Fixing city-states AND small civs in Civ 5 in one fell swoop

[CivCube]

The big knock against Civ 5's diplomacy system is that it's too easy to rack up CSes if you have the most money. The idea is that you're spending more resources on others instead of supporting your infrastructure; as we've seen, though, that doesn't really work because the CSes provide so many bonuses to your infrastructure anyway. Worse yet, it rewards larger civs for expanding more rapidly, defeating the purpose of building smaller civs at all.

So we have two big questions in gameplay:

Where's the advantage in building a smaller civ? If I'm holding back from claiming more tiles for my production, surely that means I'm spending my energy on something else, something that is denied larger civs. Right now, all that exists is a smaller threshold to more social policies, an advantage that larger civs can easily overwhelm.

and

What makes city-states so different from drafting a super specialist? Mechanically speaking, I'm spending money on a limited boost to production, which is about the same as buying a new specialist/building/Golden Age for a limited time. In other words, there's no big difference in CS benefits from anything I could build myself. And if it's easier to buy CSes than build my own civ, then well...

Let's answer both questions with one answer: Give smaller civs a distinct advantage in diplomacy. This already exists to some extent in social policies but the advantage is too short-term to matter...and it's also accessible to larger civs. In order to do this, a new system will have to be created:

- Make it harder to get allies. Right now the city-states are caught in limbo. They're smaller civs without the advantages of larger civs OR the ability to progress in gameplay. That's not the real problem. If it's cheaper to buy them if you have a great economy, then you're laughing all the way to the bank production-wise and you have the diplomatic victory locked up.

Fortunately, we already have the mechanic needed to fix this: the CS quests. Right now if you do one quest, you get a good boost in relations with that CS. Let's take it a step further: have each CS have a list of quests that must ALL be completed in order to get ally status. Once you have that guy as an ally, he's yours for the rest of the game. Each quest list will also have a quest or two that will lower your relations with nearby CSes or all CSes, making it tricky to balance what you need to do first.

I actually like the quest structure as it is. It gives larger civs a reason to interact with city-states. But let's nerf the benefits for what can be called "short-term" quests, or quests that won't make you an ally but are obviously for your own gain. That opens up the next idea...

- Make culture linked to success with city-states. If your small civ has a smaller threshold to more policies, a higher culture should likewise give you a boost in diplomatic relations. That is, your culture will give you LESS quests to complete for ally status and MORE benefits from the short-term quests. To keep things interesting, larger civs can also push for ally status, but they will have a longer way to go (more quests to do) based on how many cities they chose to build.

I think this new system could actually be implemented in the game. If it works, it would go a long way to fixing the fundamental design issues. Happiness is still an issue, although it's no longer as big a deal once you give smaller civs distinct advantages. Thoughts?

[Ddude97]

What do you mean by small, as in small pop+less cities or less cities and large pop in those cities?

[CivCube]

Neither. I mean small enough civs that make it possible to get social policies faster. Pure city count.

[Ddude97]

Edit: Alright, I think I know what you mean, but small civs shouldn't outproduce large civs, it is an empire building game after all

[Zyxpsilon]

200% of a DiploWin is composed of Votes.
I need the Security council in the UN.
And everyone must gain an edge with a realistic number of principles;

Total Population, Military might, Territorial grasp, Scientific Progress, Cultural influence, Diplomatic reputation(s) and i'll skip the rest of more or less important factors. Balanced from rational inter-dependant values against the single vote slot syndrome provided around in order to stop the Game from continuing.

CS are as much entitled to being considerably more of an impact on Worldwide issues as everybody buying out themselves some overpowering assets (Food, Production, Units, Cities, Happiness, Techs & Agreements) in a game where a true Financial Winning condition is simply absent but shouldn't.

[Rusty Edge]

I suppose I could find more to complain about with the diplomacy system, but that might make this thread as unfocused and ineffective as Civ V diplomacy... I like a lot of the ideas they've introduced, but back on track.

