AI attacking city states every game is frustrating

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Geography definitely makes a difference. If the City-state is protected (ie. lake, or needs a mountain pass to get to), then they'll probably survive. Also, if they're far enough away from any AI, then they have time to build units/walls to defend themselves.
I don't think the number of neighbours matters too much. I think it depends more on whether any of the close neighbours decides to take out city-states instead of other players. For example, in my current game, it was me+Scotland on an island together with 4 city-states. For once, Scotland decided not to attack me, but they did capture 2 city-states.
The third point is a weird one. I remember a game maybe last fall where the AI captured a city-state, and then I declared war on them and captured it and decided to keep it. And then they declared war on me again later, and ended up capturing back the city-state, but this time liberating it. So they're coded to capture city-states, but they're also coded to liberate them.

Maybe the best solution is to live with the AI wiping out ~half the city-states in the game at higher levels, but you should start with more. So on a small map, instead of there being 6 civs and 9 city-states, maybe we should just have 6 civs and 12 city-states. That way you can still lose half and have enough left to play with. If they also adjusted the map scripts to try to always place 1-2 of them on like off-shore islands or island groups, that could also help.

I don't personally subscribe to the idea that building walls or extra units help the City States survive in the long term. At least as of the current patch, the AI seems to capture City States with walls pretty much as easily as it does those without walls. Now, it would clearly make a difference in the Ancient era if City States started with walls, as it takes the AI time to get the units needed to take a walled city. So to that extent, it would help City States survive longer and may increase the number of City States who survive the game. But the AI seems willing and able to take out City States in the Classical, Medieval, etc. eras, and those City States have walls.

Your comment about you and Scotland on an island together was exactly my point about the number of neighbours, but I didn't express myself properly in my original post (subsequently edited). Because you and the Bruce were both close to those City States, I think (but again, can't prove) that the AI was therefore more likely to attack those City States than if you hadn't also been on the island and it was just Scotland near those City States

 

[Kruos]

@Kruos Sorry... Strongly disagree with your statement that's it's 'out of the question to change this' ;-)

To add more detail, I would rather see the added AI efficiency used against the player than used against the CSes

OK! Then I agree it could be an interesting direction to follow. But I am not sure it would be compatible with immersion : one would say it does not feel very immersive when you realise that all the AI are tweaked against you ('player focused AI' or 'anti-player' behavior - if it's too obvious it kills the fun).

 

[tedhebert]

OK! Then I agree it could be an interesting direction to follow. But I am not sure it would be compatible with immersion : one would say it does not feel very immersive when you realise that all the AI are tweaked against you ('player focused AI' or 'anti-player' behavior - if it's too obvious it kills the fun).

Well... that'S exactly what they do atm with CSes, so ... to me it's immersion breaking... bah we'll never get to the end of this ;-)

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Immersion is not derived from a universal source and carries no function beyond stating one's own preferences.

Counter claim: AI not conquering city states is immersion breaking, therefore it should do so more routinely.

Ideally in a strategy game one would make the choice to conquer or not based on benefits conferred from each choice, same for choosing between them for investment. Insofar as the AI is doing this when it receives greater benefit when not doing it, you can make a case that the AI is throwing and that should be fixed. Similarly, the game could alter the returns of each choice so that the optimal choice varies based on context. Finally, the game can tether civs to city states more firmly, allowing a realistic opportunity to defend them.

 

[acluewithout]

Allowing city states to grow to say 2 or 3 cities total would help them survive a bit longer - more production, more units etc.

It would also help fill up the map more.

Declaring war on a CS should also trigger war with its Suzerain (either automatically or at suze 's option).

 

[Ferocitus]

@Trav'ling Canuck My god, this is even worse than I expected... Sorry everyone who keep saying this is all normal and good, but... it most definitely is NOT !

It's difficult to accept assertions that something is significantly bad
when the sample size is not significant, as has been repeatedly
pointed out.

 

[Leathaface]

It can be very frustrating seeing city states getting conquered early, especially city states with really nice Suzeiran bonuses. Hopefully Firaxis can balance this issue.

 

[Ferocitus]

It can be very frustrating seeing city states getting conquered early, especially city states with really nice Suzeiran bonuses. Hopefully Firaxis can balance this issue.

I'm ok with that, as long as the bonuses Fred Barb and others get against CS
then apply to their attacks on, and interactions with, other civs. (Especially
against England and Spain!)

 

[x2Madda]

I think this topic has reached its natural conclusion and the OP has not responded to this topic.

Whether AI take city states or not does not seem to change how anyone approaches that particular game. The changes to city states were good and welcomed but when you consider the goal is to win the game and every city you own or take makes that goal come closer, the AI is taking the best option in order to win.

Not going to please everyone because if you lose the game and every city state is intact, do you really care? You were still knocked out of the game. Conversely as most of us long term players know, we win games with very few AI left remaining alive because war grants the fastest winning times but does this ruin a game for anyone when only 2 or 3 civs are left at the end of the game?

Civ games have never been simulations.

 

[Tuvok694]

If I had only ONE single wish for an immediate change, then it would be this problem.
I want to play WITH city states, send envoys, use their bonuses.
Currently Civ6 is a game that deliberately destroys one of its own cool features. This is so incredibly annoying.

 

[acluewithout]

Guess this thread hasn't reached a natural conclusion.

