City-States: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

[I_qua_I]

So what are the pros and cons of city-states? I personally do not like them though I must admit this is more for aesthetic reasons rather than gameplay. I never really feel like continually paying through my nose for ally status so they always end up just being useless unsightly black blobs wasting space on the map. (I don't like removing them though because it would be unfair for civs who have a UA that takes advantage of them.)

 

[AfterShafter]

I like them but, all considered, they're a bit one dimensional at this point in time. All they really amount to is, if you want the benefit, pay them money. If the quest system was actually a bit more active I'd like them more. It's also kind of a shame that Firaxis had it in their head that city state diplomacy would take the place of regular diplomacy for any diplomatic victory, because it basically boils a diplomatic victory down to an economic victory.

Overall neat concept. Implementation could use some work though.

 

[generalwar]

Civ 5 can't exist without city-states, it would loose even the smallest of it's complexity that civ 5 has. But, I would like to have more interesting quests and more of them at the same time.

 

[stormerne]

I love city states. I like the idea. I like finding them. I like gameplay with them. But they're a little one dimensional at the moment. So I'd like to see them developed. I'd like the interaction to be deeper. I'd like the audio-visuals to be more satisfying. I'd like the quests to be more varied and meaningful. I'd like the militaristic states to be more useful.

(I don't like removing them though because it would be unfair for civs who have a UA that takes advantage of them.)

That's mighty generous of you sir. I'm sure the AI (a) is grateful, and (b) knows what to do with them.

 

[bryanw1995]

siam definitely does. I've seen them at 30+ food even when I was allied to 4 of the 6 maritimes. their benefit from "friend" status really causes issues for the human because they don't even need to be an ally to get a huge benefit, almost makes it worthwhile to weed out a couple of maritimes to keep siam from benefitting too much and running away with the game.

btw, even with nerfed maritimes in games that I've played with mods their UA is just crazy. a much better nerf for maritimes than -1 food at all levels would be to change their benefit to + x% of your excess. that would go a long ways to promoting better city spacing and encourage fewer, larger cities.

 

[Me_Myself_I]

City states should expand their borders instead of remaining static!

The expansion doesn't need to be dramatic, but there should be some. It's absurd to see city state workers standing around because the city state's land is fully developed.

There should also be a way to change their attitude. For instance, if one conquerors a city state, why not be able to install a puppet that would make the city state friendly? After conquering the city state, a person could grant the city state "autonomy", but the attitude of the city state would change to friendly as long as the player remains allied to the city state. If ally status is dropped, then the city state would revert back to its original attitude because the puppet leader would be replaced. Furthermore, if a country conquered a city state and lost ally status after sometime, I think there should be a risk of the city state's attitude changing to hostile. This would make them more interactive. I also think a city state's attitude should become more friendly depending upon how much gold the player gives the city state over time. Why remain hostile to a nation that's giving a ton of gold? It makes no sense.

 

[stormerne]

City states should expand their borders instead of remaining static!

The expansion doesn't need to be dramatic, but there should be some. It's absurd to see city state workers standing around because the city state's land is fully developed.

They already do! I've often seen them grow their borders to pick up a nearby resource. And I've seen pics of their having become two cities when a neighbor gives them jip and they conquer them. But beyond that, why should they? Historically, city states either stay roughly the same size or they merge with other cities to form a nation.

 

[CivFanaticMan]

I like them. They need to be reworked a bit. The giving gold for influence is the only diplomacy the game has right now.

 

[sketch162000]

The last few times I played (Jesus, that was weeks ago) I stopped playing with them altogether. The quest spam got too annoying...

 

[DaveGold]

I think they're potentially one of the best features of CIV5. They're very basic at the moment and that's a problem but there is immense scope for improvement. The diplomatic victory needs to be massively improved from the uninspiring sham that's in the game right now. If I was a Firaxis development manager, I'd be pushing for a major development of city states in the first paid expansion.

 

[Roghar]

I like them a lot, but they need to improve the allying system – rather than being a sudden hit of gold for influence I think it would work better to have a cost/turn to gradually improve influence. Rather than pay 500 gp and get a sudden massive jump, you pay say 20/turn and get a small increase in influence each turn, costing more as you pass each level (friendship, ally). This would stop the farcical diplomatic victory where you buy everyone the turn before, and force longer term planning.

 

[Panda_Power]

The last few times I played (Jesus, that was weeks ago) I stopped playing with them altogether. The quest spam got too annoying...

