Taking Land without Taking Cities?

[Grunthex]

Does either the purchasing a tile mechanism, or the natural city growth mechanism ever have a way of taking a tile from another civ (or city state)?

If not, is there any mechanism in place (barring the Great Artist culture bomb I suppose) that would allow you to take control of a tile without war?

Either in a not-very-friendly way (IE Civ4 type cultural takeovers), or a more friendly way (negotiating for specific tiles in peace or other diplomatic discussions).

I know this is something hard to pick out from a screenshot, so just wondering if anyone had seen anything of the sort. Or wanted to randomly brainstorm.

 

[AriochIV]

I know that you can only purchase unclaimed tiles, and that you can't trade tiles with another civilization (although you can trade whole cities).

Other than that, I don't know if there are other mechanisms by which borders can shift.

 

[Stalker0]

The mystery is whether tiles you gain from culture can flip another tile

 

[MajorDisaster84]

I doubt it would be in the game, but I'd be pretty happy if I could, rather than demand a city to get a resource I need out of some trivial border war, just ask for possession of that tile and any between it and my home territory, or some such set up. I'm no programmer, but couldn't you rig up a map in diplomacy mode, with all the hexes and resources mapped out, and just select a few? Particularly with the conquest of cities imparting such negative benefits to overall empire happiness, this seems advantageous.

 

[AriochIV]

I think the problem with tile trading would be not in the interface, but to create an AI smart enough not to get ripped off by the player.

 

[Caeserportugal]

I don't know we haven't seen any information regarding that even in the now forbidden images. We may have to wait for the realise of the demo to find out.

 

[Mercade]

In the screenshots, whenever the mouse hovers over a tile, it only says "owned by X". There is no indication about cultural influence over a tile in the way of Civ4, so I very much doubt that tile flipping from culture is in the game.

All together, there doesn't appear to be any mechanism to acquire a tile from another civilization than to conquer the nearest city.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I wonder how they determine who gets the tile then. It could be first come first serve. This could allow for a culture rush, but the other person might just save up gold instead and buy the tiles you want.

 

[El Koeno]

I wonder how they determine who gets the tile then. It could be first come first serve. This could allow for a culture rush, but the other person might just save up gold instead and buy the tiles you want.

Does tile ownership have anything to do with culture in Civ5?

 

[Tylerryan79]

I'm pretty sure culture flipping is out, and as others have said we can't buy tiles that are owned. War, and city trading are our only means I suppose.

Does tile ownership have anything to do with culture in Civ5?

You acquire tiles through culture, in city screens you can see this, stating x turns until a tile is acquired. Also you can buy a tile with gold, and once done it is yours. So yes, but not in civ IV terms where you could flip tiles, or where it would be 50% yours and 50% another civ, even if it was still your land, or theirs.

 

[V. Soma]

WHat do you think happens when a city is captured?

Will it have a basic 1+6 tile area and then gathering culture and expanding,
or you get the city's so far acquired tiles with the city?

I kind of hope for the first version...

 

[12agnar0k]

It may very well be the case that if your maximum border conflicts with that of an AI's that culture will select its tile like it always does, irrelevant of the enemies tile locations, although it will take a little bit more culture to grab the tile than an unclaimed one, and eventually you will aquire it off the enemy, this is a pure assumption, but that would be culture flipping on our new culture system.

It may very well be the case however that its simply a "first person to take the tile owns it" case. Or even if culture flipping is back. Either way, this whole border situation, may very well be cause enough for one of you to go to war with the other. ,


...............

It's been confirmed through evidence that capturing a city will not reduce its culture or gold aquired border from its original accumilation. I.e it will keeps it original border, it won't lose culture, as for any thing else, such as buildings in the city, will these be "reset" well I don't know, but I don't think they will, no point removing one "capture reset" and keeping another. It will probably follow the same trend. Maybe.

 

[stealth_nsk]

As we know the only way to get a resource is to work its tile. Having this in mind it could be not very wise to leave map gaps - there could be resources there. I think slight overlap will be the best approach for city placement.

 

[JonoLith]

It's been confirmed through evidence that capturing a city will not reduce its culture or gold aquired border from its original accumilation. I.e it will keeps it original border, it won't lose culture, as for any thing else, such as buildings in the city, will these be "reset" well I don't know, but I don't think they will, no point removing one "capture reset" and keeping another. It will probably follow the same trend. Maybe.

My gut tells me that because capturing cities is going to be much more difficult and a much more dedicated and lengthy procedure, then the rewards from doing it should be very good. I would hope that you get a city that is in tact and fully operational, after you deal with revolters.

 

[Zhahz]

I think the problem with tile trading would be not in the interface, but to create an AI smart enough not to get ripped off by the player.

Yeah...on of my pet peeves with civ is how easily players can manipulate the AI...and I'm hoping that's reduced/gone in Civ 5.

I wonder how they determine who gets the tile then. It could be first come first serve. This could allow for a culture rush, but the other person might just save up gold instead and buy the tiles you want.

I think it'll be first come first served. For closely placed cities the "culture push" will be more about who has the gold/culture to grab tiles. Kinda makes it more strategic and controlled instead of uniform nebulous culture border push.

 

[aMoralAtheist]

I would hope, while at war, that you could sit a unit on the other civs tile, and if it remianed occupied for x number of turns would become yours. Perhaps reuiqre this "conquered" tile to be attached to a tile you own. That would make land even more valuable and troop position more so too, imho.

I also could see incorporating "appeasement" whereby an enemy may occupy your tile, without a declared stat eof war. so no open borders, they move unto your tile, but don't declare war. This would then give the other player the option of "declaring war" or "appeasing" by ignoring it and letting teh tile eventually flip. Furthermore, without open borders require a declared state of war to move to an enemy controlled tile, that is not adjacent to a tile you own.

Thoughts?

 

[Brawndo]

IMO, military units should be able to "conquer" hostile hexes. Throughout history, war has been more about acquiring territory, not siege after siege of major cities.

 

[Ahriman]

I think that at best you should be able to pillage. If you want to take their land, you should have to take their city, or use culture.

Far better from a gameplay perspective.

 

[DeepQantas]

Wouldn't the obvious thing to do be sending settlers there to flip the tile?

 

[Pooh]

I remember in Civ III you could build an outpost on a resource to claim it instead of needing to build an entire city. It cost a worker instead of a settler, I think. I was excited about this feature until it became obvious just how useless it was - the settlement would disappear the moment it came within anothe civilization's cultural borders.

The idea had potential, though. And I really like the idea of military units being able to claim territory. It makes sense historically and would truly lend itself to limited wars to gain control over strategic tiles. I can imagine, given the new happiness mechanic, that there will often be times when you really don't want to capture an entire city when the real goal is that oil or uranium just on the border.

Maybe it would be worthwhile to bat around some ideas in this thread that modders could use to implement ways of taking land without culture...

My own thinking is that units could be given the ability to "occupy" a given hex during war. In order to occupy a piece of land it would need to be contiguous to land within your borders. It would also come with a certain per turn cost - either gold or hitpoints per turn - since there would be "resistance" (if, per Civ IV, land tiles have specific amounts of culture associated with them, then this could be used in determining the per-turn cost). During war, occupation would end as soon as the unit moves off of the land. Once peace is negotiated, all occupied land permanently belongs to the occupier.