Takeover

[surfersjk]

Hi everyone. I have a questin for you. During my current game I have had four or five cities switch allegiance to me from the Russians. That was fine. I just do not understand the part about having the choice to rebuff the city and not accept it. Surely it is in our best inerests to accept it every time? It increases our empire and our building ability. The cities that change also seem to contain happy people and have little or no corrruption. I just cannot see the benefit of repelling the cities. Does anyone know why it would be wise to do so sometimes, because there obviously is a reason for doing so, I just do not see it.
Thanks a lot,
Kev.

 

[Homie]

If it flips to you late in the game, it doesn't have any improvements and it is far from you capitol. In other words, if it sucks, if it is worthless, you might not want to keep it. It is just a strain having yet another town to deal with when it will not realy do anything for your empire. You have to defend it, that costs, it has to have improvements to keep it happy, that costs.

I have rebuffed som useless desert towns. But the best thing really, is to accept it and then abandon it, so that it does not benefit the other civ.

 

[Becka]

I probably SHOULD rebuff the cities that the AI plants in deserts and tundra on contintents I own most of. (You know how it is- you get a nice continent all to yourself, and most if it is within your cultural boundries, but there is just ONE little desert square the AI feels should be occupied with a city of its own, so it sends one hapless little settler plodding through your territory, settles on the spot, and you take it over with culture a few turns later.)

THOSE are the kinds of cities I shouldn't accept, but I usually do anyway because I want to control all of my continent and it's easier when the AI goes through the trouble of making that settler instead of me.

 

[Zouave]

I have to wonder if the AI "makes" those settlers at all - or does it get freebies (A cheat).

Your point clearly shows it is ILLOGICAL for anyone to WASTE their shields building crappy, unproductive little towns in awful terrain in places that can't be defended during war. I understand due to the ridiculously low resource appearance rate a wild land grab has some point. But what the AI does is crazy, and I see no way it could keep up with the human when it spends so many shields and wastes so much time pewking settlers and foot soldiers (Settler Diarrhea) all over the place. It's a CHEAT, and dumb.

 

[Quentin]

I sometimes rebuff the city when its radius overlaps one of my current cities. Since I don't like city radius overlapping and since I already of full control of the city radius(judging from the its ability to flip other cities), I rebuff it.

 

[surfersjk]

Thanks for the answers everyone. I do suppose small cities are hardly worth the hassle, but at least if you take them then the continent is all yours, as Becka says.
Thanks again,
Kev.

 

[col]

Usual rule :Accept it. Disband it and wait for the AI to waste some more production / pop in building a settler to fill the square.

BUT - I have noticed in a couple of games that sites I thought were useless turned out to have a resource appear there later on. The conspiracists would claim that the AI 'knows' where later resources like coal and uranium will appear.

May be worth hanging on oto such places therefore.