Yeah they really slow the game down. As soon as you ally with them you start seeing all the individual battles they have with each other and with other civs and it makes the turns even longer than they already are...especially late game with a huge map and something like 24 city states!

Maybe on smaller maps they're OK, but on huge maps I think it's better to play with just other civs.

 

[Manamus]

Maritime: Pros Amazingly Broken. You dont need food for cities anymore, make them in the middle of the desert and they will thrive as specialist cities. Capitals can make settlers every turn with all that food bonus and if your using Liberty.

Make nonstop settlers with your capital because it will produce them soo fast. Have the cities be founded the minimum distance away for optimum results, doesnt matter what the lay of the land is. Connect with road, make a colosseum and have city stop growing at size 4. Keep doing this and you'll never have problems with money, happyness and you'll be soo outproducing everything in the game that it make deity games rediculously easy.

Cons: When you lose the citystate, due to capture or out of influence cause you insta built a factory..., it slows you way down.

Culture: Pros Very awesome at adding culture, highly recomended to have one. If your mass expanding like you should it is necessary to have them otherwise it will be a very very long time to get Communism and be ubergodly.
Negatives: none really, you keep them till you don't need them then you conquer them and add another city.

Military: Pros: Free artillery pieces. In an epic game where it would have taken me 57turns to build one, they gave me one every 20. bonus units are always good. Military city states actually fight wars with you, ive seen them invade their neighbors that we were at war with and provide ample distration.
Cons: getting a free unit and having it spawn 100 years away. Getting yet another scout on an island map.

I want another city-state type. One that adds Happyness per era. Call it Monaco, Andorra, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein. Basically tourist spots.

 

[Deep_Blue]

I like them but imo the system needs some balance.

CS contribution to victory types is not well balanced, maritime CS seems to be overpowered because in most games most of the CS are maritime states, in my games most of the time 80% of the CS are maritime. Now imagine if 80% were cultural CS then we will say cultural CS are overpowered. if the CS types are distributed equally then the game well be more balanced and more open to all victory types.

 

[Vulcans]

what about if you double the influence impact from quests, and half the influence impact from gold. then you can still buy city states, though you need to weigh up the cost vs benefit, and it's much more economical to earn their respect by doing their bidding.

 

[TM Moot]

City States are an intergral aspect of ciV, but as with most features of the game it needs improving

i liked the fact that in a recent game i conquered one CS on behalf of another, only to have 2 or 3 other CS's declare on me

 

[Thormodr]

They feel like vending machines scattered around the world.

*Yawn*

It's a shame that they are so dull and lifeless since city states were one of the features I was quite excited about.

 

[Me_Myself_I]

Fans of city states may want to check out the custom map I made. It has 21 city states for 8 civs. Some resources are only available via the city states, too.

They already do! I've often seen them grow their borders to pick up a nearby resource. And I've seen pics of their having become two cities when a neighbor gives them jip and they conquer them.

Hmm... Well, I would at least like to see a setting in the game setup that would allow them to expand a bit faster.

Also, what do you think about the interactivity/happiness idea?

But beyond that, why should they? Historically, city states either stay roughly the same size or they merge with other cities to form a nation.

Civ V is not exactly the most historially pure game. I think gameplay is more important.

 

[stormerne]

Also, what do you think about the interactivity/happiness idea?

I think most people who like city states at all agree that they need to have more depth/nuance/complexity/whatever-you-want-to-call-it. However, I'm not convinced your suggestion would help that.

The current attitude modifiers are nothing to do with you, or other civs or anyone outside the city state; they are simply descriptive of how amicable/irascible there are generally to everyone. It's a core characteristic, a kind of mini-trait. It'll no more change over time than a major civ's UA. If they're taken over or liberated, the essential trait of that city will not change; I wouldn't expect it to.

It seems you're asking for individual and changeable attitudes of city states to different civs. Well they already exist: total influence points can be +ve or -ve. This is already an indication of how they feel about you: they give you stuff if they like you, and they give you more stuff if they really like you. Sounds like friendship to me. It's a coarse system but it still meshes with the global attitude system of friendly/neutral/hostile in the rate of decay of influence. So why not just have your suggestion affect influence points rather than attitude?

 

[DashieBaby87]

I pay them all off. When the military ones stop being useful, I just conquer them.

The maritime ones are the best.