City States, Influence and Declarations of War

[william_jr]

First off, let me say that I am really enjoying the June updates.
The game now feels really rich and nicely balanced to me.

The remaining irks that I have involve the City States.

1) I hate that when you go to war , the City States allied with your opponent immediately get locked into a state of war with you and influence is locked at -60. There is no means of interacting with the City State and this state persists until you make peace (or eliminate) your opponent. The City States have no self determination is this regard.

2) I really hate that you or an opponent can purchase the allegiance of a City State away from another power without giving that power the right to reply. This is critically important when coupled with an immediate declaration of war. You could have influence of 200 with a CS, an opponent (during their turn) ups theirs to 201 and immediately declares war on you. Your erstwhile allied CS suddenly switches your influence from 201 to -60 and declares war on you (and because they are locked into that state cannot be bought or swayed. I regularly use this on the AIs

3) When you go to war I hate the repetitive set of notifications from all your allies and all your opponents allies. A declares war on X, A declares war on Y, A declares war on Z, B declares etc etc. If all your allies are also going to war with you (which seems to be the case) then a single message of "You and your allies (A, B & C) declare war on <opponent> and their allies (X, Y, Z)

4) I wish that there was another way to resolve a dispute between 2 CS other than to demolish one of them. Something like a 3 way trade, where you provide them with goods/gold/protection and they agree to settle their dispute, which in return grant you influence with each weighted by how well they felt they were treated in the deal. As it is I eventually end up with a fleet of allied CS who eventually want nothing more than to beat on each other which is a request that I rarely grant and hence can never resolve.


! & 2 combined is a real problem for me. Not only does it introduce an easily warpable/abusable game mechanic but it doesn't ring true to life. IMO some possible solutions are:

a) If a CS ally is bought away from you, you should get an immediate right to reply and up the ante.

b) CS should have self determination and not go to war just because a human/AI ally has gone to war. Perhaps only declaring war if the influence between a player and the opposing player is sufficiently large AND/OR the influence of the opposing player is less than an arbitrary amount. This might as simple as changing the definition of ally to be influence > X and influence Y greater than next highest player (or Y greater than sum of all other players).


a+b provides a simple way out of this and would also give a more realistic portrayal of CS diplomacy. And I'd love to see a diplomatic way of resolving CS disputes.

 

[alpha wolf 64]

i wish that "protecting" a cs actually had meaning. if you agree to protect a cs and yet they are constantly under attack from barbs, there should be a negative associated with that. consequently, there should be a reward for actually protecting them.

and why is the cost to ally with every cs the same? gold should buy more influence if you are already on friendly terms.

i'd also like to see CS trade for goods. at a certain point, other civs give so little in trading that its not worth giving them the benefit for the measly return.

to me, CS should be just like any other civ except that they cant build settlers.

finally, i'd love to see CS declare war. i swear in the earliest versions, i remember CS declaring war on me on their own accord. if you are sitting in the territory of a CS, make it a roll to see if they declare war on you based on their personality and current feelings towards you. make it actually risky to cross that border.

right now, the whole CS aspect of the game is underwhelming, but to play w/o them kills some civs.

 

[Camikaze]

Welcome to the forums, william_jr.

For me, problem 2 is the biggest. More so that problem 1. I can understand that city states get locked at -60. That's fair enough, IMO. It's the price you pay for going to war. But being able to buy out city states and then declare war, locking them into that relationship, is a problem. A solution for this might be to make influence more of a long term thing, or to make city states more independent of their allies. Not sure what specifics would be involved.

 

[GarethBeaumains]

I'd care more if the CS was actually useful in a fight. So far, I have only seen one City State do anything useful to an enemy. They took one city. >.<

Most of the time, they'll stand there, three hexes away from the massive battle being played out before them, and do nothing but fortify.

I've been toying with the idea of declaring war against a city state that I have no interest in allying with -- say, it has no strategic resources -- and simply using it as a "training ground." Take my units over to a perpetual "war" to sit there and get bombarded by the city and its archers, and just gain XP turn-after-turn. Once they get sufficiently blooded then they can head off into the world to conquer.

I've done that with naval units and island cities, and it seemed to work really well. Once they get that +1 range, it becomes even easier.

