Is it totally impossible to return cities to original owners?

[yeongyi85]

Hi guys, I always thanks to you for this awesome work.

Recently, i updated CBP to version beta 5/21 and i recognized that i can't trade cities with unfriendly AI.

I can't understand this new dealing system.

I used to capture a city in the strategic pointand and I return it.

or I could give AI the city that was occupied another AI in order to make ally or vassal.

You know, to trade cities occurred often in real life.

Russia sold Alaska to USA in 19c, Korea gave some cities include Pyeong-yang to china for ally in 7c. and USA returned Okinawa to Japan in 20c.

But in latest vesion of CBP, these all actions are impossible.

I know this system is necessary for balance or something.
but i think it is harmful to strategic variety and realism.

so, just I want to know the way of modify the trade rule via xml or sql something.
what can i do for it?

Anyway, sorry for my awful english..


//today i found a bug that Explorer shared shape of Tercio have a same Icon as Tercio in strategic view.

 

[Kenpari]

I'm not having any trouble trading cities... After capturing a city conquered by someone else, I have the option to liberate it to the original owner. I also have the option to trade any of my cities to the AI, or buy their cities, from the trade menu. Do you have a declaration of friendship? Unless it's a surrendering deal, you won't be able to trade cities without. Also, most AI aren't eager to sell their vassalage under any circumstances, no matter what you give them.

 

[yeongyi85]

I'm not having any trouble trading cities... After capturing a city conquered by someone else, I have the option to liberate it to the original owner. I also have the option to trade any of my cities to the AI, or buy their cities, from the trade menu. Do you have a declaration of friendship? Unless it's a surrendering deal, you won't be able to trade cities without. Also, most AI aren't eager to sell their vassalage under any circumstances, no matter what you give them.

Not be able to trade cities without friendship is my problem.
I think this new trade system is restricting player's strategic decisions in the game.
And I could buy vassalage from AIs to gave profits like tech or something in the last version of cbp
anyway thanks to reply.

 

[Zanteogo]

I have an issue with how this works currently too.

First thing, trading of cities need to be able to do done outside of friendship. Perhaps just requiring an embasy. Have the AI take into account the status of your relationship into the value of the trade instead. (so if the AI doesn't like you, it will want a 3 to 1 value for cities).

I understand why the friendship requirment was added in originally. (people where trading 3 AI cities for 1000 GPT then declaring war right afterwards) However, the current system is just so limiting. We have basicly plugged a clear exploit hole, but in return limted a potential land trading system.

The limits and issues with this really come into play when vassals appear. This also brings my second point..

Your vassals should NOT be able to trade away their cities! (at least to civs that arn't their master) Nothing worse than a vassal giving away it's cities to the other AI. It's should not be allowed.

However, we should always be able to trade cites with our vassals. This usally is an issue when you kick a civ to the floor and they agree to become your vassal. At this point it would be wonderful to be able to return captured cities to your vassal. However, chances are your vassal won't like you and probally never will. So your not getting a friendship with them.

Heck, even if possible the player should always be allowed to give away their own cities at the very least.

 

[cononderbee]

I've been holding back on commenting on this exact point until I'd completed a few more games, but I find the requirement to needing a DoF very limiting too. There's been numerous points where trading for a city with a less-than-friendly player would be of benefit to us both as opposed to a war. Plus not being able to trade with vassals is very annoying; often I want to trade back captured cities to bolster their economy, keep a buffer between another player, or counteract negative happiness.

Moreover not being able to trade cities rarely changes my 'grand strategy', just adds a level of pointless annoyance as I spend 5-6 turns capturing Hiawatha's spammed city or waiting 60~ turns until my vassal views me as a friend.

 

[yeongyi85]

I have an issue with how this works currently too.

First thing, trading of cities need to be able to do done outside of friendship. Perhaps just requiring an embasy. Have the AI take into account the status of your relationship into the value of the trade instead. (so if the AI doesn't like you, it will want a 3 to 1 value for cities).

I understand why the friendship requirment was added in originally. (people where trading 3 AI cities for 1000 GPT then declaring war right afterwards) However, the current system is just so limiting. We have basicly plugged a clear exploit hole, but in return limted a potential land trading system.

The limits and issues with this really come into play when vassals appear. This also brings my second point..

Your vassals should NOT be able to trade away their cities! (at least to civs that arn't their master) Nothing worse than a vassal giving away it's cities to the other AI. It's should not be allowed.

However, we should always be able to trade cites with our vassals. This usally is an issue when you kick a civ to the floor and they agree to become your vassal. At this point it would be wonderful to be able to return captured cities to your vassal. However, chances are your vassal won't like you and probally never will. So your not getting a friendship with them.

Heck, even if possible the player should always be allowed to give away their own cities at the very least.

I totally agree with you

 

[CreonMushnik]

I have an issue with how this works currently too.

First thing, trading of cities need to be able to do done outside of friendship. Perhaps just requiring an embasy. Have the AI take into account the status of your relationship into the value of the trade instead. (so if the AI doesn't like you, it will want a 3 to 1 value for cities).

I understand why the friendship requirment was added in originally. (people where trading 3 AI cities for 1000 GPT then declaring war right afterwards) However, the current system is just so limiting. We have basicly plugged a clear exploit hole, but in return limted a potential land trading system.

The limits and issues with this really come into play when vassals appear. This also brings my second point..

Your vassals should NOT be able to trade away their cities! (at least to civs that arn't their master) Nothing worse than a vassal giving away it's cities to the other AI. It's should not be allowed.

However, we should always be able to trade cites with our vassals. This usally is an issue when you kick a civ to the floor and they agree to become your vassal. At this point it would be wonderful to be able to return captured cities to your vassal. However, chances are your vassal won't like you and probally never will. So your not getting a friendship with them.

Heck, even if possible the player should always be allowed to give away their own cities at the very least.

Really depends in my opinion. I've never had any trouble getting friendship with vassals. Mainly due to the fact that I don't usually invade and destroy them. My tactic is usually to wait (or encourage) until another civ attacks a mutual neighbor and has nearly defeated them, then offer vassalage to the loser. They will always prefer vassalage to destruction and you get a free vassal while also stymieing the larger guys' attempt at conquest. And later on you can easily march back through the aggressor's lands and liberate cities into your functional possession. No warmonger penalty but effective conquest.