I think CS and their quests were good ideas, and I think you're on to something with the idea of linking culture and success with CS. I think we need better quests in V, for one thing.

[Naokaukodem]

Originally Posted by CivCube

Where's the advantage in building a smaller civ?

Nowhere. This is a strategy game, the normal unfolding of it should be and is to acquire more land, that's a basic mechanic that put the way you play the game. You have to live with it.

OR

Japan is a relatively small and powerfull country. Its population is around 127 M individuals though. It's for sure small geographically, but not that much demographically. We can also say that USA are small in population compared to their land size (third mondial population behind China and India with 308 M inhabitants though)

So if you say that demographics and density should evolve better from a country to another, I agree. In Civ, cities size are too similar. Civics or Social Policies should be used for such drastic changes and possibilities as high density and whatnot.

Nowadays, there's no way to simulate high population density in Civ. Each tile gives approximatively the same quantity of food everywhere every time. there can be bigger cities than others, but that's because of small cities ("crappy cities") or of differently used city radiuses. Sure, Gandhi will have bigger cities because each city costs more, but the population density would be the same than any other civ: same pop for same squares.

Social policies should be used to represent different cultures like crops optimization and also why not food trading.

[davetaylor]

great ideas, but I dont think they are intrested and in making the game any better this is meant to be a streamlined game to appeal to casuals. My main hope is the moding comunity at this point.

[Civsassin]

There was nothing in the patch notes implying that they had any intention of changing CS mechanics. They didn't include any changes to the CSs in the upcoming patch, and the patch notes didn't mention the need to fix the CS mechanics at all. IMO, the CS structure was added to permit you to gain the benefits of specialists, since specialists' roles were changed significantly in CiV. In CiIV, running a specialist economy was a viable option. In CiV, they are used very differently.

CSs in many ways take the place of some of the aspects of your specialist economy. You can choose to spend your gold in a variety of ways, and CSs is only one of them. You can purchase buildings, enter into RAs, trade it for "things" with other Civs, upgrade units, etc. If you need culture, food, happiness resources, units, an investment in CSs can be fruitful. At the higher levels, it is much more difficult to maintain many, if any, CSs. The AI gets bonuses that allow them to keep a stable of CSs easily. The way CSs are implemented works well IMO and gives the player yet another choice/option in gameplay.

@Naokaukodem
You're absolutely wrong. CiV is a strategy game, and the "normal unfolding of it" should be whatever the player deems is a viable strategy. If you want to ICS, develop a strategy and do it; if you want to play an OCC and not expand at all, ditto; and, if you want to have a medium sized empire and win a different way, OK. There is no one strategy that should or must be pursued.

The upcoming patch is making a number of changes to permit a balance between ICS and OCC. They want to make either strategy viable and equally satisfactory.

In CiV, there is not, nor should there be, one single strategy that trumps all others. That's when the game gets dull. There should be a significant number of choices to permit the game to go in any direction that the player wants within the confines of the game's mechanics.

[snarzberry]

I was thinking the other day about an alternative that would achieve the same underlying goal - namely, to make a few highly developed cities competitive with a large number of poorly developed cities. Why not make the later social policies, the ones that are all but impossible to get to with a large empire, extremely powerful? Much more so than now, so that if the dense, developed civ with a small number of cities gets massive benefits when they are unlocked.

[He-Who-Hunts]

Love this idea. I wonder if it can be modded.

it is an empire building game after all

I have to say something about this, I see it all the time and I totally disagree.

Civilization is a civilization building game, and a civilization can be any size.

[SpearMan153]

Originally Posted by davetaylor

this is meant to be a streamlined game to appeal to casuals. My main hope is the moding comunity at this point.

I disagree, its MEANT to be a streamlined (in the good way) game that is accessible to casuals but still enjoyable to core fans.

whether it achieves that goal or not is of course a matter of rigorous debate

on the subject of the city states the problem isn't so much the buying favour for gold mechanic per say (imo). Its the fact that benefits are not balanced with other options and the fact that the ai (apart from Greece/Siam) will more often then not allow player to buy out all CS without any/much competition despite hoards of gold reserves.