Aside from general uselessness other than as a Culture/Food/Unit buff, I would also like to see CS be more involved with diplomacy. For instance, some isolated CS might "beg for attention" over time. They might make it easier for you to pick them up as an ally. "Oh, you're going to war? Can I come? Can I? Please! I'll be your best freeeeeeind!" ("Okay, you can come. Just don't get your crossbowmen in the way...")

Others, who are drowning in attention, might become a bit snooty and stand-offish. That way, they might not immediately declare war on another power. You will still get the buffs and benefits, but they'll just sit out. Kind of like how many countries "declared war" in World War II, but left the heavy fighting to the major powers. You might need to "bribe" them into a war. ("We will declare war on X, if you donate a unit to us.")

I also wish there was a way to see the "bidding war" for CS's. For instance, right now, it only shows you your own influence. I wish, like Civ IV's culture system, you could see the split of various influencing powers.

Moreover, I wish influence of CS's was not only giant lump-sum economic payments, but also gold-per-turn influence "Maintenance." Also some sort of cultural influence for proximate neighbors. ("Your two peoples have mingled and done business together for so long that you are now Friendly with them.")

Next, I wish ranged attacks were noticed by the CSs in the killing of barbarians. They have ignored countless enemies bombarded by ships or shot with archers. Apparently only melee kills count.

Lastly, this leads to the stupidest but easiest way to get influence with CSs. Let them get overrun by barbarians, and only when they are swamped, clear it out, rescue their workers, and get all the gratitude.

It would be far more realistic to have been there the whole time, keeping disaster from falling, but the AI apparently appreciates the "rescue" far more than preventative measures.

Lastly, as an idea to gain influence, it would be nice if there were agreements for economic or military development with a CS. Say, let your worker into an area to improve it for them and get a bit of appreciation in return. Or build a fortification somewhere in their territory and station a unit inside to get more influence, or to maintain the present level of support.

Just, more options.

And... let them act less inane during wars. Perhaps you can even issue a "follow me" order on a Great General... They'll try to stick within 4 hexes of the GG, and engage the enemy when they can.

 

[Camikaze]

City State XP farming is a valid strategy, but I think you're underestimating the usefulness of City States in warfare. If you're playing cultural, for example, or just have a weak army for some other reason, allying with a CS that stands in between you and your enemy can stop an invasion force, as the City State is targeted instead, thinning the forces that come your way to a manageable level.

 

[GarethBeaumains]

City State XP farming is a valid strategy, but I think you're underestimating the usefulness of City States in warfare. If you're playing cultural, for example, or just have a weak army for some other reason, allying with a CS that stands in between you and your enemy can stop an invasion force, as the City State is targeted instead, thinning the forces that come your way to a manageable level.

Yes, they can serve that purpose, but only if the CS is on-the-path to war. Otherwise if they are off in a corner, they won't march to the sound of the guns.

 

[dexters]

I think part of the problem maybe the fact that each city state is treated as a unique Civ. Though I'm not privy to how much resources is consumed per turn managing City States, the game probably needs to have a fixed set of rountines to run so the developers can budget CPU time.

Ideally interactions with city states need to be more dynamic.

Quests:
The 'dispute' system is annoying. For the vast majority of these quests go unfulfilled. Between the diplomatic penalty for taking a CS (again because they are treated as a Civ, taking a CS appear to weigh much more heavily and is equivalent to taking out the last AI city). The vast majority of the time, I'll meet a CS and that will be the only quest I have for them, and killing their rival is often not an option, so I have no resource but to gold bomb for influence. This I think is the single largest shortcoming for city states.

My suggestions

• Fix the dispute system so they players can gain influence more reasonably. This is for the vast majority of city states a player will meet after the ancient era. (for example: include 'warring' major civs as part of the rotation; lower the threshold of the military quests to kill X # of units of a rival civ; instead of outright extermination - which is often impractical for diplomatic or logistical reasons.
• Create a discrete 'non military' and 'military' quest line for City States, so that players can continue going through the quest chain when the CS' only request (to kill another CS) is not fullfilled or cannot be fullfilled.
• Add more varied quests. I like the discover X quests/Desires X great person quests just fine, but something more rational and relevant would be nice. (ie: Station X number of unit types in territory for X turns. This will be dependent on their military situation if they feel under threat. And in turn a rival CS or Civ should be able to see the units stationed and possibly alter their course of action - This quest may be given after a major Civ has pledged to protect a CS)
• Road to Capital quests - Players who connect roads to a CS without the promting of this quest should receive the bonus automatically. A 2nd bonus would be applied for building RR/upgrading to RR.
• CS on islands or not a different continent should have an alternative to road to capital quests. The irony is I often get a road to capital quest from a CS I meet off in another landmass before I get one from a nearby CS

