Changed to militaristic City-states

This is how you make diplomatic wins and warmongering better in one swoop.

Changing militaristic city states.

proposed changes.


- No longer takes gifts of gold. Now requires only gifts of units. The more modern, the bigger bonus. Can only give units to them if they respect your military power.

- New quest specific task. Only kill a barbarian camp stays. These new missions include, conquer a nearby civilizations city. Kill rival city state. Have the biggest standing army. etc

- they will automatically vote for the civs that impress them the most AKA warmongers.

- Gifted military will be paid for by the city state, not the player.

- Players can lend soldier to city states if they are allied to help defend them. Travel time is 3 turns, exp earned is kept, return takes 5 turns after peace is made. City state will then reward you with gold as offerings.


What this does is make militaristic city states unique, immune to bribery, and allows a way more compelling late game when world leader is being blocked by the warmonger city states. You will have to crush them if you do not want them blocking you but then you must confront it's allies.

Since warmongering makes the person mongering public enemy no.1, they should have SOME friends.

In history, militaristic city-states always backed up big brother. It was just how they rolled.

Why make them unique? There's nothing good for that, quite frankly I myself avoid allying with CS, and pushing you to be a warmonger is only making things worse for yourself.

TheKingOfBigOz said:

Why make them unique? There's nothing good for that, quite frankly I myself avoid allying with CS, and pushing you to be a warmonger is only making things worse for yourself.

Click to expand...

being a warmonger is worse period. This gives mongers a chance to be liked by "likeminded" people.

It's stupid that world leader is decided by who has the most gold. So many nations in the world don't give a damn about your money.

godman85 said:

being a warmonger is worse period. This gives mongers a chance to be liked by "likeminded" people.

It's stupid that world leader is decided by who has the most gold. So many nations in the world don't give a damn about your money.

Click to expand...

Militaristic City States ARE not the key to make warmonger less of a big deal. That's the issue. I will admit that Diplomatic Victory is bit of a downgrade from G&K, but making Militaristic State unique is not the way to fix it.

In fact, Militaristic City States shouldn't even be seen as a helping hand for Warmongers, as those already have big enough armies, they should more of a helping hand to those that are struggling with keeping their army up to date/power.

There is literally no way that makes trading units for influence over a city-state whose purpose is to give you units makes a damn bit of sense. It's either going to be weighted toward them or toward you, in which case you either never want to do it (or you always want to do it), or it's perfectly balanced, in which case it's a wash, benefiting no one.

If you want a game where being a warmonger is such an advantage, play a game that's 100% about war. You have your options cut out for you.

OP reminding everyone that unless the game 100% revolves around war, it sucks. again.

Evie94 said:

OP reminding everyone that unless the game 100% revolves around war, it sucks. again.

Click to expand...

It doesn't 100% have to revolve around war, it just has to be really really dead simple as long as war is all you're doing. In fact, it would be way better if it was only the player doing the attacking; the AI should declare war but not really fight back because that would hurt the player's tender feelings.