play without city-states?

I have lately been dissatisfied with the way city-states are handled. Toward the modern era and later I can get decent money flowing, and then start to just dominate the World Congress. A couple spies, a few well-timed donations, and it quickly becomes uninteresting. I can maintain 2-3 times more CS alliances than any AI, which results in lots of extra food, happiness, happiness & science, and pretty much any WC proposal I want. I turned off diplomatic victory, but the broader gameplay problem persists.

So, I'm considering eliminating all CSs in my next game. Instead of 15 civs and 20 CSs, maybe ~24 civs. More diplomacy, more competition for land/resources/wonders, less dilly vote-bribing in the modern era.

But, has anyone played like this? It seems there could be problems. 1) What would happen to the WC? Would the original host and/or builder of the Forbidden Palace be forever more influential than everyone else, by virtue of those early achievements? (Would give a big advantage to Polynesia, and for taking a Great Admiral when closing Liberty.) 2) More importantly, would some of the AIs handicap themselves by wasting SPs in the Patronage branch, even if there are no CSs on the map?

This can be done. I'm considering doing it next game and changing flavours so the Ai never takes patronage.

I think city States are stupid.

I think they're quite bothering so I usually turn them down to the 8-ish zone.
I would never play with 20 CS active

anyone whos at their computer at home please open:
DLC/expansion2/XML/gameinfo/ social policies or smething like that .xml

and copy/paste into a PM for me the flavors for all the patronage SP's?

I assume you are not going to play Greece, Siam, Venice, Germany, Austria, Mongolia or Sweden?

Or in other words, you are making the game easier for yourself by intentionally gimping a number of your AI opponents? Your apparent problem is that the game is too easy for you, why don't you move up a level instead?

I have stopped playing with city states since the very first 2-3 games of civ 5 vanilla..Dont get me wrong I'm into civ since civ 1....with ms dos, floppies and words that look ancient to a lot of people here...you cant teach an old dog too many new tricks..I like the 1upt to the point i dont have to move an army) i like a lot of stuff but cant digest the cs...they're stupid and to my opinion uselss ..anyway...the only adaptation I have to make for not playing with cs is never choose Greece which is my homeland and the my personal pride of all previous civ games due to their bonus being so related to cs and never choose the cs policy tree patronage i think? other than that I enjoy a great game like I always did with previous civ series

Reducing their number is a good idea in my opinion, because then the pressure on the City States grow, because more people want to befriend one CS.

Well, at least in theory. I usually ignore them completely.

Personally I find zero city states too extreme in BNW; but I do find the default ratio of 2:1 too much so I simply cut them down to a 1:1 ratio in advanced settings.

The way the diplomatic formula works; that's still enough city states to win a diplomatic victory and enough city states for AI Venice / AI Austria to buy out or marry city states. (Given that the city states tend to all have the same 2 or 3 luxury types that's sufficient for Portugal to get good use out of their UI as well)

Calouste said:

Your apparent problem is that the game is too easy for you, why don't you move up a level instead?

Click to expand...

Actually, I'm thinking of playing as Greece myself (for a 'pure' civ experience, with no UA) and keeping Venice, Austria, et al. out of the game. What I want is to increase the challenge and interest, in more sophisticated ways than just upping the difficulty slider. Increasing the number of competing civs and decreasing the amount of exploitable CSs is one way to do that.

Hmm, the more I think about this, the more I would like to fix this problem with a mod, rather than avoid it. It would be great if there were more varied ways to influence city-states. Say:
-- +15 to resting point for Consulates policy
-- +10 to resting point for pledge to protect (and have that mean something)
-- +10 to resting point for having a trade route to the CS
-- +10 to resting point for having the same religion
-- +10 to resting point for sharing borders
-- +10 to resting point for stationing a spy there as a diplomat

...and then still have gifts and quests produce influence that fades over time. This would make geography matter more, and allow each civ to maintain more influence, over a smaller number of city-states, while still allowing for limited gift- and spy-based strategic shenanigans. If only I knew how to mod this game! Maybe I need to learn...

I've been turning them down so there is about 1 per civ. since CS's get half-votes this means that owning them all is still 1/3 of the WC votes but it's less than 1/2 so you'll need friends if you are pushing through something they actually care to vote on. Plus with smaller numbers the CS-flavored AI still have some to fight over and will fight you more for them. And wouldn't you know...I actually find untaken NW's now! My last India game there was an island with both barrier reefs and 5 fish!

Calouste said:

I assume you are not going to play Greece, Siam, Venice, Germany, Austria, Mongolia or Sweden? Or in other words, you are making the game easier for yourself by intentionally gimping a number of your AI opponents?

Click to expand...

The larger point is that you can’t play with random civs if you do this.

subtledoctor said:

Actually, I'm thinking of playing as Greece myself (for a 'pure' civ experience, with no UA) and keeping Venice, Austria, et al. out of the game.

