City-State Quests (CSQ)

[Hail]

prerequisites:

1) from what i can make out about civ5, a player will encounter quite a few City-States in a game.
2) City-States will probably offer some bonus(es) that will outweigh their acquisition, if the player can raise his reputation to that CS high enough.


these City-States will ask the player to help them or to give them something in return for a reputation boost. in other words quests will be civ5!

do i want to see quests in such an epic empire-building game that civ is?

no!
why?

1) quests(and CSQ in particular) are not epic
2) will get annoying and repetitious after the player knows all flavors



what do you think?

 

[Thormodr]

I loved the quests in cIV.

I am very excited about the concept of city states. I think it will be an awesome addition to the game. I do hope they give interesting quests.

It wouldn't be a bad idea to have quests as a game option though if someone doesn't like them.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I have to say, as much as I loved quests & events in BtS, I don't think this is what they actually mean. What it means is that you have to do things to prove your friendship for that City-State. Gifts, defense against barbarian attacks, liberating them from foreign conquest, that kind of thing. I could be wrong, but this is how I read it!

Aussie.

 

[Schalke 04]

I really like this feature!

As far as I can tell from all these articles, written about CiV, these city states will be very important for the whole game.

They can be a source for military assistance, luxury/strategic resources, money etc. So you could call these city states a "super resource", which will be interesting for all civilizations. Therefore it may be very likely that all civs compete for them.
Moreover these missions could contain things which will downgrade your relations to other civs.

I guess that theses city states are the motor for many diplomtaic affairs between civs, more than any single resource ever was.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I like quests a lot, but I'm a little scared of the role of City States in higher difficulty levels... will it still possible to befriend them in say, Emperor or Deity? I wouldn't like that the AI expands too fast and in the same time, befriend all city states around you! I hope City States will have their importance in higher difficulty too, unlike it was the case with most features in Civ4 (religions, wonders...)

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Naokaukodem, if it makes you feel any better-unlike the Goody Huts of previous civ games, merely encountering the City-States first will not be enough for the AI to negate their benefit to you. From everything I've read, its perfectly possible to sway them in your direction by being prepared to do more for them. Of course doing so might anger the major AI civs but-hey-that goes with the territory !

Aussie.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Aussie

I hope there is not even such a thing like "angry to you" or "happy to you", but only strategic choices from the AI. Like it can attack you if it sees no warrior in your city in early times (well in terms of Civ4...) or maybe being tempted by your unprotected workers or settlers. They may be able to make peace when it's in their interest, no more "I will fight you to death!!!" behavior.

But maybe i'm asking too much, anyway i can't wait to play this game in multiplayer.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hmmm, opportunism is all well & good at times-but as a roleplaying kind of Civ player myself, I really loved the way relations in CivIV worked. It really gave me the sense of dealing with a "real" leader, instead of just an AI out to win at any cost (which is why I actually stay away from everything but Diplogames in multiplayer )! Thats not to say the diplomatic system in CivIV was perfect, but it definitely left the CivIII one for dead !

Aussie.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Aussie

For the instance, in reality, people get to be friend only if it is of their interests, I mean of course countries leaders, not everyone.

 

[Roland Johansen]

I somewhat agree with the OP. Not so much about the quests in specific but more about the whole concept of city states as envisaged in civilization V.

To me, the civilization game has always been a game where you and several computer controlled civilizations create a civilization that can stand the test of time and grow to greatness. The game was about who could create the greatest civilization out of a single settler in 4000BC.

Now, however, there exists a different species (which still represents humans) in that same world that has a different ruleset. These city state human civilizations have no interest in expanding over the land but seem to only exist as a diplomatic tool or a resource of the real civilizations. They have a different ruleset which allows them to give gifts and quests to the real civilizations who befriend them. I suspect that normal civilizations will behave in a very different manner and won't gift you military units or quests if they like you. Otherwise, there would be little reason to create a game feature like city states. From reading the previews, it also seems as if they have a special role in diplomacy. It's somehow different if a you befriend a city state on the border of the Germans or if you befriend the Americans who also share a border with the Germans. And that has nothing to do with the size of the Germans, Americans or the city state but just with a different ruleset.
Somehow, these city states are also going to keep up in research while I doubt a normal civilization limited to a single city could do the same.

In a fantasy setting where the city states would represent some long-lived, slowly reproducing civilization like maybe elves, I could understand such a concept. In a normal game of civilization, it sounds too forced and too gamey for me.

