Gifting city to passive civ with the Great Wall

[s0nny80y]

I started a King game as Shaka and after taking over a couple civ capitals and city states, I had come across the Huns. Instead of moving on them, I left my newly acquired Turkish capital wide open in order to attack another civ. Atilla, of course, has a mutual respect for my war mongering so I thought nothing of him due to his friendly posturing.

After investing troop movements deep into Celtic territory, far away from Istanbul, Atilla started to get hungry.

In response, I thought it best to gift the Ottoman capital to Brazil. Due to an earlier raid and raze of one of Pedro's cities, and subsequent brokered peace deal (in order to divert attention to taking Istanbul), Pedro was understandably 'guarded.'

...another reason why I chose not to siege Brazil was due to their completion of the Great Wall coupled with their large cultural border. (the wall makes the +1 movement promotion completely moot, and it's my philosophy to always take advantage of my civ's unique traits)

Although all victory types were checked, as Shaka I thought best to go for a dom victory--SO--regardless if I held Istanbul or not, it didn't matter as long as Suleiman didn't regain it. This, I made sure by asking Brazil for a DoW against the Turks one sole city left. This set of events followed after the Huns took a Turk city on Istanbul's east flank.

I find gifting this city significant due to Brazil's movement modifying defenses and their potential effect on Hunnic encroachment. And since Brazil seems to forgo conquest in favor of defense and culture, I think gifting the Turkish capital to Pedro highlights one instance where gifting cities are useful.

On another note, I think Shaka either as an 'all-in' warring type of civ or nothing kind of leader. Btw, are dom games more challenging--fun--with BNW or what?

 

[DaveMcW]

I routinely gift away capitals when going for domination.

Sometimes I even manage to make 2 civs swap capitals.

 

[Smith of Lie]

Giving away capitals in BNW is not a good idea. The victory condition of Domination has been modified so that to win you need to control ALL original capitals personally. Even those of civs that had been eliminated from the game completly. Had it in my game as Poland - Alex took all of Persia, eradicating the civ from the map, yet I needed to grab both Athenes and Persepolis from him.


As a side note - it was weirdly appropriate to see Alex grabbing Persia. Most historically accurate thing to happen so far in my games.

 

[s0nny80y]

You must be the last civ in control of your capital for a DV,

 

[Monthar]

You must be the last civ in control of your capital for a DV,

In vanilla and G&K this is correct, but in BNW it is not. In BNW you must control all the capitals to win domination.

 

[njmfff]

I routinely gift away capitals when going for domination.

Sometimes I even manage to make 2 civs swap capitals.

What I like to do - get attacked or attack the other civ. Take some of their cities as a peace treaty gift. Sell them back their city the very next turn if it's useless.

In vanilla and G&K this is correct, but in BNW it is not. In BNW you must control all the capitals to win domination.

Finally! I always found Dom victory lame because of that. I am pretty sure that biggest civ that's left on the map could easily retake their capital, but no, you got instant win. Now, it seems more challenging that you actually have to control all the capitals and defending them.