AI raze conquered CS

[bbufa]

It seems that if the loyalty pressure is too high, AI will raze the CS and thus, no CS emergency or war of liberation. This totally removed fun things in a game Should the dev rethink about razing CS, or is there a mod which makes CS can't be razed?

 

[kaspergm]

I was under the impression that the AI being able to raze City States was a bug in the first place, i.e. not intentional.

 

[8housesofelixir]

I feel like "AI not able to raze Capitals" rule should be apply to CS, since that is their only city.

In any case, I have never seen AI raze any CS before the Capital-razing bug introduced in October. Their current CS-razing behavior is without precedent and doesn't look like intended.

 

[jasper]

Never seen it but it certainly should be removed. Liberation is a fun option to consider while playing.

 

[Vargas1]

I think I’ve seen it where a city state’s forces capture another city state on behalf of its suzerain (not levied troops). Since the capturing CS can’t hold another city, it razes it.

 

[PiR]

I think I’ve seen it where a city state’s forces capture another city state on behalf of its suzerain (not levied troops). Since the capturing CS can’t hold another city, it razes it.

It happened to me when one of my city states tried to get back a city that I lost due to loyalty. They razed it. Thanks city state.

 

[AntSou]

Reading this, I have a request: Add a game option which removes the ability to raze City-States.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

I think the developers shall increase the potential of AIs attacking nearby City States suzerain by other Civs, as this is a good counter for those who have a lot of envoys but does not have the ability to protect their puppets. Currently CS bonus is too strong, especially when the duty of being their suzerain (protecting them from invasion for example) is downplayed (as AIs tend not to attack CSs suzerain by others, only to attack CS nearby with no suzerain).

 

[bbufa]

It looks like the razing depends on AI leader settler agenda, not loyalty problem. I saw Genghis Khan razed 2 CS near his empire (only 4-5 tiles away), so loyalty is not the reason.

 

[Abaxial]

And I have seen Germany raze Lisbon - figures.

 

[Tony Sing]

I think it is fine to raze a CS, as when CS settle in a really bad location (i.e. no hammer/ in desert/ no resource) but block your way to settle a new and nice city
As a player I would consider to raze it as well, otherwise it is really nasty if you have to keep a bad city that you do not want, so as the AI

As the Dec update also mention about the related AI judgement update for keep/raze, I think this logic should keep for CS as well

 

[bbufa]

I think it is fine to raze a CS, as when CS settle in a really bad location (i.e. no hammer/ in desert/ no resource) but block your way to settle a new and nice city

That's a good reason to raze a CS, however, razing CS makes AI less interactive with human, AI just do whatever they "think", while human get no trigger of CS emergency or War of Liberation.
And which is more fearsome to an aggressive civ? 200 grievance or a joint war?
For a warmonger, 200 or 2000 grievances make no difference, I think there should be more serious punishments of razing CS, for example, raze 1 CS: lose all envoys with all met CS, raze 2 CS: lose all envoys and get no envoy from civic or government for 20-30 turns...

 

[newbie2]

I hope its fixed in the coming update, cause as mentioned before, it seems an oversight. It's an easy way to dodge the emergency and has very little consequences in general. Citystates are a great addition to the game, thats why I use the CS have wall mods. To see 3-4 go before turn 80 on emperor seems very wrong