Tweet
I ran my test last night. It did not turn out quite the way I hoped. What popped into my head yesterday was the idea of giving the conquered city away and getting it back. I remembered that in Civ3 when you used to be able to get the computer to give you a city that the citizens in the city changed to be your citizens. So my bizarre idea was to give a conquered city to someone and have them give it right back to us hoping that it would convert all the foreign nationals to our citizens. Unfortunately, it only changes citizens of the nationality of the sending civ to be the nationality of the receiving civ so this can not be used to convert foreign nationals. 
There still may be some value in giving away a conquered city. Let's say that we conquer Arashi, move in only the one wounded Immortal that did the final deed, and then give the city to Lego. Lego can accept the city before GS has a turn. Our wounded Immortal gets transported back to our capital where he is safe. It will take him a while before he can get back down to the front or maybe he can stay up north to serve as protection against an invasion. Now that the city is in Lego hands, GS will have to declare war on Lego to take it back. If GS respects the Lego border it will provide a buffer between us and GS to help protect Monsoon. GS will also think that we can not use the road around the city in Lego territory (unless they suspect we have an ROP). With our units behind the city they may think they have extra time before our units can be moved into position to attack them again. If Lego gives the city back to us on the same turn they receive it we will be able to use the road and giving it back will let GS see it is still in Lego hands. GS will suspect the ROP and we could achieve the same affect with an ROP. The disadvantage in continually trading the city is that no troops can be station in the city so the resistance will not be quelled. Also, if GS respects the Lego border initially, they will not like the idea of Lego holding one of their cities. They will put pressure on Lego to give the city back and in time they will just take it, which will be easy because there will be no troops in the city and then GS will get some gold from the Lego treasury.
I also considered what it would be like to just give the city away and let another civ keep it until the war is nearly over. Either way, I think the risks may be too high to give a city away and the receiving civ may not want to accept the risks since they have little to gain. There may still be a way to take advantage of trading cities but I do not see it in our current situation. As things develop we may find it useful. I am only posting this because I put in the teasers about my idea and to give us something to talk about since it has been a bit boring the last few days.
There still may be some value in giving away a conquered city. Let's say that we conquer Arashi, move in only the one wounded Immortal that did the final deed, and then give the city to Lego. Lego can accept the city before GS has a turn. Our wounded Immortal gets transported back to our capital where he is safe. It will take him a while before he can get back down to the front or maybe he can stay up north to serve as protection against an invasion. Now that the city is in Lego hands, GS will have to declare war on Lego to take it back. If GS respects the Lego border it will provide a buffer between us and GS to help protect Monsoon. GS will also think that we can not use the road around the city in Lego territory (unless they suspect we have an ROP). With our units behind the city they may think they have extra time before our units can be moved into position to attack them again. If Lego gives the city back to us on the same turn they receive it we will be able to use the road and giving it back will let GS see it is still in Lego hands. GS will suspect the ROP and we could achieve the same affect with an ROP. The disadvantage in continually trading the city is that no troops can be station in the city so the resistance will not be quelled. Also, if GS respects the Lego border initially, they will not like the idea of Lego holding one of their cities. They will put pressure on Lego to give the city back and in time they will just take it, which will be easy because there will be no troops in the city and then GS will get some gold from the Lego treasury.
I also considered what it would be like to just give the city away and let another civ keep it until the war is nearly over. Either way, I think the risks may be too high to give a city away and the receiving civ may not want to accept the risks since they have little to gain. There may still be a way to take advantage of trading cities but I do not see it in our current situation. As things develop we may find it useful. I am only posting this because I put in the teasers about my idea and to give us something to talk about since it has been a bit boring the last few days.
Comment