Gifting cities

[PPQ_Purple]

I just tried to gift a city of mine to a vasal of mine, but it turned out that I can't.
So I wanted to ask, what exacly are the conditions that need to be furfilled in order for me to be able to gift an AI one of my cities?

 

[MagisterCultuum]

For some stupid reason, BtS only lets you liberate cities to vassals, never gift them. I've never liked that, and really wish Kael would change it. For non-vassals I don't think there is any limit on gifting non-capital cities, although the AI won't accept cities that it thinks would cause too many problems with maintenance. (I believe BtS temporarily limited gifting to permanent allies like to vassals, but people complained and an official patch changed it back. I wish they'd let you request allies change civics/religions at the same time.)

I forget the exact liberation requirements, but I think it might require the city have come of the vassals culture in it.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

So no chance of gifting my vasal that is on the other side of the globe a city closer to my homeland so that it can grow better? Overlords drown who ever thought of that.

 

[JimMorrison]

Well in many cases the city would be a single tile, with no hope of developing enough culture to even take the adjacent territories - lost in a sea of other cultures.

So the city would die back to 1 pop, and do nothing but push up maintenance.

 

[ICanHasName?]

Yea I assume it was to stop exploits like that, or gifting your enemies a bunch of awful desert cities to bury them in maintenance costs and defense requirements.

 

[Aroldo]

It should be possible for cities to die/be abandoned, then.

 

[WarKirby]

We just need a way to raze already-built cities, without having to let them be conquered.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

We just need a way to raze already-built cities, without having to let them be conquered.

And how can you prevent a "scorched earth" tactic, if you allow the razing of owned cities?

 

[PPQ_Purple]

And how can you prevent a "scorched earth" tactic, if you allow the razing of owned cities?

And why would you want to prevent it?
Scorched earth is a veary viable tactic. Besides, its already doable to some extent with Calibim by feeding your vampires on a city untill it hits 1 pop.

Well in many cases the city would be a single tile, with no hope of developing enough culture to even take the adjacent territories - lost in a sea of other cultures.

So the city would die back to 1 pop, and do nothing but push up maintenance.

Why do you say that? If I have a vasal, I am not about to give him a usles plot of land. I want to grow him, not bury him.

There has to be some way of changing the C++ code to allow me to gift cities to anyone.
There should also be a part of the code to keep the AI from refusing me if he is my vasal.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

And why would you want to prevent it?
Scorched earth is a veary viable tactic. Besides, its already doable to some extent with Calibim by feeding your vampires on a city untill it hits 1 pop.

It is not a good thing to allow this. Burning your city to the ground to avoid being captured is not an acceptable tactic in this game IMO. And the Calabim shouldn't be able to feed the Vampires down to Population 1.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

It is not a good thing to allow this. Burning your city to the ground to avoid being captured is not an acceptable tactic in this game IMO. And the Calabim shouldn't be able to feed the Vampires down to Population 1.

Why not? If you are willing to give a large and prosperus city up forever just to keep it out of enemy hands, I don't see why you should not be able to do so.

 

[deadliver]

Yeah I'm with PPQ, I used razed earth tactics as a last resort in my older civ games. The exception to this should be the self destruction of a shrine city.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

Why not? If you are willing to give a large and prosperus city up forever just to keep it out of enemy hands, I don't see why you should not be able to do so.

Because it is abusive and highly unrealistic.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Because it is abusive and highly unrealistic.

Is it? The Russians burned Moscow rather than letting Napoleon have it. And many other empires repeatatly use the strategy to combat their oponents.

When I can't win, I usualy use my units to pillage what ever I can arround my city to make it usles for the enemy to capture. In regular civ, I usualy nuke the hell out of any city that is about to fall if I know that I can't reclaim it. (And yes, I did modifly the code to turn ICBMs into SMAC Fusion busters.)

Scorched earth is in fact one of the most comonly used tactics of ancient times.

I think that your real problem is that you would hate to see it used against you. To solve this problem, suiciding cities could be made into a optional extra with it's own little check box in the interface.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

Is it? The Russians burned Moscow rather than letting Napoleon have it. And many other empires repeatatly use the strategy to combat their oponents.

Burned it(a part of it), but that doesn't mean they razed it. And I can't recall "many other empires" doing so. Razing a city, means killing your own population, or force them violently to abandon their homes.

When I can't win, I usualy use my units to pillage what ever I can arround my city to make it usles for the enemy to capture. In regular civ, I usualy nuke the hell out of any city that is about to fall if I know that I can't reclaim it. (And yes, I did modifly the code to turn ICBMs into SMAC Fusion busters.)

