AI Razing City-State: Bug or Feature?

[anonxanemone]

AI attacking city-states is nothing new but one of the recent updates made AI have little to no reservation in razing city-states. When the developers introduced the function, they quoted the Maya for needing to keep cities close to their capital as per their ability so eliminating city-states that obstruct such city planning is "logical". However, this AI adjustment (for any civ) seems to have swung too much the other way and they seem to raze them even if they have full loyalty control of the captured city. In my recent game as Nubia, Victoria razed Nazca that was between our cities. I haven't done the calculation but, seeing that my city was about 3 Population and hers was 8 and closer, I'd say she had the loyalty swing to her favor but yet chose to just erase it from the game... permanently

I'm a little torn on this issue because a human player might raze a poorly placed city. On the other hand, razing is such a permanent effect that the thought of missing out on their bonuses for the rest of the game is very disappointing, to say the least. My amateur game developer brain brainstormed a few solutions that include reducing the "razed" city-state to a single tile so that they can be revived via liberation or devolving them to an un-deletable settler that is controlled by the captor so any contesters can capture them to resettle within a certain distance of their original settlement location.

 

[InsidiousMage]

I think it's somewhere in between a bug and a feature. How many city-states the AI razes seems to veer wildly between games for me so I think it need some refining to work better but I'm not opposed to it in general. Razing city-states you aren't going to be suzerain of isn't a bad strategy but when and why the AI does it is a little inconsistent right now.

 

[Vargas1]

I like the second idea a lot - having the civ that razes the city-state take their leader as a captive (in the form of a settler) so that there remains the possibility to bring the city-state back. I'm not against the idea of razing them entirely, but the permanent loss of potential bonuses (especially if it happens before you even meet the city-state or the civ that took it) is pretty annoying.

 

[8housesofelixir]

When a civ wipe another civ out, we can liberate the cities and bring that civ back. When a civ occupies a CS we can do similar. On the other hand, when a civ raze a CS, the CS is being removed from that game entirely, and the players literally cannot do anything about the situation.

Lock a door entirely from the players is far from good design IMHO.

 

[Pfeffersack]

I'm usually prefering a wider bug definition, but AIs razing more CS doesn't qualify for it IMO. Technically, everyone (player/AI) in Civ6 can raze a conquered CS. I don't like this change compared to Civ5, but it is a intended design decision and also nothing giving the AI an advantage. I haven't seen yet an AI razing a CS (likely happened in my games, too - but so far outside "my sight and attention"), so I can't tell whether their decisions here are beneficial for them. If not, it an AI flaw. As said, I consider serious AI flaws (e.g. AIs widely not improving luxuries) as bugs, but that one hasn't passed this line for me (yet). So voted: "Not a bug. I don't like it"

 

[Kjimmet]

I think it's a bit inconsistant that one may not raze capital cities but can raze city-states that are technically speaking capital cities (for the city-states).

 

[Basajaun]

Apparently its a feature, but according to what Ive seen, something must be buggy for the ai when making the decision of keeping or razing a CS. Also with target priorities when a city attacks.
In my last game, I was allied with Alexander to the North, and at war with Peter to the south.
There is 1 CS (Zanzibar) by him, and another CS (Mitla) between him and me. Im suzerain of both. Proceeds to attack and conquer Zanzibar, and some turns later, declares war on Mitla.
I take 3 cheap units to Mitla to bodyblock it so he cant put it under siege (still around 20 turns of friendship remaining so no other course of action)
With a single catapult he takes down the walls while Mitla is attacking the Heitarois that are suciding against the walls one by one, not even in a coordinated attack from the spots I wasnt able to cover yet. After like half a dozen dead Heitarois, the catapult is still untouched by the walls and the defenses are down.
Then comes the last standing Heitaroi with about 10% health remaining, and razes the CS.

