Changes to City States

[stealth_nsk]

So? Then those civs should protect the city-states by allying with them or declaring war on me. I'm sure I'd rack up huge diplo penalties with them if I really went around razing all the city-states.

You can't cover the whole map till the end game. So, in Civ5 if on the other continent from you there are Mongols and Austria, you'll likely not have access to their city states. But at least those under Mongols could be liberated. It's not very fun to have civilization selection affect your civ ability that much.

I'm not against raizing city states, but in this case there should be some way to get them back, i.e. building or capturing a city on their former territory should have option to resurrect a city state.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

You can't cover the whole map till the end game. So, in Civ5 if on the other continent from you there are Mongols and Austria, you'll likely not have access to their city states. But at least those under Mongols could be liberated. It's not very fun to have civilization selection affect your civ ability that much.

I'm not against raizing city states, but in this case there should be some way to get them back, i.e. building or capturing a city on their former territory should have option to resurrect a city state.

Yeah, maybe after razing there could be a marker on the map or something and you could send a Settler there and choose to "refound" a city-state. Then everyone's happy!

 

[UWHabs]

I'd rather see them come and go. So more like barbarian encampment- heck, they could even spawn from barbarian camps. If it's not razed in 20 turns it develops into a city state. No bribing - the only way to gain influence are through quests. And once you're allied with a city state, declaring war on them would give you an option: declare war back, or lose all your influence. If done this way, you could also have them occasionally culturally assimilate into your territory as well if you had enough influence/culture.

 

[Venger]

I am wondering how the change in how cities expand will affect the concept of city-states. Will a city-state become more powerful with the districting changes and such?

 

[stealth_nsk]

I am wondering how the change in how cities expand will affect the concept of city-states. Will a city-state become more powerful with the districting changes and such?

With focus on city specialization, 1-city civs are weaker. But city-states could have any number of specific bonuses, completely compensating this as needed by gameplay.

 

[Japper007]

I think city states (if implemented in the current civ 5 fashion) are better of getting axed completely. I play MP with a friend and we disable city states and it makes the game so much better! You now have to work for your culture, happiness and food rather then getting it for "free" when you do something you'd do anyways if you're a competent player (e.g. hunting barbs, teching or building wonders).

 

[kaspergm]

I would really like to see the way City State quests work changed in a major way.

1) Quests like "who can gather the most culture/faith/science" should be changed so that instead of counting the culture you collect for your own empire, this should be a competition between the players of donating the resource to the city state, with the winner being the player who donates more, or rewards given based on donated amount. The current system tends to favor snowballing, because the leading civ generally gets a lot of free influence this way.

2) In general, donation of gold should be toned down. In Civ5, winning diplomatic victory is basically an economic victory: Who can earn more gold to bribe all city states. Gold quests are fine, but the city state should only accept gold when this quest is active. Also, rather than being an indefinite amount, it would be better if it was a certain amount - for instance, city state X need 1500 gold for XX project, and then you could choose to donate (250/500/1000), but once the quota is met, the quests goes away. This should be global for all players, so that if you choose to donate a lot of money, you take the opportunity away from other players. This makes it more competitive.

3) Quests in general should be global, i.e. for all players. Free-bee quests (like "they want you to discover a new natural wonder" or "find the location of player X") should generally be toned down - while mana from heaven is nice, the occurrence of these quests can skew game in a rather unhealthy way as it is now imo.

4) "Pledge to protect" should only have effect if you actually keep a number of units close to the city-state - similar to how the Autocracy perk (Gunboat Diplomacy) works.

5) A minor thing, but something that really annoys me in Civ5: When you and a city-state is at war with a common enemy, you should get influence from killing enemy troops threatening the city-state, similar to how you get influence from killing barbs in their territory.

 

[MinnesotaRuss]

I like the idea of randomizing the CS's; like Zanzibar being a "naval" city not always trade. One of the earlier Civ games did that. Also randomizing the names. It can't always be the same city names; perhaps something tied to the civ I'm playing. Like may Prague and Ostrava or other middle European names when I'm playing Germany or Poland. Perhaps Alsace or Lorraine with France or Glasgow or Dublin when playing England.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I like tying Minor Civs to Major Civs which are not on the game you're playing. Like for instance, if France isn't in the game, there's a chance a one-city-civ called "Burgundy" or "Brittany" will spawn instead. Bavaria or Saxony may spawn if Germany isn't in, Lydia and Phrygia may spawn if Persia isn't in, Etruria and the Vatican may spawn if Rome isn't in, etc.