All of the above is of course based on the limited information of a few previews. However, I'll dare a prediction that this feature won't return in Civilization VI (or maybe only in name but not its functionality).

 

[BSmith1068]

I see no problem with the “quests” or mechanics of the city states as they have been explained so far. It adds another dimension to game play that was absent from previous versions of the game. Sure we are all going to have to learn new strategies to deal with this new concept, but that should be what we are all wanting!

 

[thungrim]

While I reserve final judgment until I actually play the game, I'm optimistic about this feature.
The term "quest" reminds us of Fantasy RPGs where we're searching for the character with the yellow ! and ? This is why I imagine the mechanic more like "Diplomacy in Action".

If you want a piece of a neighboring city-state's absolute advantage in something, you should have to do things to earn it. That should be the basis of concrete actions, such as supplying them X units, removing a barbarian threat, beating off another Civ's advances, or providing them with X resources.

 

[r_rolo1]

From PC gamer of today:

Dennis: (...)

We're putting in new mechanics, especially with diplomacy, that are making the game an entirely new experience - especially with things like city states. City states are a new mechanism on the map. They're smaller, single city, weaker NPCs scattered throughout the map. They never really grow that much, but they're there to grease the wheels of diplomacy.

Jon: There are a few mechanics of making making friends with them and getting rewards, and you can kill them of course if you want. But the thing we're excited about with these is: say you've made friends with a particular city state, and another AI power that's more militaristic decides he wants conquer it. You have this interesting situation that didn't exist in previous Civ games. Rarely were you concerned about other players, their survival, their situation. Now you can have this web of client states who are subservient to you and working towards your victory, and protecting them is very much in your interests. It works both ways. If you're a militaristic player, you now have to worry about who you're attacking because it might bring in a larger alliance against you.

PCG: Will the city states persist throughout the game or will they die out?

Jon: They start at the beginning like all other players, and they'll stick around to the end if they're able to survive that long.

Dennis: I was playing an excellent game the other day. City states that are close to your borders are candidates for you to take, because they give very good resources. I ended up taking a neighbouring city state, and that immediately sparked off a war with another civilization that was getting benefits from being friends with that city state. That war went on for some 200 years, with them trying to liberate the city state and me trying to keep and claim what I felt was mine.

This makes me share a little the concerns of Roland about this... it reminds me the not-so-popular Civ IV feature of minor nations

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I actually think it is a good idea, it helps maintain diplomacy by increasing the number of 'parties' without 'players' having to be rapidly eliminated.

Admittedly they play by a different rule set, but they can be made to play by the same rules set...Conquer them, and now they are a perfectly normal civ city.

I don't see the problem with them if there are also barbarians... which are far more different.

As a matter of fact just thin of them like that barbarians... before you only had one "barbarian" player... now you have dozens, of several Types, each with their own rules.


.... as for how they keep up in research, they have their own research trees (which I am going to guess aren't trees at all but columns... ie as they survive they get techs at regular intervals.. based on their tech production.

 

[Roland Johansen]

I actually think it is a good idea, it helps maintain diplomacy by increasing the number of 'parties' without 'players' having to be rapidly eliminated.

Admittedly they play by a different rule set, but they can be made to play by the same rules set...Conquer them, and now they are a perfectly normal civ city.

I don't see the problem with them if there are also barbarians... which are far more different.

As a matter of fact just thin of them like that barbarians... before you only had one "barbarian" player... now you have dozens, of several Types, each with their own rules.


.... as for how they keep up in research, they have their own research trees (which I am going to guess aren't trees at all but columns... ie as they survive they get techs at regular intervals.. based on their tech production.

I actually also think that barbarians don't fit well after the ancient age. In the ancient age, I view them as civilizations which haven't settled down, nomads. However, I would like barbarians to develop into full fledged civilizations after they settle down into cities which behave according to the exact same rules as normal civilizations. This would be interesting as they would be lesser developed civilizations as they've started settling cities and researching later. The map would be split up into areas settled by minor civilizations (former barbarians) and major civilizations (the ones that started settling in 4000BC). The minor civilizations might even be single city empires (city states) due to lack of territory to expand. Their survival or assimilation into the major civilizations could lead to interesting diplomatic relations if small civilizations would actively seek the protection of larger ones. Research could be modelled in such a way that technologies discovered by trading members would be a lot easier to develop so that minor civilizations wouldn't fall back too much.