Click to expand...

Great! You read my mind.

What I want is to increase the challenge and interest, in more sophisticated ways than just upping the difficulty slider. Increasing the number of competing civs and decreasing the amount of exploitable CSs is one way to do that.

Click to expand...

Yeah, no. Not that what you want (increasing the challenge and interest) isn’t high minded, but you can’t make the game more complex merely by nerfing a core feature.

joncnunn said:

Personally I find zero city states too extreme in BNW; but I do find the default ratio of 2:1 too much so I simply cut them down to a 1:1 ratio in advanced settings. The way the diplomatic formula works; that's still enough city states to win a diplomatic victory and enough city states for AI Venice / AI Austria to buy out or marry city states. (Given that the city states tend to all have the same 2 or 3 luxury types that's sufficient for Portugal to get good use out of their UI as well)

Click to expand...

It would be interesting to know the optimal ratio for the most interesting friction. The AI civs compete for CS favors, so I would think a 1:1 ration might calm things down more than you would like.

danaphanous said:

I've been turning them down so there is about 1 per civ. since CS's get half-votes this means that owning them all is still 1/3 of the WC votes but it's less than 1/2 so you'll need friends if you are pushing through something they actually care to vote on. Plus with smaller numbers the CS-flavored AI still have some to fight over and will fight you more for them. And wouldn't you know...I actually find untaken NW's now! My last India game there was an island with both barrier reefs and 5 fish!

Click to expand...

Just don’t forget that for every 2 CS you delete, to add in a major AI civ! If you just delete CS, it is probably the case that you are making things easier for the player.

beetle said:

Just don’t forget that for every 2 CS you delete, to add in a major AI civ! If you just delete CS, it is probably the case that you are making things easier for the player.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, we must play entirely different.

how is this true? i would think that CS are more abused by players than extra space. And having less means the players is competed with more. At least with my general strategies, I find myself way better at getting and keeping CS's then my neighbors. If there are a lot nearby I find myself tempted to go patronage and end up dominating too easily with all the extra resources. The lack of CS's means everyone is fighting over them and early luxury options are limited since for some reason AI take forever to develop second copies. Also, I get worse early trade-route options as usually 1 or none CS are near enough for early trade routes...say goodbye to early gold. I also switch on raging barbs every time...which on immortal the AI are just as proficient at fighting. You know...just so it isn't too easy for me to spam unescorted settlers. I like having it tough in the beginning Default is far more straightforward, quick-settle 4 cities. Sit, if there is space maybe get a couple more. But settling is over by the early renaissance.

Whereas: the huge, raging, with slightly more space maps mean I have to work to develop a wider empire and be more expansionistic if I want to stay competitive with the runaway AI like Hiawatha, Dutch, Russia, Greece. No simple, 4-city game will cut it and no two games are played the same way which is just the way I like it. This + Immortal usually gives me a nice challenging game.

Note, I do turn up AI numbers, usually adding 2-3 extra as it makes for a more interesting game with early wars and factions, but I drastically reduce CS numbers recently. On huge maps there are just way too many of them. So then I end up playing a 15-civ game with about 15 CS's instead of 24. It makes for a bit more settling room and a lot of CS-warring.

danaphanous said:

Note, I do turn up AI numbers, usually adding 2-3 extra as it makes for a more interesting game with early wars and factions, but I drastically reduce CS numbers recently. On huge maps there are just way too many of them. So then I end up playing a 15-civ game with about 15 CS's instead of 24. It makes for a bit more settling room and a lot of CS-warring.

Click to expand...

Ah, see, that doesn't feel like enough competitive pressure to me. Last game I went 16 civs and 20 CS's on a large map. 15/15 on huge just seems like it would be too much space, it would be too easy to settle good sites. More AIs in less space means more land pressure, fewer goody huts, more competition for wonders… It seems to also, sometimes, increase the chance of a runaway gobbling up his neighbors (who must then be tamed by me, the great liberator). On the downside, there is very little barb activity. I'm still trying to get a feel for how to tweak these things, for the met interesting game. (There may be no perfect answer.)

Maybe I'll try the 1:1 ratio. By my numbering, trying to get enough for for ~3 cities per AI before warring (on large/continents), that might be… 18/18? Something like that. Or maybe stay at 16/16, but turn on raging barbs?

Yeah, raging barbs has no effect without a little space, but I see your point. Maybe I'll put in even more AI and try it your way...

I love playing wide as it tends to keep me occupied and interested longer which is why I like to give everyone a chance with a bit more space. I'm so tired of small-empire approaches...I've really been trying to design games that force you to settle over longer periods to stay competitive. This does several things: messes with the perfected small-empire strategy and makes me think out of the box...and also makes me do a lot more thinking about how much is too much, and timing for national wonders. I've been forcing myself to go liberty and experimenting with the strongest combo. A liberty/piety mix has so far turned out best with me with a strong happiness and growth-boosting religion and tithes. In these kinds of games some AI stop at 4 cities and end up sucking...but a good portion of the AI take the hint and rapidly expand...becoming potential runaways down-game. Immortal is a good level for this as they have good expansionist benefits. It's then expand-or-die for me, as if I keep 4-6 cities the big AI will eventually outmatch me in tech no matter how tall I go (unless I get lucky with a ton of mountain sites). I haven't really tried to stay small as like I said that wasn't the point.

