To bribe or not to bribe....

[Kitana]

In another thread the topic of bribing has come up and I wanted to do a little poll. Personally I'm for bribing other cities but can take them by force if I have to. I like the free units and basically the same city size where as attacking a city it's size decreases (I think there is an exception to that rule but I'm not sure, I'll never claim to be an expert )

What is your opinion?


------------------
Kitana
Shogun of the Japanese

[poppawoppa]

Yes, I bribe. Why did they include it if it isn't to be used? You probably know that when the city you are attacking has walls, the defenders you kill do not cause a decrease in population. For cities withOUT walls, there is one population decrease for each defender inside that you kill, plus one more decrease when your troop actually enters and takes the city.
When I'm waiting a turn or three to gather troops for my attack, I try to have a dip/spy nearby so if the city in question goes into revolt, my spy/dip can bribe the city cheaper. Revolt inside the city reduces the bribe price.

Sometimes when I'm not quite ready to attack, if a city is in revolt, I may pay the bribe price x 2 to avoid the rival civ declaration of war and subsequent attacks on my troops en route or gathered nearby getting ready to slaughter the enemy.



------------------
The man who dies with the most toys...is DEAD.

[The Undertaker]

I know that Civ ain't the most realistic game in the world, but I think bribing cities is the least realistic feautre. Think about it, we would have won the Cold War in the 50's - we just would have bribed all of those Eastern European Countries' cities! I just don't like it!

------------------
"You're fired." - Jack Larkin

[Rufus T. Firefly]

quote: Originally posted by The Undertaker on 12-16-2000 10:06 PM I know that Civ ain't the most realistic game in the world, but I think bribing cities is the least realistic feautre. Think about it, we would have won the Cold War in the 50's - we just would have bribed all of those Eastern European Countries' cities! I just don't like it!

I bribe like crazy, because I like to play as a wealthy democracy, and bribery allows me to get territory without making people unhappy. As it happens, I think of this as a very realistic strategy; we (the U.S.) spent a lot of time during the cold war using our intelligence ageny to subvert the governments of other countries and put the people we liked into power (Iran, Chile, various African nations, etc.) -- without making the (largely unknowing, granted) public unhappy. Maybe Communism, like Democracy, should be immune to bribery, though.

------------------
Dig trenches, with our men being killed off like flies? There isn't time to dig trenches. We'll have to buy them ready made. Here, run out and get some trenches.
-- Rufus T. Firefly, the original rush-builder

[This message has been edited by Rufus T. Firefly (edited December 17, 2000).]

[Albert B]

quote: Originally posted by The Undertaker on 12-16-2000 10:06 PM Think about it, we would have won the Cold War in the 50's - we just would have bribed all of those Eastern European Countries' cities!

It may have been very possible for the democratic nations of the world to "bribe" cold world countries to revolt and leave the "communist block", but at what price? The price in dollars could have been relatively low, but this would have undoubtedly lead to another world war -- and one in which each side would have had the nuclear devices at their disposal. An "economic war" is very realistic with lots of historic examples to back the point. The problem with bribing cities in civ is one that has been stated repeatedly --> the cost is too cheap. This is especially true against the ai because rarely do they have the military might and/or the brains to make you think twice about your decision to bribe.

The debate over whether or not you should be able to bribe has been waged several times since I began to visit the site. So if others don't respond, you can look for arguments for and against by searching for other posts related to the topic. I don't mind giving my two cents because I just recently started posting but others many others may very well avoid the subject altogether.

Anyway, that's another long-winded rambling by me... anyone starting to see a pattern?

Albert

[kcbob]

I bribe like crazy when given the opportunity and the cash on hand. With that in mind, I make a beeline for Espionage in the tech tree.

------------------
Frodo lives!

[The Undertaker]

Sure it would have been easy (and was - Czechoslovakia 60's, Poland 80's) to cause revolts, etc., but for them to join your civ? No way! Imagine "Prague, USA" or "Gdansk, Canada", its just not feasable.
But on the other hand, had the nasty Red Menace secretly constructed a city on the shores of our continent, then I could possibly see a revolt. But then again - wouldn't the city be full of spies and KGB agents? As much as I hate CTP, thier model of bribing is the perfect one.

[Albert B]

Undertaker, it's all a matter of perspective. There is more than one way to look at expansion and conquest. For example: (no I'm not a history guru, but I'll play one in this post...)

1. Pure conquest - For example, Greece was expanded to incude most of the Mediterranean area under Alexander the Great; Rome covered massive amounts of area in Europe and the Mediterranean at its height, etc.

2. Colonization - During the height of the English empire (in the days of "the sun never sets..."), although England held lots and lots of land, all of it was not considered England itself. For example, I don't believe cities were refered to as Boston, England or Delhi, England. But rather India was still called India, it was just under contol of England.

