Old version of Civ 3 / Trading Towns

Discussion in 'Civ3 - General Discussions' started by bbrady413, Sep 12, 2016.

  1. bbrady413

    bbrady413 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2014
    Messages:
    90
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    I've been reading through some of the really old posts, and see a lot of people talking about trading towns for various things. By the time I started playing Civ 3, the AI town trading was already patched out. How was it playing games where you could buy or sell towns that weren't part of war/peace negotiations? It must've been interesting.

    Was it really an exploit? Or was it a fun part of the game that is sorely missed?
     
  2. ZergMazter

    ZergMazter Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2012
    Messages:
    437
    Location:
    US, Florida
    I was wondering if I was just imagining things, but I recall buying a town while in peace so many years ago!
     
  3. tjs282

    tjs282 Stone(cold)fish

    Joined:
    May 19, 2009
    Messages:
    3,723
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Planet Earth. Possibly.
    It was certainly exploitable. The AI was/is programmed to value all (its) towns very highly, even when a town is not particularly 'valuable' in actual game terms. Prior to the patch, it would therefore happily fork over disproportionate payments of cash/ techs/ resources in exchange for (what would be) useless 1-shield Tundra-trash, for example.

    I also read about one game where the player planted ~10 1-shield towns on their own continent, placed an attack-unit next to each of them, transferred the towns to an AICiv (can't remember if this was a pre- or post-patch game), then immediately DoW'd and took them all back in a single turn (they auto-razed). Even though all those towns were effectively useless to it, the AICiv then considered that it had taken such a huge 'loss', that it was then prepared to make large concessions to the human in exchange for peace -- including a secure foothold(s) on its own continent (with predictable results).

    Gifting towns is of course still possible, so the patch wouldn't have prevented this tactic altogether -- but it does at least prevent the Player from getting any tangible upfront benefits from selling such sacrificial towns.
     
  4. bbrady413

    bbrady413 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2014
    Messages:
    90
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    In your opinion, did they go too far with the patch, completely shutting it down? Do you think there could've been some more room for reasonable negotiations?
     
  5. Lanzelot

    Lanzelot Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,838
    Location:
    Heidelberg
    This is still possible today. (I.e. not effected by the patch.) (But it is usually done with size-2 towns, i.e. wait till they have grown or join a worker, before gifting them to the AI. Why waste so many settlers... :D)
     
  6. tjs282

    tjs282 Stone(cold)fish

    Joined:
    May 19, 2009
    Messages:
    3,723
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Planet Earth. Possibly.
    No, because I don't think that buying/selling (or gifting) cities makes a lot of sense, from a gameplay or historical perspective.

    Most civilizational expansion in human history has been via invasion/warfare, with (additional) territorial gains sealed by peace treaties -- and arguably, the only other way that territory has historically moved from one nation's control to another's is via revolutions/ civil wars, i.e. 'culture flips'. Also, the idea that a Civ could accept a town on the other side of the planet without having overwhelming military forces and/or control of the sea lanes (in order to supply that town and keep it from flipping) also makes little sense (to me). So if anything, I'd suggest that they didn't go far enough with the patch: had it been up to me, not only would city trading/ gifting be disallowed during peacetime, but the only towns which would be eligible for transfer during peace negotiations, would be those adjacent to (the victor's) current borders -- who gets to dictate terms is after all a good measure of who 'won' a war.

    On a vaguely related note, I also think it's a little silly that all citizens living in gifted/ conceded towns instantly acquire the nationality of their new owner, whereas in towns which change hands via culture-flips (i.e. where the citizens really 'want' to be part of a different civ), citizens retain their original nationality until assimilated. Seems like that should have been programmed the other way round (and don't get me started on the AI's freebie-units in a flipped/gifted town, that the player doesn't get)...

    Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy playing Civ3, but for a game that purports to model human history, the above are just a couple of examples of things that I find 'unrealistic' (for want of a better word).
     
  7. justanick

    justanick Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2010
    Messages:
    1,202
    Location:
    Germany
    Doesn't he? Are you sure that a human player accepting a culture flip to his empire does not get a regular defensive unit for it? Usually the problem is getting a flip in the first place.
     
  8. Lanzelot

    Lanzelot Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,838
    Location:
    Heidelberg
    Both cases happened in real history, so I see no reason to prevent them in the game:
    a) In the Treaty of 1890, Great Britain and Germany exchanged territories in a peaceful way: Germany got Heligoland and the Caprivi Strip, while Britain got Wituland. Germany also relinquished its claims to Zanzibar, allowing Britain to set up a colony there. A couple of borders between German and British territories were also consolidated.
    b) In the peace treaty of Paris, 1898, the USA annexed the Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico from Spain, neither of which is exactly "adjacent to the victor's current borders".

    I'm sure there are many more examples in history.
     
  9. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    26,150
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    The Louisiana Purchase and Alaska were both examples of the US expanding by buying land from other countries.
     

Share This Page