Refuse city cultural flip

[Error404]

(I've tried to search the forum about it but I wasn't able to find anything so here's my question)

I want to refuse a city that flips to my side from "cultural capture"... In civ3 there was a popup asking if you want it or not, now it's not possible anymore...

1. WHY? I could be in a critical financial situation and I couldn't want to expand anymore, I'm really obliged?

2. This shouldn't end with a minus in the diplomatic screen with the other civ? I've accepted (ehm... I've been obliged) to take one of his/her cities, he/she should be very angry with me...

Thoughts?

[Martinus]

First to answer your second question, I don't believe there is a minus in diplo relations when you get a city by culture flip. In fact, sometimes this improves relations, as if it was the only border city, you no longer get the "Our close borders spark tensions" modifier.

Now, to your first question - if you don't want it, simply give it back. You get brownie points with that civ, and you don't need to pay for the city.

[Error404]

Originally posted by Martinus
First to answer your second question, I don't believe there is a minus in diplo relations when you get a city by culture flip. In fact, sometimes this improves relations, as if it was the only border city, you no longer get the "Our close borders spark tensions" modifier.

I know that there's not a minus about that but I find it very interesting. After all, I've just "captured" one of their cities... The same should be applied to the plus. I've rejected a city flip and this should end with a +1 or something like that between the civ relations...

Originally posted by Martinus Now, to your first question - if you don't want it, simply give it back. You get brownie points with that civ, and you don't need to pay for the city.

Yes yes I can give it back to the original civ but i find it like a non-sense. Was it so complicate to create a "yes/no popup"? Not at all. And this, linked with my other consideration could give interesting results since, AFAIK, giving cities back to the original builder doesn't give you a plus or a better diplomatic view...

[Martinus]

The problem is that when you give the city back, it is given back with resent cultural borders, i.e. it has a better chance of defending itself against your culture again - whereas if you had a choice of not accepting it, you would be getting the same pop-up, with the city wanting to flip, every turn.

[Imminence]

I guess, those situations were not really anticipated by the designers.

The same here:

Once I conquered New York from the Spains, who took it off the USA centuries ago. The game asked, if I want to give it back to the USA and I agreed, because they were my friends.

But no credit was given. Roosevelt still refused, to trade some techs, worldmaps or ressources. He did not even say "thx!"

OTOH, when I gave it back, the US cultural border swapped deeply into my terrain and I lost a valuable gold mine.

IMO such an act of sleflessness should grant me some great ++ for my relations and the cultural borders should stay, like they were before, at least for the moment.

[Error404]

well it could have been done in a different way - like the same city trying to flip only every 100 turns if you reject it... or something like that... There are a lot of solution out there - I think.

The question - IMHO - should be focus to the city changing side. Is it so irrealistic/improbable/strange to reject it?

[Imminence]

No, it is not. In fact, most of the swapping cities are often in a desperate condition. So the ability to refuse would be a good option.

[fluffy]

release into wild?

Perhaps there should be an option to allow a city you control to become independent, similar to SMAC where you can release mindworms into the wild?

This could represent the lack of interest the city has in its old civ.

Thinking about it, you would want it to be a new civ, rather than a barbarian city, otherwise you would get aggressive units being spawned!