Granted, even with the above, I typically always win so maybe it still isn't hard enough for me. However, it is fun and challenging planning the rapid expansion in the beginning. The main problem is on these settings a strong religion gives huge benefits and the AI inability to pick complementary beliefs starts to show...my religion is always far better, picked for synergy, whereas theirs are a random motley of "good" but disharmonious picks.

For a packed map 18/18 does sound interesting. I do like war, so I'm not against overcrowding...I just don't like too many CS's...I've played too many easy Patronage/gold games recently and lost my taste for them...AI often just sits on their 10k and won't compete with me! It's gotten so bad I often ignore the diplomatic victory even if I could get it. It's just too easy. Whereas for some reason turning the numbers down I get fought with a lot when I try to keep more than a few CS.

I think my favorite kind of game would be: expansion and settling racing: ancient-->medieval/renaissance. war: onward.

I like to slowly expand with the occasional sparring war up to about 16 cities then have huge empire wars. This to me has felt novel and more fun.

I tried this once on Deity, though and watched them stomp me into the dirt though on tech and settling. Having reduced spacing like this and all those bonus settlers gives them too much of an edge. On my above settings (and I had even lower CS numbers and AI just to see what it would be like) I watched the full majesty of Deity AI rapidly settling without war for almost 3 ages (with the exception of stupid Shaka) It was insane watching the cities blossom outwards. Sejong was in the industrial era around the start of 1400 AD. Zulu and Inca Wielded an enormous settled/conquered empire and were close contenders. It was too much for me even though I regularly beat immortal on all kinds of settings and they have similar (but a little less) benefits. I've played and beaten Deity but it was a smaller map with some packed AI. This was far easier for me as they warred with each other immediately and wasted a lot of their potential, I've found packed maps kinda exploitive if you have the gold...but I have yet to pack it as much as you so maybe I'm not seeing the potential. Or maybe I just need to man-up and not pay the AI to clobber each other while I quick-build a defensive army...that would be far harder.

danaphanous said:

I would think that CS are more abused by players than extra space.

Click to expand...

Sorry not to be clear, I don’t disagree that CS are abused by players. I am just saying that extra space is also an abuse. You are probably correct that CS are more abused by players than extra space (but I would argue that the results from extra space are more predictable than changing the CS:AI ratio).

SO is it harder or easier w/o city states?

I don't like CS as they are now, but can't do anything about it. You know... can't live without them, can't kill them, in all seriousness in this case.

What I'd change about them is 3 things:

1. No gold buying influence (except those occasional "give as a donation" quests). Only quests and other factors.
2. Distance should be a factor. Haven't thought of it yet, but maybe boni (culture, food, resources, troops) from alliances should be "usable" if certain technological criteria are met (like trade route distance, astronomy, flight etc.). Distance related resting point bonus, like subtledoctor said.
3. They should fight each other, there should be rivalry amongst them and they should ask assistance from time to time and offer rewards. Right now they only want you to ask tribute, pfft. Also "pledge to protect" could be a saver from rivalries for them or something.

P.S. And where is bonuses for conquering one? I seem to remember there was before? Anyway right now there is none reason to do so.

danaphanous said:

It's gotten so bad I often ignore the diplomatic victory even if I could get it.

Click to expand...

Oh, I turned off diplo victory long ago. It's totally stupid. But even without it, my ability to permanent-bribe 10+ CS's once my economy is up an running totally messes up the dynamics of the WC.

SickFak said:

1. No gold buying influence (except those occasional "give as a donation" quests). Only quests and other factors.
2. Distance should be a factor.

Click to expand...

I guess gold-gifting wouldn't be so bad, if it wasn't the be-all and end-all of the relationship. Likewise the 'quest' where you gain influence by generating the most culture/faith/science/etc. in 30 turns. So big civs get influence. That's boring.

Distance from your founding capital implies some shared cultural influence. So does maintaining an ongoing trade route. (Trade routes would give players interesting choices, because there would be a trade-off for sending one to a CS, which means less gold and beakers. Also, they are limited in number, so you can't exploit this to ally every CS.) Shared religion suggests cultural ties, so that would make sense - but then again it might also be redundant, since trade routes and geographical vicinity spread religion passively.

I think that by mixing in more diverse resting point bonuses, and making quest/gift bonuses a bit more ephemeral, the system could be a lot more interesting. Modders, help! My kingdom for a modder! (Or, at least, some small neighboring kingdoms)