 

[UWHabs]

I did realize recently that I've been playing with a "city-states get free walls" mod, so maybe that's why I haven't felt it's been as bad. Doesn't solve it completely (my last game still only had like 4 city-states survive), but it might help a little.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I did realize recently that I've been playing with a "city-states get free walls" mod, so maybe that's why I haven't felt it's been as bad. Doesn't solve it completely (my last game still only had like 4 city-states survive), but it might help a little.

Maybe, but I think people may be underestimating how many of the City States get conquered after they already have walls. Most of them are walled when they're taken out, based on my observations.

I've mentioned this before, but to my mind if a major civ can't take out a single city City State, even with walls, the game has bigger problems than AI aggression towards city states (which may not even count as a problem, depending on how you feel about it; I've moved onto the fence on this, myself).

I expect diplomatic victory will be part of the next expansion, and City States will presumably play into that. So even if we get another patch, the development team may not address this topic, if it's being looked at for the expansion. On the other hand, if changes are made for an expansion, maybe those changes get rolled into a patch before hand.

If anyone cares, here are the updated stats on city state survival, after 9 test game observations (deity, continents, standard speed, standard size therefore 12 starting City States):

Average Turn of 1st City State conquest: T22 (earliest observed: T17)
Avg. City States surviving at T50: 8.7 (high 11, low 7)
Avg. City States surviving at T100: 6.7 (high 9, low 2)
Avg. City States surviving at game end: 4.6 (high 8, low 1)

 

[miaasma]

i have no problem with the AI steamrolling nearby city states

it becomes dubious when they're crossing half the map to tunnel vision a city state that they then immediately lose due to loyalty, only to do it again the minute someone liberates it. it's not strategic or sensible at all, so the devs may want to discourage this behaviour in particular

 

[darko82]

City States are broken on the design level. There should be more mechanics (conditions) implemented into this to prevent it because investing into city states makes no sense. It's better to destoy them. They are useless if the AI can get them without any consequences of doing so.

 

[Kruos]

Maybe, but I think people may be underestimating how many of the City States get conquered after they already have walls. Most of them are walled when they're taken out, based on my observations.

I've mentioned this before, but to my mind if a major civ can't take out a single city City State, even with walls, the game has bigger problems than AI aggression towards city states (which may not even count as a problem, depending on how you feel about it; I've moved onto the fence on this, myself).

I expect diplomatic victory will be part of the next expansion, and City States will presumably play into that. So even if we get another patch, the development team may not address this topic, if it's being looked at for the expansion. On the other hand, if changes are made for an expansion, maybe those changes get rolled into a patch before hand.

If anyone cares, here are the updated stats on city state survival, after 9 test game observations (deity, continents, standard speed, standard size therefore 12 starting City States):

Average Turn of 1st City State conquest: T22 (earliest observed: T17)
Avg. City States surviving at T50: 8.7 (high 11, low 7)
Avg. City States surviving at T100: 6.7 (high 9, low 2)
Avg. City States surviving at game end: 4.6 (high 8, low 1)

Yes, it's also what I think : devs have plan for futur expansion and CS mechanism update is part of it, seems pretty obvious as there are a lot of 'game space' around it currently. Pretty sure something related to CS annexion/suzerainty rework will be added. So in the mean time, we will just have some small 'fix' to make the current game playable and fun, despite the game design holes.

Also, I can confirm these number again : in my last two games (Continents, Deity, everything standard except I added 1 AI and 2 CS for better density), at the end (around T200) around a handfull of CS were surviving (~5). Fine by me, games were good!

 

[UWHabs]

City States are broken on the design level. There should be more mechanics (conditions) implemented into this to prevent it because investing into city states makes no sense. It's better to destoy them. They are useless if the AI can get them without any consequences of doing so.

I don't agree that they're broken, although I do agree that there should be higher diplomatic consequences for taking them out.

And I don't know what happened with the map script in my current game, but I think all the city-states have stayed alive almost 200 turns in (or maybe 1 was captured). Gotta say, as annoying as it is when they're all dead, it can be more annoying with them all alive. Trying to manage relations and quests for like 11 city-states is a real pain.

 

[kb27787]

Because of the lack of WC/UN in this game, diplomatic consequences matter very little to the AI... They WILL declare surprise wars midgame AND they WILL kill CS.
Giving CS combat boosts to their units, not just cities, based on the number of envoys might help, but really, I would have liked to see BNW-style punishment of civs that do it... (you see Genghis in BNW? He captures a CS, suddenly he is public enemy no. 1, gets embargoed, main luxury banned, world ideology against him, etc. His sprawling empire then collapses)

 

[NukeAJS]

CSs starting with walls simply and eloquently solves this issue.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

CSs starting with walls simply and eloquently solves this issue.

Why do you say that? In the games I've been observing, most City States are conquered after they've already built their walls. As far as I can tell, starting the City States with walls would delay the timing of the conquest of some of them until the AI has Swordsmen or Archers, but most would still go under. It would also have knock on effects in terms of what the AI civs do with their armies during that time (attack each other? nothing?)

I'm genuinely curious about how those who argue for starting the City States with walls think that would improve gameplay. I don't think it would have a significant impact on the number of City States conquered, but it could impact the timing. Would that timing make a big difference?