3. "Zone of Control" (for lack of a better phrase off the top of my head) - Which would include the Soviet "empire" after WWII. Although Poland and Czechoslovakia retained their own names (unlike Estonia, Latvia, etc) they were still very much under Soviet control (or influence if you prefer). Also, although force was definatly an influence, a lot of their control was originally gained because of the poor economic situation of these war torn countries and a little help (i.e. 'bribery) went a long way.

[dawgboy]

Love to use bribes in conjunction with standard attacks. I also like getting the free cruise missiles in the late game since the AI loves to build those things. Nothing like using the enemy equipment on him as he tried to retake the city.

I agree with Undertaker in that the CTP model of bribing cities is probably more realistic in that the city that revolts becomes a new civ (usually friendly to you and hateful to it's "parent" civ). However, as I pointed out in the other thread, when the Germans rolled through Paris in WWII, it became a lot easier to take the other French cities, so the reduced cost to bribe once the capital is gone makes sense to me.

Maybe a combination of the two systems would work, i.e. there's a 25% chance that the city in revolt will join your civ and a 75% chance it will form it's own civ.

------------------
What the hell is Seat Management?

[The Undertaker]

I don't think that its ever been hard to take a French city......

------------------
"You're fired." - Jack Larkin

[East Street Trader]

Wellington wouldn't agree, nor a succession of English kings stretching down a hundred years.

[La Fayette]

Undertaker
It seems that you should perhaps read a few lines about WWI for a start...
But if your post meant to be focused on the subject of bribing blue cities, then I have no evidence that they are easier to bribe than any other.

------------------
aux bords mystérieux du monde occidental

[The Undertaker]

I meant it as a quasi joke. However, the reality is that Canadians, British, and Americans have liberated the French two times in the last century! They cannot defend themselves, no matter what they think. Remember the Maginot Line? Wow, that stopped the Germans cold. Or should I remind you of your noble WWII government - Vichy France ring a bell?
Don't tell me to read about Wars where tens of thousands of Canadians were killed liberating you people. Dieppe, Ypres, Normandy, Flanders, the list goes on. The French are a weak people, oh wait, except for Napoleon. Yeah, he was great - Russia kicked his ass and the "French Empire" crumbled in what, a matter of years? And don't tell me "the winter won" because it didn't, a moronic general lost. The French have never been a factor on the world stage, besides from getting good English boys killed.

[kcbob]

Whoa, Undertaker, pop a chill pill. Remember, the French did give us Yves Montand, Le Mans, french fries, and Fort Zinderneuf.

Seriously, you are right concerning the military prowess. Reminds me of one of the smallest books in the world... Great Egyptian Military Victories. Perhaps that should read "French".

------------------
Frodo lives!

[La Fayette]

quote: Originally posted by The Undertaker on 12-19-2000 06:44 PM I meant it as a quasi joke. However, the reality is that Canadians, British, and Americans have liberated the French two times in the last century! They cannot defend themselves, no matter what they think. Remember the Maginot Line? Wow, that stopped the Germans cold. Or should I remind you of your noble WWII government - Vichy France ring a bell? Don't tell me to read about Wars where tens of thousands of Canadians were killed liberating you people. Dieppe, Ypres, Normandy, Flanders, the list goes on. The French are a weak people, oh wait, except for Napoleon. Yeah, he was great - Russia kicked his ass and the "French Empire" crumbled in what, a matter of years? And don't tell me "the winter won" because it didn't, a moronic general lost. The French have never been a factor on the world stage, besides from getting good English boys killed.

If your first post was a quasi joke, it seems to me that you should have stopped there, since this one is both ridiculous and insulting.
This will be my one and only answer since this forum is aimed at exchanging ideas about a great game called civ2, and not sending insulting posts to one another about the world's history.
1) Your first post was about taking french cities.
Have you ever heard of Verdun? My uncle was there and he told me a lot about it when I was a young boy. It remains in my memory as the best description of Hell.
My reference book states that 335 000 german and 360 000 french soldiers lost their lives there and the city remained french. Think of that! Over 700 000 lives lost for nothing.
2) I am no great admirer of conquerors in general and Napoléon in particular, but the truth is that I don't know of many foreign armies having conquered Moscow and leaving the city afterwards without being compelled by any Russian attack.
3) If WW1 and WW2 are named world wars, there are probably some good reasons for that. I am very glad for the canadians that no fighting happened to take place in America, but, believe me, it was not a great pleasure for the french people to have a lot of the fighting at home.
4) As far as my own family is concerned, my father was killed fighting hard in 1940 and my uncle was sent to concentration camp a few years later after having fought the nazis as a partisan. Don't tell me too loud that old story about all frenchmen being in favour of Vichy.