Youll have to take it from our cold, dead hands.
- Thread starter CHEESE!
- Start date
Silence101
King
I wouldn't expect the AI to want to trade cities most of the time... unless it was a really poor city or far away from the rest of their Civ and you gave them an extremely good deal. But honestly, why would you expect the AI to want to do this in most cases?
Swein Forkbeard
Nintendo Fan
I keep hearing this phrase in Pirates of the Caribbean!
SwordofStriker
Prince
This is one case where I feel the AI is acting the way it should. Would you just give another player or an AI one of your cities if they asked/demanded it?
Sure, there might be extenuating circumstances sometimes, but I have never once in my entire civ experience given the AI a city because they asked for or demanded it. I've given away cities I didn't want to allies, and to vassals, but never once have I ever surrendered a city. That's just unacceptable behavior.
Realtors have a saying: The one thing they're not making any more of is land.
To me, that means that land itself is more valuable than just about any other commodity you can trade. Unless you're willing to trade away a king's ransom, I certainly wouldn't be willing to part with even a small city.
Sure, there might be extenuating circumstances sometimes, but I have never once in my entire civ experience given the AI a city because they asked for or demanded it. I've given away cities I didn't want to allies, and to vassals, but never once have I ever surrendered a city. That's just unacceptable behavior.
Realtors have a saying: The one thing they're not making any more of is land.
To me, that means that land itself is more valuable than just about any other commodity you can trade. Unless you're willing to trade away a king's ransom, I certainly wouldn't be willing to part with even a small city.
CHEESE!
On a long nostalgia trip
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2007
- Messages
- 2,222
Airefuego
King
Yep! in fact now sea levels are rising, they're making less of it!
Except in Japan, they have done some top reclamation work
mynystry
jaguar warrior from hell
well. i think it is pretty realistic; mexico lost half of its territory after signing a peace treaty with the united states...
it would be cool if there was some sort of tool that could help to redefine the borders after a military conflict, let's say; you can keep your city, but the iron that is just between our borders now belongs to me, even if your city has more cultural value... i want only the iron, not the city, take it or i'll raze the city.
What would you want from me to give up one of your cities that you've put your culture, money, hammers, time, and effort into?
VLGoldenJew
Chieftain
It seems that they'll only trade for cities that have they've captured or have heavy cultural influence from other people. Anything they built they are loathe to trade, even when you're beating them senseless (although sometimes then they'll give them up).
It seems mostly realistic for them to refuse city trades except when they are getting absolutely pounded in a war. There have been several times that I would stop the war to shift direction or because I tire of the war myself, but they refuse any sort of compensation other than something silly like 20 gold + 1 gold per turn.
Perhaps, a trade off could be a longer peace treaty, say 20 - 40 turns instead of just 10 turns, for serious capitulation in the peace treaty. I would rather have the option there, but it seems silly to never be able to use it.
Perhaps, a trade off could be a longer peace treaty, say 20 - 40 turns instead of just 10 turns, for serious capitulation in the peace treaty. I would rather have the option there, but it seems silly to never be able to use it.
VLGoldenJew
Chieftain
Well, the other issue is that if you're really pounding them into submission-- they know that giving you a city to stop the war only delays the inevitable. I mean seriously, when you've got them up against a wall, it's time to finish the job 
So I think that it may be an intentional coding of the AI to make you have to really bleed to finish them (war weariness, etc) rather than give you 10 turns to rebuild your army before smashing them. At least, that's how I've seen it play out.
In terms of realism for non-war trades, I think the occasional colony handover has happened historically, so it makes some sense that they'll trade 3rd party conquered cities.
So I think that it may be an intentional coding of the AI to make you have to really bleed to finish them (war weariness, etc) rather than give you 10 turns to rebuild your army before smashing them. At least, that's how I've seen it play out.
In terms of realism for non-war trades, I think the occasional colony handover has happened historically, so it makes some sense that they'll trade 3rd party conquered cities.
For some reason I usually get the ' cold dead hands' thing from Stalin . Its ok , I take the cities one way or the other . Either flip them or invasion .
If your culture is high in an enemy city ( 2/3 or more) and you're signifigantly more powerful militarly ( also helps if your at war and kicking AI butt ) you might get a city trade off .
If your culture is high in an enemy city ( 2/3 or more) and you're signifigantly more powerful militarly ( also helps if your at war and kicking AI butt ) you might get a city trade off .
Goodgimp
Warlord
the problem is, from a game standpoint, there is nothing to stop you from restarting the war in 10 turns. Why would they give up an entire city, only to have you re-invade 10 turns later?
That's something that's always bothered me about Civ's diplomatic model
That's something that's always bothered me about Civ's diplomatic model
Henrik
Emperor
Marshall Thomas
King
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2005
- Messages
- 700
Very sad indeed. Ben-Hur...Moses...Omega Man...That NRA Guy
Marshall Thomas
King
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2005
- Messages
- 700
Very sad indeed. Ben-Hur...Vargas...Moses...Omega Man...That NRA Guy
zulu9812
The Newbie Nightmare
a good time to ask for a city is when they've just conquered it and it's still in resistance
Similar threads