I wonder why, because it would have given him an amazing strategic position to further his advance towards my lands. Granted, he would hit a wall because my recently upgraded army was on the way back north after peacing out with Peter, but regardless, I dont see the logic. I didnt have yet enough cities or population to even require a governor in the recently conquered city for loyalty purposes, and it was placed in easily defensible terrain (inside an U shaped river touching a mountain with hills and woods around)

 

[Linklite]

I like the idea of it a lot, but it needs to happen rarely. It can be frustrating to constantly losing CSs in the game, partly because they are there to spice up the game. Having the AIs going on a genocidal rampage wiping them all out is rather counter productive to that goal.

Still, if it happens rarely, then it can bring a sense of urgency when we see them being attacked, a reason to actually intervene. When it does happen, it brings a sense of loss and therefore a sense of stakes in actually preventing it. However, if the AI is intent on removing all CSs from the face of the Earth, it just becomes counterproductive.

 

[UWHabs]

They can capture them - my current game I just liberated Jerusalem from Nubia. But yeah, the fact the AI is so high on razing them makes me uncomfortable. I think there needs to be some way to always restore the CS - perhaps if you build a city in the territory of a former city-state, you should have the option to "return the land to the CS" as a way to restore them to life.

 

[InsidiousMage]

likely happened in my games, too - but so far outside "my sight and attention"

I my experience it seems to happen fairly early in the game or not at all. I can't recall an AI razing a CS in the mid or late game.

 

[anonxanemone]

The preliminary opinion on this seems like an even split between a bug and a feature but nobody likes it. Haha.

I hope the developers get a whiff of this. It isn't something that warrants a bug report being sent, right?

 

[InsidiousMage]

It isn't something that warrants a bug report being sent, right?

I fell like 2K would shut down their customer service if everyone treated everything they didn't like as a bug. (Not that I would mind, maybe then Firaxis would do more playtesting.)

 

[JJOne]

The only one I saw was in the current game, I was suzerain of Johannesburg which was between me and Japan, but way nearer to two of my cities, Hojo attacked it, I didn't defend it thinking it will flip to free city and I'll liberate it then, and... Hojo razes it. That was the best strategic decision he could have taken. I'll definitely defend my city states under attack now.

So from my point of view, it's not a bug, it's a feature.

 

[Tigranes]

I my experience it seems to happen fairly early in the game or not at all. I can't recall an AI razing a CS in the mid or late game.

I can attest that's not the case. City was razed in Industrial age.

 

[Pietato]

I hate it, and it has completely ruined the game for me. Why bother selecting city-states on a huge map when half of them will disappear before you even meet them? I am not playing until it is fixed.

 

[iammaxhailme]

So in my current game, Japan had killed Hong Kong (topical?) on like turn 30. Honk Kong was excellently placed next to a natural wonder. What'd Japan do? Burn it down.

I mean, it gave me the opportunity to sneakily settle the spot, but yeah it was very illogical and I can't imagine that's intended behavior.

 

[Pietato]

They even raze isolated city-states which only they have met and have influence/loyalty pressure on. Might be related to the weird loyalty display bug where it shows you have negative loyalty when you take a city, no matter what. Whatever it is, I hate it and have quit until it is gone.

 

[InsidiousMage]

If anyone has noticed, are the city-states being razed on fresh water? I never pay attention to that for city-states but I would assume yes. The devs said they were changing the criteria for razing because of the Maya so I wonder the AI is looking at housing as a reason to raze a city?

 

[anonxanemone]

If anyone has noticed, are the city-states being razed on fresh water? I never pay attention to that for city-states but I would assume yes. The devs said they were changing the criteria for razing because of the Maya so I wonder the AI is looking at housing as a reason to raze a city?

IIRC from my games, city-states were razed regardless of fresh water status. Nazca was on a river, my most recent example.

 

[Pietato]

I my experience it seems to happen fairly early in the game or not at all. I can't recall an AI razing a CS in the mid or late game.

Proximity and Loyalty would be my guess. Maya want to remove anything close to them, and loyalty often bugs out the first turn.