Wishlist items

• Improve CS diplo AI to interact with their environments in a better way. Right now, there is no feeling of 'memory' or logic to City State actions. Their disputes seem to be largely driven by proximity and an RNG not real in-game events.
• corollary to the 1st item give CS awarenesss of their environment a few times outside their borders. Often times, their 'kill barbarian' quest will be active but killing a barb just outside their borders won't count. This can also apply to the CS for the entire game. A CS with bounded borders with a friendly major civ, may behave differently and give different quests than a CS that is on an island, or surrounded by enemies.
• Allow influence to remain despite DoW. Right now, the CS only 'memory' of past player actions if their quest line and their influence bar. Perhaps tie the influence retained after DoW to the number of quests done for the CS
• Add GUI to help players discern where each CS are. If influence is not completely lost, this will also help show the relative closeness of a CS to each Civ.

As it stands, City States are the most fun in the early game when money is tight and you are doing barb camp whack-a-mole to try to farm for influence and an early alliance from a CS and when the quests they give actually doesn't involve any major military action.

 

[CYZ]

Simple fix: City States don't declare war when their allied civ does. They only declare war when a civ reaches -30 influence. However, when you are at war with an ally of a CS your influence with that CS goes down three times as fast (and two times as fast if you're warring with a friend of the CS).

This way, there's no way to abuse the mechanic. It also flows naturally isntead of going to -60 at once. You could even keep bribing a CS to avoid them declaring on you (with three times the influence decrease this isn't cheap however).

Policies dealing with CS could easily be adjusted. Finisher could be: civs at war with you lose influence with CS allies twice as fast (six times normal speed) while in the opposite situation you only lose influence at half speed (1.5).

 

[dexters]

Simple fix: City States don't declare war when their allied civ does. They only declare war when a civ reaches -30 influence. However, when you are at war with an ally of a CS your influence with that CS goes down three times as fast (and two times as fast if you're warring with a friend of the CS).

This way, there's no way to abuse the mechanic. It also flows naturally isntead of going to -60 at once. You could even keep bribing a CS to avoid them declaring on you (with three times the influence decrease this isn't cheap however).

Policies dealing with CS could easily be adjusted. Finisher could be: civs at war with you lose influence with CS allies twice as fast (six times normal speed) while in the opposite situation you only lose influence at half speed (1.5).

Decent idea, but I think this places gold into an even stronger premium. Part of my suggestions are to find ways to allow players to cultivate relationships with a CS without simply dumping gold.

 

[CYZ]

Decent idea, but I think this places gold into an even stronger premium. Part of my suggestions are to find ways to allow players to cultivate relationships with a CS without simply dumping gold.

How about extending the quests?

First of all. I think quests should give you somewhere between 5 and 30 influence permanently. Thus the standard influence level changes from 0 to something higher. This way quests save you money on the long-term, also, if you complete enough quests you will reach a level of influence that allows you to be friends (or even allies) permanently, without paying money. Although other civs will always be able to outbid you to become allied with a CS.

Obviously different quests give different results. Destroying another CS should give you 30 influence for example. Destroying a barb camp should give 5 influence. Other quests should be inbetween. Obviously this would need testing to be sure which amount of influence would suit which quest. Also, the only way for this to really work is to add more quests.

This combined with my previous suggestion would work fairly well, no?

 

[Naokaukodem]

Well willian_jr, welcome to civfanatics !

I have to say that the problem you clearly expose have been one of my major issues considering Civ5, and should still be one of them.

I think the problems 1 & 2 are linked: that's because of 1) that 2) triggers.

So I would be for a combined solution rather than separated. I don't think your proposition for solving 1) is fine, because it would heighten the game of an additional prompt.