Scorched earth is in fact one of the most comonly used tactics of ancient times.

An example please. I have read enough ancient history to know this is not true.

I think that your real problem is that you would hate to see it used against you. To solve this problem, suiciding cities could be made into a optional extra with it's own little check box in the interface.

Now, I can imagine you thinking that this is the right time to make it personal.
I cannot avoid being sarcastic when someone says what my real problem is, especially if you think this is just a game.
The point is that I think the ability to raze your own cities is abusive, unrealistic and a balance destroyer, whether in multiplayer or (even worst) in single player.
I could follow your way of thinking and start stating what your real problem is that makes you want to raze your own cities, but I prefer to stay out of personalising opinions and ideas.

 

[ICanHasName?]

I love the SMAC nukes! It always bothered me that dropping a bunch of hugely expensive ICBM's on a city did nothing other then damaging stuff and generating deserts.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

An example please. I have read enough ancient history to know this is not true

Its hard to relate an appropriate example into civ terms, becouse in civ, only huge cities count as cities. But weary often, empires would rase all villages and fields while retreating to prevent the enemy from being able to support his troops from it.
For example, during the napoleonic wars, the Russians destroyed all villages and farms while they were retreating to starve Napoleons army.

Now in civ, the enemy does not get any suport bonuses from capturing your farms. But if he captures a city the troops in it count as "in his territory" for upkeap costs. So raising a city to keep the enemy army starved via the gold needed for upkeap is a viable strategy.

Now, I can imagine you thinking that this is the right time to make it personal.
I cannot avoid being sarcastic when someone says what my real problem is, especially if you think this is just a game.
The point is that I think the ability to raze your own cities is abusive, unrealistic and a balance destroyer, whether in multiplayer or (even worst) in single player.
I could follow your way of thinking and start stating what your real problem is that makes you want to raze your own cities, but I prefer to stay out of personalising opinions and ideas.

Don't get rude like a 10 year old. You are seriusely twisting what I said.

It's nether abusive nor unrealistic. And if you think it ruins the balance, play without it.
I for one find that the Culture Victory condition is completely balance destroying as it has no real historical base. I am yet to see any explanation as to how having 3 cities with huge is going to do anything for you against the hordes of Demons, barbarians and angry neibours that want your head for culture taking their cities. Well, anything other than atract them to pillage you eather way.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

Its hard to relate an appropriate example into civ terms, becouse in civ, only huge cities count as cities. But weary often, empires would rase all villages and fields while retreating to prevent the enemy from being able to support his troops from it.
For example, during the napoleonic wars, the Russians destroyed all villages and farms while they were retreating to starve Napoleons army.

The Napoleonic wars are not ancient history. And, I shouldn't need to outline that fields/farms are not cities. Bringing only the Russian Empire as an example(even the Soviet Union did not raze any cities), and only for minor villages, does not add to what you have already said.

Now in civ, the enemy does not get any suport bonuses from capturing your farms. But if he captures a city the troops in it count as "in his territory" for upkeap costs. So raising a city to keep the enemy army starved via the gold needed for upkeap is a viable strategy.



Don't get rude like a 10 year old. You are seriusely twisting what I said.

I don't know why you like insulting people. I didn't say anything rude to you, and I did not twist anything you said. Perhaps you should reread your post.

It's nether abusive nor unrealistic. And if you think it ruins the balance, play without it.

Again, you are being aggressive and I feel like you want me to stop saying my opinion and presenting my arguments. Sorry, you will not achieve your purpose.

 

[Iceciro]

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

Calm down.

I think that the main reason that razing cities as Scorched Earth tactics should be dissallowed is that it makes conquering cities a lot less fun. And this is, in the end, a game.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

Calm down.

I think that the main reason that razing cities as Scorched Earth tactics should be dissallowed is that it makes conquering cities a lot less fun. And this is, in the end, a game.

Maybe for you. But that is your personal opinion. As a person currently runing liberty and republic I beleve that people who want it should have a option to burn their own cities. Althou probably with some limitations to the troops needed to complete it. Make it a selectable option with an on/off switch and everyone is happy.

I also think that this has gotten a lot off topic. Now I understand that some people like that to happen but I don't. So can anyone tell me how to change the code to allow me to gift cities to a vasal? And also, if I can't gift them to vasals, how am I suposed to make a colony with more than 1 city?