, I never bought cities. Now, I do it all the time, once I get spies.

 

[ElephantU]

In a sense, buying an enemy city is like a "cultural victory" a la CIV3...

The bigger problem is that AI cities tend to be poorly located for maximum growth and production. If they are small they are easy to reduce and relocate; bigger ones are a pain.

Any "buy cities only" game will just become a rush to Democracy...

 

[coup d'etat]

Doesn't anyone think its just plain fun to destroy a civ with military might as opposed to buying all their cities and capturing the capital?

 

[Garvarg]

It's the American way of life. Buy them out, if they resist, blow 'em up!

 

[Remorseless]

I always try to buy them out--it is the reason I use diplomats and spies. The only problem I've encountered is if your opponent has too many cities -- eventually you run out of money and thus are back to grinding through them to seize control...which is, after all is said and done, more fun.

 

[Old n Slow]

Actually, purchases can be rather inexpensive. If you are able to crush the capital first (without the civ rebuying another) then the remaining cities are at half price or less. And what I tend to see is for my purchase $$, I collect: a few units (potentially future rifles & cavs & artys if timed well) and a little more infrastructure than the conquest -- not to mention the reduced need to build, move (counter the unhappiness) and support the combat troops.

Sometimes the purchase can yield an outright profit. In my latest GOTM, I bought a Zulu city (2nd to last) for about 400-500g & collected about the same in return (plus two defenders & four items of infrastructure).