So more a lack of competition and poor ai awareness of CS strategic value that makes for the cheese factor.

that said there is huge modding potiental for enhanced CS diplomatic options: ie: espionage/religion which would be a great addtional to the core CS concept

[Zyxpsilon]

Originally Posted by SpearMan153

that said there is huge modding potiental for enhanced CS diplomatic options: ie: espionage/religion which would be a great addtional to the core CS concept

That thread might have been buried from lack of much "deeper" analysis (plural) by anyone but it's still actually relevant to this one. Have a quick look, and debate for solutions here if you must. After LeoPaRd & ErasCenter, that's the next project i might be working on... but, i might have to let Gazebo enhance his.
Diversity, now.

PS; Btw, moderators... this really deserves its own slot in the "Ideas & Suggestions" section, AFAIC.

[Camikaze]

I like the way that CS alliances can change around. I reckon it's a reasonably good aspect of the game. I'm not sure if locking them in, or making them harder to acquire is a good thing. In fact, it could be counterproductive. If you are making city states hard to become allies with, then you're advantaging the larger civs.

[SaiH]

I like the way that CS alliances can change around. I reckon it's a reasonably good aspect of the game. I'm not sure if locking them in, or making them harder to acquire is a good thing. In fact, it could be counterproductive. If you are making city states hard to become allies with, then you're advantaging the larger civs.

I agree that eternal alliances would be contraproductive, but I think that the main suggestions in the starting post are reasonable. Diplomacy with city states schould become more complex and gain some continuity. Spending money should only be a part of the diplomacy and not the most important one. Now, an allied city state can become your enemy within one turn when an other civilisation invests enough money in it and declares war on you. This seems neither reasonable nor productive.

[Camikaze]

I think the solution to that lies in adjusting what influence you can buy and how it decays over time. Make it so that you can't be undercut as such, but don't want it that you can still be undercut, just by more quests instead.

[Namaspamus]

Quests and protection should be much more important and money less. Protecting a CS could make your influence increase over time, this would reward long-time relations at the moment of the vote. But if you can't protect them when they're attacked, or don't even DoW the attacker, this would damage your relations with all CSs and they wouldn't take your protection for much anymore. So you can't pledge to protect everyone without considering if you're able to.

Quests possibilities:

-Prove that the world is round

-Reveal all the map (or 90%)

Also allied CSs shouldn't automatically enter your wars, only if you ask them to.

[SaiH]

I think the solution to that lies in adjusting what influence you can buy and how it decays over time.

Maybe influence should not automatically decay over time. It could be more interesting if your influence decayed only on occaisions e.g. when you fail to complete an important quest or to protect a CS.

So you can't pledge to protect everyone without considering if you're able to.

I think this is a very important issue.

Also allied CSs shouldn't automatically enter your wars, only if you ask them to.

I agree.

[Camikaze]

Originally Posted by SaiH

Maybe influence should not automatically decay over time. It could be more interesting if your influence decayed only on occaisions e.g. when you fail to complete an important quest or to protect a CS.

Automatic decay is kinda important though so that you don't just neglect city states after buying them. Having them request more quests would do something to limit this issue, but automatic decay is a pretty important thing. And I reckon it's a fairly realistic one, too.

[Drawmeus]

Originally Posted by snarzberry

I was thinking the other day about an alternative that would achieve the same underlying goal - namely, to make a few highly developed cities competitive with a large number of poorly developed cities. Why not make the later social policies, the ones that are all but impossible to get to with a large empire, extremely powerful? Much more so than now, so that if the dense, developed civ with a small number of cities gets massive benefits when they are unlocked.

Because by the time even a small, culturally-focused civ could have access to them, they're knocking on the door of a culture win and it almost doesn't matter what they do at that point.