Drawing of national borders

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by wgabrie
Solver, If my unit occupies territory and that flips to me what keeps me from starting a war and then bunkering down in half my enemies' territory until it flips to me?

Sounds like an exploit.

Er... Isn't that what war is all about?

[wgabrie]

War is usually about getting bases from the enemy. With closed borders I'll have to declair war anyway for my troops to enter. But what if the enemy has strongholded his cities and I can't take them? I might as well sit back and steal his territory...

[petermarkab]

If the enemy has secured his bases - cities - to the extent that you can't reasonably expect to capture them, just do exactly what you say and steal the territory. ie. go round them! After all that's what armies did in the later middle ages once castle and fortification design resulted in impregnable fortresses.

In civ war is about capturing bases because there is no other way to capture territory. In civ 3 if you wanted to deprive your enemy of oil resources you would cut the trade network linking it in (only temporary), build a city on top of it or capture the closest enemy city.

It seems in civ 4 building a city on top of every resource you would capture will prove far too costly (see other threads - death of ICS) so there needs to be a better way.

regards,
Peter

[realpolitic]

Solver, it should be possible for humans to trade cities among themselves.

[Martin Gühmann]

Originally posted by realpolitic
Solver, it should be possible for humans to trade cities among themselves.

At least that would be easily to implement:

AI player: What you want trade cities? Noway.

OK this is the simple version for beginners, a more complicated version would consider whether city swapping might be a good idea, enclaves, etc..

-Martin

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by petermarkab
If the enemy has secured his bases - cities - to the extent that you can't reasonably expect to capture them, just do exactly what you say and steal the territory. ie. go round them! After all that's what armies did in the later middle ages once castle and fortification design resulted in impregnable fortresses.

In civ war is about capturing bases because there is no other way to capture territory. In civ 3 if you wanted to deprive your enemy of oil resources you would cut the trade network linking it in (only temporary), build a city on top of it or capture the closest enemy city.

It seems in civ 4 building a city on top of every resource you would capture will prove far too costly (see other threads - death of ICS) so there needs to be a better way.

regards,
Peter

Although this contains a similar complaint to my main civ-war-complaint - the fact that we're essentially forced to fight IN cities, which is wholly unrealistic - I think you oversimplify here. Particularly, you underestimate the amount of damage a 'pillage' army can do to a territory. I know that in C3CDG Euphorica (my team) probably made a huge mistake in not pillage-warring against the too-well-defended persians/DR team ... It's not hard to do, and a decent force (heck, a handful of civ3 horsemen!) can do more damage than a whole team of workers can repair in 20 turns, in the span of a couple of turns ...

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by wgabrie
War is usually about getting bases from the enemy. With closed borders I'll have to declair war anyway for my troops to enter. But what if the enemy has strongholded his cities and I can't take them? I might as well sit back and steal his territory...

I agree..attrition

survival of the fittest

like two big burly dudes going at it

head to toe battling it out

slugging it out


then along comes David

[Addled Platypus]

no attachemnt GT

what will happen next?

What about airapce?

If one goescrosses by foot/boat the civ will respond

What would it take to include airspace?