We really don't need two forms of civilizations which behave according to different rule sets to get interesting diplomacy.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I actually also think that barbarians don't fit well after the ancient age. In the ancient age, I view them as civilizations which haven't settled down, nomads. However, I would like barbarians to develop into full fledged civilizations after they settle down into cities which behave according to the exact same rules as normal civilizations. This would be interesting as they would be lesser developed civilizations as they've started settling cities and researching later. The map would be split up into areas settled by minor civilizations (former barbarians) and major civilizations (the ones that started settling in 4000BC). The minor civilizations might even be single city empires (city states) due to lack of territory to expand. Their survival or assimilation into the major civilizations could lead to interesting diplomatic relations if small civilizations would actively seek the protection of larger ones. Research could be modelled in such a way that technologies discovered by trading members would be a lot easier to develop so that minor civilizations wouldn't fall back too much.

We really don't need two forms of civilizations which behave according to different rule sets to get interesting diplomacy.

Well you sort of do.

For diplomacy to be interesting you need a large number of actors.

The normal rule set promotes consolidation of powers, ie those 'minor powers' would just get gobbled up by major powers in a normal civ game.

The alternative is a rule set that innately makes it harder for Everyone to consolidate territory. (ie fragments of your empire are continually breaking off to become new powers, and you need to fight that.. or accept it and make them your allies)

Now that might be interesting, but I'm not sure they now how to make it a fun Civ game.

So the alternative is to have "Player Civs" in a category that consolidates and "City-State Civs" in a category that does not.

While a game where you could move back and forth between those categories would be fun, That is better than having No city states (all players start out similarly)

So its not all that I would want, but it is a significant improvement.

 

[Turquoiside]

Oh, think of them as 'requests' rather than 'quests'.

 

[Thormodr]

Yes, requests or missions.

I am hoping for interesting missions/requests given by City States.

I hope there are also interesting quests given. (Like settling near the holy mountain, build 7 libraries etc.) I hope they can expand on that.

 

[Roland Johansen]

Well you sort of do.

For diplomacy to be interesting you need a large number of actors.

The normal rule set promotes consolidation of powers, ie those 'minor powers' would just get gobbled up by major powers in a normal civ game.

That's why I suggested a system of diplomacy where minor powers would actively seek the protection of larger powers. Call it protectorate or vassal or whatever (although not the model of vassalage used in civ4). The smaller civilizations just over stuff to a larger one, just enough to make it more attractive to keep the small ones around than to conquer them as conquering also costs resources. There's nothing complicated about that. It's actually the exact same mechanism as the one they're proposing with the city states, just without a separate set of rules. It's just a diplomatic survival mechanism that kicks in ones a civilization realizes it can't keep up with the big guys.

There could also be a simple mechanism to let the smaller civilizations somewhat keep up in technology. Make it so that if you have friends that already have a technology, then it is a lot cheaper to research said technology.

The alternative is a rule set that innately makes it harder for Everyone to consolidate territory. (ie fragments of your empire are continually breaking off to become new powers, and you need to fight that.. or accept it and make them your allies)

Now that might be interesting, but I'm not sure they now how to make it a fun Civ game.

It has been done in the revolutions mod but it's not everyone's cup of tea. Probably not a good idea for the sales figures of the main civilization game.

I do think that it should be easier to fight battles in your own territory. With enough advantages in your own territory, a slightly stronger civilization can't conquer a slightly weaker one and conquest doesn't automatically become the single best way to win the game. But this won't help the really small civilizations.

So its not all that I would want, but it is a significant improvement.

It isn't to me, as with the two separate rule sets, the game loses something far more important to me which I described in my first post of this thread.

 

[Michigamer]

I definitely like the idea of including city-states as minor NPCs in theory. It always felt strange for the whole globe to be divied between a half dozen empires in previous Civ games. Civ 4 introduced barbarian cities, but these were always conquered early on. So the difficulty in including independent city-states is going to be providing incentives for major civs to NOT quickly conquer all these cities.

Some factors that may enable these city-states to actually survive:
1) they are useful as buffer states between a major civ and roving barbarians
2) some exist in marginal terrain, making the cost (city maintenance) outweigh the benefit
3) unlike major civs, which are permanently gone once they are overrun, city-states can revolt and regain independence. A city-state with high culture might be a constant burden.
4) carrots, in the form of trade bonuses, quests, and whatnot
5) Diplo penalties ("you've been bullying your smaller neighbors.")
6) the city-state is under a protectorate