City State Permanent War?

[Thecos]

I've been having some frustrating problems with my ally city states going to war with other nations and not being able to figure out any good way to get peace. Several times I've had a really good relationship with a city state between me and my rival. Eventually, it seems like that city state is declaring war on my enemy, even though they are hopelessly outnumbered. I'd like to help them out, but if I go to the trade screen and try and broker a peace agreement, it says that they are permanantly at war with my rival civ. I can go to war with my rival to protect him or just give him some units, but I don't want to commit to a conflict that will only end with my rival being completely destroyed.

If I go to war, and then get a peace treaty, will he still be at war with the city state? It seems like the best thing to do is let him get destroyed, THEN go to war and liberate him, but that seems kind of lame. I'd rather have a good way of keeping him from getting conquered in the first place. Am I missing something? Does anyone know exactly what's going on here?

 

[Ahriman]

If I go to war, and then get a peace treaty, will he still be at war with the city state?

Yes.

It seems like the best thing to do is let him get destroyed, THEN go to war and liberate him, but that seems kind of lame

Doesn't help, the liberated entity will still be at permanent war.

Does anyone know exactly what's going on here?

When a player (human or AI) has declared war on city states enough time, the city states declare permanent war on them, even when its suicidal. Nothing you can do to stop it, except take out that player, or defend the city state (through blocking or unit donation).

 

[Thecos]

Ugh... lame. Not a fan of that. It feels like my ally city states (whom I based my strategy around) are just committing suicide for no good reason. My rival civ even apologizes to me for fighting with them.

Does this actually make sense to anyone? I get that the city states should be very unhappy if somebody is killing off all their "friends", but to permanently declare war against a superior enemy? Plus, whats the point of declaring war at all when city states just play defensively?

 

[ashmizen]

"but I don't want to commit to a conflict that will only end with my rival being completely destroyed. "

Why not ?

If you are worried about happiness, just raze all their cities and puppetize their capital.

 

[Thecos]

Haha

I'll rephrase:

"but I don't ALWAYS want to commit to a conflict that will only end with my rival being completely destroyed. "

Between culture, science, and cultivating city state alliances, its fun to do peaceful stuff too. I wouldn't have a problem at all if my opponent was attacking my ally city states because he was threatened by me and wanted to weaken me. What bothers me is that its my ally city states that are suicidally attacking him, which makes no sense to me.

 

[Ahriman]

Why not ?

Destroyed is good - one less UN vote.

 

[Sinterklaas]

Have you tried enclosing the city state within your own borders? I.e. you go to war with your rival, only take his city/cities directly bordering the city state and by doing so you create a buffer zone between the city state and its enemy, which makes it almost impossible for your rival to take the city state (he has to pass through your territory first).

Don't know if this will work since I'm one of those people who has postponed buying the game until some major patches have been released, but it worked for me in the earlier games.

 

[duxup]

I had that work in my favor. My opponent and I each had a continent to ourselves. I was looking for a way to get a foothold on his continent without big losses and in the meantime we declared peace after a short skirmish on his beach that was turning out to be a stalemate.

One of his city states nearby though was still at war with me... so I just rand down there and took the city state and I had a nice foothold where I could prepare for a larger invasion.