City-states razing other city-states.

[Jewser]

So, after Egypt declared war on a city-state, I declared a protectorate war on it and made myself suzerain of surrounding city-states. Turns out that wasn't enough. The city state was capture by Egypt... and then captured and razed by the city-states.

Any way to prevent this ASIDE from levying their troops? anyone know of any such mod? rudimentary googling turned up nothing

 

[bbufa]

In civ5, city state is also capital and can't be raze. If there is a mod that make cs capital?

 

[Jewser]

In civ5, city state is also capital and can't be raze. If there is a mod that make cs capital?

None that I could find :/

 

[Scaramanga]

Does it matter? You could settle a nice city there.

 

[Kwami]

Does it matter? You could settle a nice city there.

Some city states are more valuable than whatever replacement city you could found.

 

[Council 13]

In Civ5 on such rare occasions, the capturing CS would become a 2 city CS. That was one of the coolest little quirks of the game. I miss that.

 

[Abaxial]

Usually whenever a CS captures any city it razes it. Even if it is the capital of an AI civ. Nice when that happens!

In Civ V I have seen CSs declare war on each other quite spontaneously, which is rather interesting.

 

[Pietato]

You have to make peace with Egypt to stop it. I had to peace out with Monty in my latest game because my CS ally Geneva had a HUGE army of swords and catas, and was about to raze two other CS at once...

 

[Archon_Wing]

I think CS's should just keep cities. (or liberate if possible). It's funnier that way to have strong minor civs.

 

[Bibor]

In Civ5 on such rare occasions, the capturing CS would become a 2 city CS. That was one of the coolest little quirks of the game. I miss that.

I remember this. Happened to me only once in over 5000 hrs of gameplay. Cool as hell

 

[Jewser]

Been so long since I played Civ 5, I don't remember what city-states were like then... But I do remember it's a bit different here.

Either way I almost never want a city-state gone. Guess I should've posted this in mod requests or something.

 

[Scaramanga]

Some city states are more valuable than whatever replacement city you could found.

Then it shouldn't have been left to fight the AI on its own.

In Civ5 on such rare occasions, the capturing CS would become a 2 city CS. That was one of the coolest little quirks of the game. I miss that.

The razing is probably to prevent those shenanigans. City states usually conquer the easiest of cities and if they're running the show then it gets too passive for the player I think. In real life a city state would almost always keep or raze a rival city-state.

 

[Kwami]

Then it shouldn't have been left to fight the AI on its own.

Right, but the problem is one city-state conquering another when you're at war with another civilization. There's really not much that you can do about it if your city-state ally is conquering the other guy's city-state ally.

 

[Scaramanga]

Right, but the problem is one city-state conquering another when you're at war with another civilization. There's really not much that you can do about it if your city-state ally is conquering the other guy's city-state ally.

You can levy before they do that. City states aren't supposed to fight your battles for you and grow into multi-city states that are subject to yours, so they must raze.

 

[Kwami]

I think you're really missing the point, here. Consider this situation.

1. I'm suzerain of A.
2. An opponent is suzerain of B.
3. The opponent declares war on me. A joins the fight on my side, B joins the fight on the opposing side.
4. This is a defensive war. I don't have a few thousand Gold saved up to levy A's military.
5. While I'm defending against my opponent, A goes and conquers B.

Of course, I could dedicate units to surrounding B so that A can't get to it. And sure, I could always have a few thousand Gold saved up, just in case. Or, maybe I could have a bunch of Envoys in the bank to steal B from my opponent. Etc.

But, come on. Who does that? Realistically, there's not much that I can do to prevent A from conquering B in this case if A has the better military.

Anyway, one city state razing the other happens rarely enough that I don't actually much care about it. I'm just illustrating the point.

In the original post, the situation was a bit different. An opponent has conquered a city state, making it no longer a city state. Fine. Then, the player's city state allies conquered that city and, instead of liberating it to be a city state again, they just razed it. So, no more city state. Sure, the player could have levied the militaries of every city state that he controls, but again, that's not reasonable.

 

[Scaramanga]

I think you're really missing the point, here. Consider this situation.

1. I'm suzerain of A.
2. An opponent is suzerain of B.
3. The opponent declares war on me. A joins the fight on my side, B joins the fight on the opposing side.
4. This is a defensive war. I don't have a few thousand Gold saved up to levy A's military.
5. While I'm defending against my opponent, A goes and conquers B.

Of course, I could dedicate units to surrounding B so that A can't get to it. And sure, I could always have a few thousand Gold saved up, just in case. Or, maybe I could have a bunch of Envoys in the bank to steal B from my opponent. Etc.

But, come on. Who does that? Realistically, there's not much that I can do to prevent A from conquering B in this case if A has the better military.

Anyway, one city state razing the other happens rarely enough that I don't actually much care about it. I'm just illustrating the point.

In the original post, the situation was a bit different. An opponent has conquered a city state, making it no longer a city state. Fine. Then, the player's city state allies conquered that city and, instead of liberating it to be a city state again, they just razed it. So, no more city state. Sure, the player could have levied the militaries of every city state that he controls, but again, that's not reasonable.

Why would you want to prevent A conquering B if you are suzerain of A and your opponent is suzerain of B?

 

[Kwami]

Why would you want to prevent A conquering B if you are suzerain of A and your opponent is suzerain of B?

Because I might want to be suzerain of B later and if A conquers it, then it'll be razed.

 

[Scaramanga]

Because I might want to be suzerain of B later and if A conquers it, then it'll be razed.

A city state can be razed by anyone, the AI doesn't seem to do it but the game can't preserve every city state for your use later on.

 

[Tiger Genocide]

In Civ5 on such rare occasions, the capturing CS would become a 2 city CS. That was one of the coolest little quirks of the game. I miss that.

With Vox Populi mod it happens more than once a blue moon since the AI can really fight. It is actually very smart to ally about 3 city states around an enemy and then constantly gift them advanced units. Eventually they puppet that AI's cities and render them useless. The City State AI will add even more units with a second city. I have yet to see one lose a 2nd or 3rd city.

 

[Kwami]

A city state can be razed by anyone, the AI doesn't seem to do it but the game can't preserve every city state for your use later on.

Nonsense. The game could easily have been designed differently. In fact, it's quite simple. "If city state or original capital, liberate. Else, raze." There, I wrote the new "city state conquers a city" logic.