Why do City-States burning captured cities?

[adsin15]

Why do City States occasionally keep conquered cities but mostly burn them down?

I hate it when I contribute a few units to a city state so it can conquer an enemies city (which coincidentally has sweet resources which will now be mine since my ally conquered it) and then they burn the damn city to the ground!

I know for a fact they sometimes keep cities. I have seen 2 even 3 cities City-States playing this game. What are the criterion to get them to NOT burn them to the ground upon capture?

 

[Bad Wolf]

I've actually never seen a city-state raze a captured city.

 

[Callonia]

Some people say it could be happiness.

I have my doubts though because Whenever I do war on them, their units never suffer unhappiness from overpopulation.

Especially when you consider that 4 happiness from a single luxury, no access to social policies whatsoever.

 

[lokithepunishr]

I'm pretty sure it is happiness, I've seen a CS have unhappiness when I was at war with it before

 

[Mustakrakish]

Because they are ruthless bastards that should be subdued.

 

[beetle]

Some people say it could be happiness.

I'm pretty sure it is happiness, I've seen a CS have unhappiness when I was at war with it before

How can you tell that a CS is having happiness problems? Sure, they might be “angry” at you (or other civs) but that doesn’t seem related to the happiness mechanic.

I did recently see a CS stop razing a city. I did not have good LoS, and I was doing a lot of reloading, trying different battle tactics, before I gave up on that game. Reloading can cause odd problems, might resetting CS behavior be one of the quirks? I thought CS were programmed to raze, so more clarity on the behavior would be nice.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Unless they changed the mechanic (or I always misunderstood it), CS' s will always raze cities they capture unless they are capitols or other CS' s which can't get razed.

I personally have never seen a CS not raze a city they captured because of this.

 

[dashwinner]

On rare occasion I see them keep a non capital city that they conquer. The norm is, however, that they raze them. I do think its a shame, it would add to the dynamic of the game if they could own 2-3 cities. It might allow them to field more troops, gain more luxuries and therefore gain significance in the balance of power on the map. I believe it is part of the untapped potential of city states that was unfortunately not well expanded.

 

[Lunchmoney]

Unless they changed the mechanic (or I always misunderstood it), CS' s will always raze cities they capture unless they are capitols or other CS' s which can't get razed.

I personally have never seen a CS not raze a city they captured because of this.

+1. The only time they dont raze a city is when it's a capital.

In my last few games I've used CSs to wipe out the last city of several civs by reducing the enemy civ to one city that is next to my ally CS and bombarding it whilst giving melee units to the CS. Dont get the genocide penalty that way

 

[Magma_Dragoon]

Nope, I've seen them take non-capital cities and keep them

 

[Browd]

Agree^ They have to keep caps and other CSs, but I too have seen CSs keep other cities. Without studying it in detail, I think I've seen it more often when the city they take has an improved (not pillaged) unique luxury, which points to CS happiness as a key driver of the CS's raze vs. keep decision. See this thread for more discussion: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=521235

 

[dexters]

It's probably a happiness issue. I hope they adjust this because it can create a problem if razing leaves a big hole that is then resettled by the AI.

I considered allowing a Civ to purchase these cities but I think it's exploitable. I rather they keep it as it creates more interesting configurations in later game geopolitics.

If the concern is a CS taking too many cities, the happiness penalty they suffer could be exponential so taking 1 or 2 cities won't be too big of a deal. And perhaps grant them CS only bonuses by getting access to some of the luxuries they are allied to.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

 

[danaphanous]

How can you tell that a CS is having happiness problems? Sure, they might be “angry” at you (or other civs) but that doesn’t seem related to the happiness mechanic.

Rememember, when you are fighting a unit and they are unhappy you can "see" how much by the amount of the -% modifier in red. So for a CS, if you are considering targeting a unit and hover over it it will tell you everything that is affecting combat. Unhappiness is inluded. So if you see this with a CS it is proof they have an equivalent happiness mechanic. Another bit of evidence for this is the population cap-out. If you'll notice they grow way slower. Their population only goes up after a point after happiness buildings are discovered or connecting new luxuries indicating they are happiness growth-limited. So if a new city has a good luxury or two the can keep it.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

They could very well be programmed to react to their "expected" happiness but not actually experience any happiness.

Another thing is, you can know if unhappiness works because a nation receives combat penalty when the empire is unhappy.

 

[Magma_Dragoon]

Fairly certain I have seen the happy penalty on a cs unit before, but not positive

 

[whoward69]

If keeping the captured city as a puppet would take the AI (major or minor) into negative total happiness the AI will raze the city (unless it's a capital). City States tend to hover around the 0-2 happiness mark, so they almost always raze a captured city.

 

[GWashington]

City States do have happiness penalties. I was playing a game as Mongolia earlier and went on a rampage against city states, and one of them had the -2% unhappiness penalty when attacking. I may be wrong, but the only cities that I think they keep are the capitols, ones that cannot be burnt to the ground. But I may be wrong.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

City States do have happiness penalties. I was playing a game as Mongolia earlier and went on a rampage against city states, and one of them had the -2% unhappiness penalty when attacking. I may be wrong, but the only cities that I think they keep are the capitols, ones that cannot be burnt to the ground. But I may be wrong.

Pretty much. Posters here were right to point out that CS can keep non-capitols, non-CS cities, but due to the happiness system affecting CS's, they basically never do. That's a shame though, I really wish they would keep some cities they capture.

 

[dashwinner]

here we go, latest game...

 

[Callonia]

Man, this thread is just basically making it too obvious on how bad the happiness system is to me at very least XD