Subversion of cities

[Andromeda]

In my current Deity game I have Supreme power and Spotless reputation.

I have eliminated all civs, in self-defense of course !, except for the Indians, with whom I have had a peace treaty since the beginning of the game, and an Enthusiastic relationship.

A few hundred years ago I decided to see if I could annex the Indians peacefully by subverting all their cities. The first three went well, and at a reasonable cost because they were small and outlying.

Then a war with another civ intervened. Now that that is over, I am returning to my subversion effort again the Indians. But, I am finding that the subversion option seems to be no longer available against these cities, even though I have adequate cash, and veteran spies. Only the simple revolt option appears, with the reminder that it will cause an incident.

Can anybody explain this, please ?

[East Street Trader]

Much, indeed, is done in the righteous name of self defence!

More power to your (well defended) elbow, Andromeda.

I thought the only precondition was that you must have available the sum required - twice as much as straightforward rebellion.

Are you sure you have that sum in your treasury?

If you do, the difference seems to lie in the fact that the peace loving but plainly very threatening Indians are now the last A1 civ left standing. So maybe there is a rule that prevents subversion once you are down to the last two civs?

Hard to imagine why such a rule would be thought needful, though.

[Scouse Gits]

I suspect that the totally untrustworthy and despicable Indians have switched to Democracy - if you indeed try and incite a revolution you will get the 'Forces of a Democracy cannot be bribed' message ...
I would be grateful if you could confirm (or deny) this ...

[finbar]

Yep. They must have switched to Democracy. Wait a while, they'll switch to something else. There's nothing so politically restless as an AI civ.

[Bird]

They're not in democracy, or he wouldn't have the option to revolt at all. I don't know the answer though.

[Edward]

Andromeda,

Just grasping at straws here, but what's your official relationship with the Indians?

I sometimes have AIs mysteriously forget a peace treaty with me. When I next contact them, I have to reestablish it. On my machine, official relations can change without the player knowing it, sometimes entering bizarre, AI-biased conditions. You may have fallen into the "Yah, we have a peace treaty but I'd like to sneak attack you, so for the rest of this turn I won't give you the option to expel my units and yet I also won't let you attack them without creating an incident" mode. The Indian lawyers may have drawn up an equally illogical agreement behind your back.

If you have an alliance or peace treaty, then revolting would cause an incident - however then the subvert option should still be available. If you have no official relation (or worse yet are at war) then revolt should be the only option - however then it shouldn't warn you about creating an incident because there'd be none. The only non-rule-breaking thing I can think of is that you have a cease fire. You would get an incident from a revolt because you would be breaking your cease fire. Yet you might not get the subvert option since you don't have a peace treaty or an alliance.

Just guesses.

[EOL]

Originally posted by Bird
They're not in democracy, or he wouldn't have the option to revolt at all. I don't know the answer though.

I think that you still get the option in the menu when the civ in question is a democracy but if you select it you are then told that the cities of a democracy are immune to bribery.

EOL

[finbar]

No, you're not offered the option when your target civ is in Democracy. You just get the box saying you can't subvert. My earlier post - that the civ must be in Democracy - was stupid. I overlooked the part of Andromeda's first post where he said he was only offered the subversion causing an incident. I thought he simply wasn't offered the option.

Okay, Andromeda, exactly how much cash do you have in the treasury? And how much is it costing to subvert? From memory, it costs twice the amount to subvert on the quiet (that is, without causing an incident) than it costs simply to subvert (causing an incident). It might be that you don't have enough to subvert on the quiet. My vague memory is that you're not offered the subvert on the quiet option if you can't afford it. A bit like when you want to buy a unit or Wonder and you don't have the funds. Without the funds, you're not given the option to buy.

[EOL]

Indeed Finbar I made the same mistake

[finbar]

I made the same mistake as an Oxford Don. I'm relieved to be in good company.

[finbar]

Andromeda - I just tried out my theory that you lacked the funds to subvert on the quiet. Result: if you try to bribe a city without sufficient funds to do it on the quiet, you're only offered the option to subvert causing an incident. If you have the funds to subvert on the quiet - double the cost of normal subversion - then you are offered the option to subvert on the quiet.

QED.

[Scouse Gits]

Re: Subversion of cities

Well ... yes, but ...

Originally posted by Andromeda
..., even though I have adequate cash, and veteran spies.

I assumed that "adequate cash" meant just that ...

[Andromeda]

Finbar is absolutely right, in his querying of my treasury. I had adequate cash for a revolt in any of the Indian cities, but in my haste, it didn't quite register that it fell marginally short of DOUBLE the amount.

So, this clearly explains how I easily subverted the first 3 outlying cities, but ran into difficulty with the cities closer to the capital.

In fact, I see now that trying to bloodlessly annex a state this way is not a realistic proposition. Apart from requiring a vast amount of cash, there would be the problem of dealing with the capital city, which normally cannot be subverted or 'revolted'.

However, subversion still remains a useful option for capturing strategic cities/territory without gearing up for war.

Anyway, to get back to my original imperative, which was to quickly and painlessly eliminate the Indians and end the game, with a Spotless reputation ! It's almost as if the AI knows this is my intention, and is determined to thwart me ! They stubbornly insist on being Enthusiastic, won't listen to my emissary (who is trying to insult them), and are turning the blind eye to my cavalry, hoofing all over their pastures !

What can I do ? At this stage I've no interest in a military/spy assault, which would be over anyway in 1-2 turns.

[EOL]

Try building some cities in their capital's city radius. I'd be a little annoyed if someone did that to me anyway .

[Andromeda]

Finbar is absolutely right, in his querying of my treasury. I had adequate cash for a revolt in any of the Indian cities, but in my haste, it didn't quite register that it fell marginally short of DOUBLE the amount.

So, this clearly explains how I easily subverted the first 3 outlying cities, but ran into difficulty with the cities closer to the capital.

In fact, I see now that trying to bloodlessly annex a state this way is not a realistic proposition. Apart from requiring a vast amount of cash, there would be the problem of dealing with the capital city, which normally cannot be subverted or 'revolted'.

However, subversion still remains a useful option for capturing strategic cities/territory without gearing up for war.

Anyway, to get back to my original imperative, which was to quickly and painlessly eliminate the Indians and end the game, with a Spotless reputation ! It's almost as if the AI knows this is my intention, and is determined to thwart me ! They stubbornly insist on being Enthusiastic, won't listen to my emissary (who is trying to insult them), and are turning the blind eye to my cavalry, hoofing all over their pastures !

What can I do ? At this stage I've no interest in a military/spy assault, which would be over anyway in 1-2 turns.