I much more prefer your second proposition, that the difference of allegence from two opponents to a CS should be taken into account... definitely. If the difference is not high enough (say = or less than 30 points), then the CS keeps neutral if a war between the two opponents is declared. Then, you can't give it money anymore (until peace is back between the two opponents), however the quests are still active. Of course, this includes the fact that the quests like "eliminate another CS" are gone. The allied status would not change, for example if an opponent have 201 points and the other one 200 points, the CS will still be "allied" (ressources gift and line of sight) to the one who has the 201 points. I'm not very agree with this, but one should completely change the CS alliance system in order to change that. (i think however that it's a bad system) Now, if the one with 200 influence points completes a quests that give him 30 influence points, his influence would be at 230 while his opponent one still at 201 (not considering the influence decay). The influence difference would still be under 30 points, so the CS keeps neutral, but is now allied (ressources and sight) with the opponent.

 

[Venger]

I like CS's but dear GOD they need fixing.

If I am allied with a City State, and I am at peace with France, then by God my City State Ally sure the hell better be at peace with France.

A pledge to protect an allied City State should trigger WAR if they are attacked. And by the same token, when I sign a treaty with them, NO PERMANENT WAR STATE.

I cannot tell you how aggravating that is. Every turn, AI 1 has a ship bombarding the unit of CS 2, causing 1 damage, EVERY TURN, for time immemorial. Please, MAKE IT STOP.

The permanent war feature of CS's is just a license for AI's to absorb a CS. I find CS's useful but not when I can't protect them from themselves. When an AI attacks a CS, I know that's the beginning of the end - I can make the AI declare peace, but the next time they attack, the AI "can't" declare peace, because the CS has suicidally decided to be at permanent war. Give it 20 turns, and it's over.

SO aggravating. They take some of the bloom of the rose of CS's...

Finally, CS1 wants to eliminate CS2 - that's it, nothing more interesting out of those CS's. That stinks, that should expire after X turns with "CS1 and CS2 have settled their differences". As it stands now, those CS's are decidedly less interesting.

 

[dexters]

The permanent war feature of CS's is just a license for AI's to absorb a CS. I find CS's useful but not when I can't protect them from themselves. When an AI attacks a CS, I know that's the beginning of the end - I can make the AI declare peace, but the next time they attack, the AI "can't" declare peace, because the CS has suicidally decided to be at permanent war. Give it 20 turns, and it's over.

This is true. I think this is a feature meant for human players and it's not quite thought through.

Thankfully AI Civs, even the agressive ones, don't always go CS hunting, as a lot of environmental factors affect how they behave.

 

[GarethBeaumains]

Here are some more of my ideas for making CS's more dynamic and useful.

• Solve a Dispute Quest - Rather than always see two CSs that want to beat each other up, have a sort of Romeo & Juliet scenario where two CSs are rivals, but you come in and solve their dispute. For instance, perhaps you have to donate some money to both, or build a building or a wonder to make them say "oooo! Shiny!" and then they put aside their differences. ex: "Build a temple in City X so they will be so impressed by your Gods that they convert to your religion and put aside their dispute." Ends with an influence gain. But I think some sort of peace-making quest is as valid as a make-war scenario.
• Research Technology - Develop a technology and impress the CS (for a small rep gain); decide if you want to share it with them (and get a big bonus to rep).
• Give "Foreign Aid" - Select a city, and donate production, food, and/or gold per turn to a nearby CS. As a result, gain rep with the CS (or prevent erosion).
• Bring them into the Fold - Make a decision, after certain conditions (time, monetary investment, etc.), whether to keep them outside your empire, or pay some cost to "merge" them into your state. There should be positives and negatives to both. Obviously, the other AIs may be jealous or alarmed by it.

I got more ideas, but I really want to know if anyone would be reading this that could implement them.

 

[dexters]

Yea, the problem right now is the default way to gain rep in the game is to kill a CS' rival.

There's a very very small window to catch them so they ask you for non dispute related quests and it usually builds from there. But even those end after 3-4 quests (roads, wonder, natural wonder)

I know it is technically feasible for the CS to have more than 1 quest open, and they often do in the early game when they have a barbarian quest and something else open. But I don't know why they don't have this later on.

I wonder whatever happened to 'need help' quests when a CS is under attack from another Civ and all you had to do was kill 3 units of the Civ attacking them and you'd fullfill the quest.

 

[headcase]

I am hoping for a "Rise of the City States" kind of add-on and the ideas in this thread would be wonderful for it.