Civ: subvert city
Gary Harper
(other than twice the cost)?
I thought it involved less destruction (ie. temple left standing, etc), but
I'm not sure - even after saving a game and trying each method.
Gary
Ed Foster
wrote:
> What's the difference between inciting revolt and "subverting" a city
> (other than twice the cost)?
Inciting revolt will cause the other civilization to go to war with you.
Subverting the city gets you the city but preserves the peace.
> I thought it involved less destruction (ie. temple left standing, etc), but
> I'm not sure - even after saving a game and trying each method.
I thought that subverting or inciting preserved all city improvements. Am
I wrong about this?
Ed
Alberto BARSELLA
> I thought it involved less destruction (ie. temple left standing, etc), but
> I'm not sure - even after saving a game and trying each method.
I thought that subverting or inciting preserved all city improvements. Am
I wrong about this?
Ed
Some improvements are lost. They are not lost when you subvert the
city but when you 'enter' it.
i.e. if you blast the city with armors then when you enter you lose some
improvements, with subvert you simply enter without being forced to
blast enemy units (that's because they become yours).
Alberto
--
Alberto Barsella | Creator of the Wasteland Series:
alb...@astrpi.difi.unipi.it | Dead Base - Mountain of Fire
Pekka Karjalainen
: What's the difference between inciting revolt and "subverting" a city
: (other than twice the cost)?
: I thought it involved less destruction (ie. temple left standing, etc), but
: I'm not sure - even after saving a game and trying each method.
Subverting a city does not cause a war to be declared between the other civ
and yours. The option only appears if you have signed a peace treaty with
the other civ.
I don't think it involves less destruction. If it would, I figure it should
appear during war-time too.
Either way, it is most useful when you have the cash to spare, and don't
want the other civ to get a round of attacks against you. OTOH, inciting a
revolt is a useful way to declare war while in democracy/republic.
: Gary
Pekka K.
--
Please send your mail to pkar...@phoenix.oulu.fi.
Where I usually post from does not have a working mailbox.
Steve Bainbridge
>From: Gary_...@mindlink.bc.ca (Gary Harper)
>Subject: Civ: subvert city
>Date: Tue, 21 Jun 94 23:07:37 -0700 (PDT)
>Gary
Is 'subvert" a post-version one option?
Brian Trosko
: Is 'subvert" a post-version one option?
Nope. Subverting a city is only possible if you are not at war with the
empire whose cities you are trying to subvert. Subvert costs double the
price, but is not an act of war, i.e. it does not break any treaties.
Another nice thing about revolt or subversion is that you also get all
the units in and around the city. So, take one decent sized city this
way, and you have an instant army with which to take more :)
Mills / Allan William (ISE)
>In article <efoster-22...@ebmc08.draper.com> efo...@draper.com (Ed Foster) writes:
>
> > I thought it involved less destruction (ie. temple left standing, etc), but
> > I'm not sure - even after saving a game and trying each method.
>
> I thought that subverting or inciting preserved all city improvements. Am
> I wrong about this?
>
> Ed
>
>Some improvements are lost. They are not lost when you subvert the
>city but when you 'enter' it.
>i.e. if you blast the city with armors then when you enter you lose some
>improvements, with subvert you simply enter without being forced to
>blast enemy units (that's because they become yours).
>
includes buildings, wonders and troops. It can be a problem under
Democracy or Republic as there may be several troops out on patrol.
Allan
William Kang
+What's the difference between inciting revolt and "subverting" a city
+(other than twice the cost)?
+
+I thought it involved less destruction (ie. temple left standing, etc),
+I'm not sure - even after saving a game and trying each method.
One breaks a treaty and one maintains it.
William
willia...@dscmail.com
---
þ CmpQwk #UNREGþ UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY