The city state atack

bowmanvinny

Chieftain
Joined
Jul 26, 2014
Messages
3
has anyone ever done this, if there is a city- state right next to a capital of a county your at war with. you gift that city state with lots of military might and pound there capital to the point where anyone could walk in and take it then let the city state take it so you get the resources without the hassle of having another puppet city. i do this with other city states too so I can have two city states at the price of one. Just wondering if i am the only one to do this.
P.S. sometimes i am unsuccessful
 
The AI is REALLY bad at combat. I mean, you can give it so many units that it's near foolproof, but why use such a roundabout method?

Also, I'm pretty sure that Capital doesn't count for you for a Domination victory, and I won't count on holding it against the AI's endless coup attempts and bidding wars.
 
Correct. An original capital held by a CS would have to be taken by the player in order to count for purposes of a domination victory. Merely having that CS as an ally is not sufficient.
 
The AI is REALLY bad at combat. I mean, you can give it so many units that it's near foolproof, but why use such a roundabout method?

Also, I'm pretty sure that Capital doesn't count for you for a Domination victory, and I won't count on holding it against the AI's endless coup attempts and bidding wars.

i only use the method if getting to the persons capital would cost so much in terms of time and diplomatic relations it is more economical to give the city-state a foolproof army, like you said after ward normally the city-state will hold its own now that it has a foolproof army.;)
 
The AI is REALLY bad at combat. I mean, you can give it so many units that it's near foolproof, but why use such a roundabout method?

Also, I'm pretty sure that Capital doesn't count for you for a Domination victory, and I won't count on holding it against the AI's endless coup attempts and bidding wars.

I guess that this would be more for resource and slowing the enemy down purposes. If it came down to it, and you were ready to claim the Domination victory, I don't think that knocking out a little city state when you have the rest of the world would be very hard.
 
i only use the method if getting to the persons capital would cost so much in terms of time and diplomatic relations it is more economical to give the city-state a foolproof army, like you said after ward normally the city-state will hold its own now that it has a foolproof army.;)

"Foolproof" underestimates the capabilities of fools. I find the City-State AI even less reliable than the rival Civ AI: City-States are pretty defensive and I find them reluctant to leave their own turf. Also, they're often located near water, and we know how much the AI loves to leave Embarked units vulnerable for easy pickings.

Diplomatically you're almost better off giving the units to a warmonger and convincing them to attack your chosen victim. Liberate what cities you don't want and you can end up being less of a warmonger than you were when you started the war.

While you might fight some of your former units, this can be only a single coup away if they're in a city-state's hands, and we all know how BS the AI is with coups.

I guess that this would be more for resource and slowing the enemy down purposes. If it came down to it, and you were ready to claim the Domination victory, I don't think that knocking out a little city state when you have the rest of the world would be very hard.

It could be useful for harassment purposes, I suppose, especially if the aggressor has started an attack on a city-state on their own. Slowing Genghis down by supplying a citystate with a group of crossbows could work.
 
Top Bottom