City States' Use Of Captured Settlers

[Maat]

I played game still now, where a city state captured Macedonia’s AI settler, if city states do catch a settler they should be allowed to expand as a one off thing instead of the settler just staying in the borders for no reason, you think they will fix this in a update?

Moderator Action: Edited title for clarity. ~ LK

 

[iammaxhailme]

If they haven't allowed CS's to use captured settlers in like 4 years of this game's existence, I doubt they will do so at this point.

 

[Linklite]

Then they're not really a CS so much as a really pathetic civ. Personally, such captured units should be given to the Suzerain as tribute.

 

[Maat]

Tha

Then they're not really a CS so much a really pathetic civ. Personakky, this such captured units should be given to the Suzerain as tribute.

Thats a good idea

 

[Planktonic]

Then they're not really a CS so much as a really pathetic civ. Personally, such captured units should be given to the Suzerain as tribute.

Yeah but it doesn't happen. I had a game where a city state I suzerained captured a city of a civ I was at war with, and therefore captured the settler within. The city state unit linked to the settler and moved with it. I wanted the settler so I actually levied the city states' troops (which I hadn't done to that point), thinking that would give me ownership of the captured prize as well. No dice. The city state unit converted to being mine (with my colors), but the link to the settler was dissolved and the settler immediately fled. Very annoying.

 

[0urBall]

I was thinking that the Barbarian Mode might "fix" this, as it's been annoying me for some time too. If a CS obtains a Settler, I would have thought a good mechanic would have been for them to be able to use them, and then become an AI civ once the city is formed. The civ could then been given units equal to the average military strength of all of the other civs (or something like that) to stop them getting stomped straightaway. So then you have a progression of Barbs -> CS -> Civ

 

[aieeegrunt]

Yeah but it doesn't happen. I had a game where a city state I suzerained captured a city of a civ I was at war with, and therefore captured the settler within. The city state unit linked to the settler and moved with it. I wanted the settler so I actually levied the city states' troops (which I hadn't done to that point), thinking that would give me ownership of the captured prize as well. No dice. The city state unit converted to being mine (with my colors), but the link to the settler was dissolved and the settler immediately fled. Very annoying.

I had a CS builder of one of my suzeriened states decide to park itself in a key mountain pass essentially cutting my army in half and preventing the half that was facing the enemy from either retreating or being reinforced while being shot to pieces by this game’s absolutly stupidly OP ranged city strikes

I couldn’t “hop” over it because there was too much rough terrain.

I levvied the city state, and then discovered that you didn’t control the CS civilian units for some stupid reason.

1 UPT is not neccessarily a bad mechanic

Low movement allowance is not neccessarily a bad mechanic

Not being able to stack with “foreign” units is not a bad mechanic

combining all three is like...what were you thinking?

 

[Planktonic]

I had a CS builder of one of my suzeriened states decide to park itself in a key mountain pass essentially cutting my army in half and preventing the half that was facing the enemy from either retreating or being reinforced while being shot to pieces by this game’s absolutly stupidly OP ranged city strikes

I couldn’t “hop” over it because there was too much rough terrain.

I levvied the city state, and then discovered that you didn’t control the CS civilian units for some stupid reason.

1 UPT is not neccessarily a bad mechanic

Low movement allowance is not neccessarily a bad mechanic

Not being able to stack with “foreign” units is not a bad mechanic

combining all three is like...what were you thinking?

Yes that is also extremely annoying. I had a similar thing happen to me, except it was a heavily damaged city state unit that was blocking a key pass and was fortified, waiting to heal before it would move anywhere.

My solution: I discovered that it *is* possible to declare war on your own suzerained city states....

 

[aieeegrunt]

Yes that is also extremely annoying. I had a similar thing happen to me, except it was a heavily damaged city state unit that was blocking a key pass and was fortified, waiting to heal before it would move anywhere.

My solution: I discovered that it *is* possible to declare war on your own suzerained city states....

Bwa ha ha Modern Game Mechanic Problems Require Modern Solutions

 

[The googles do nothing]

The highlight of my multiplayer experience was when someone declared war on my and my suzerain took their settler.

 

[Abaxial]

It's much more likely in barbarian mode, where barbarians capture a settler (or builder) and then turn into a CS.

 

[Banazir864]

1 UPT is not neccessarily a bad mechanic

Low movement allowance is not neccessarily a bad mechanic

Not being able to stack with “foreign” units is not a bad mechanic

combining all three is like...what were you thinking?

IMO, every tile should be able to hold the following:
- 1 military unit
- 1 support unit
- 1 religious unit
- 1 Great General or Great Admiral
- Unlimited civilian units (it’s not like you can have a “builder doom stack”)
- Unlimited non-military Great People

Also, foreign units should be able to share a tile unless one is presently capable of attacking another without declaring a new war (i.e. military units and any other units they’re at war with, or any religious units they can condemn). If their attackability changes (e.g. if war is declared) any non-military units stacked with military units that can attack them get pushed to a neighboring tile (it would make more sense for them to be auto-attacked, but that would probably allow too much cheese).

It would mean you can’t block other civs’ settlers, but that’s cheesy anyway (if not being able to do that is a problem, the solution is to make the AI forward-settle less). It would also mean you couldn’t use non-military units to wall off city states from their attackers (useful if an ally decides to conquer your vassal), but that definitely needs a better solution anyway, e.g., suzerainty being treated as a defensive pact and the AI not attacking city states unless it is willing and able to declare war on their suzerain (this is actually one of the main things I hope they fix in Civ VII—or a Civ VI expansion if we get another).

 

[aieeegrunt]

IMO, every tile should be able to hold the following:
- 1 military unit
- 1 support unit
- 1 religious unit
- 1 Great General or Great Admiral
- Unlimited civilian units (it’s not like you can have a “builder doom stack”)
- Unlimited non-military Great People

Also, foreign units should be able to share a tile unless one is presently capable of attacking another without declaring a new war (i.e. military units and any other units they’re at war with, or any religious units they can condemn). If their attackability changes (e.g. if war is declared) any non-military units stacked with military units that can attack them get pushed to a neighboring tile (it would make more sense for them to be auto-attacked, but that would probably allow too much cheese).

It would mean you can’t block other civs’ settlers, but that’s cheesy anyway (if not being able to do that is a problem, the solution is to make the AI forward-settle less). It would also mean you couldn’t use non-military units to wall off city states from their attackers (useful if an ally decides to conquer your vassal), but that definitely needs a better solution anyway, e.g., suzerainty being treated as a defensive pact and the AI not attacking city states unless it is willing and able to declare war on their suzerain (this is actually one of the main things I hope they fix in Civ VII—or a Civ VI expansion if we get another).

Ya I agree on all of this

Your allies being able to attack your city states is absolutly stupid, hopefully the April Update will fix that

Oh boy the expectations for the 22nd are high

 

[Linklite]

Ya I agree on all of this

Your allies being able to attack your city states is absolutly stupid, hopefully the April Update will fix that

Oh boy the expectations for the 22nd are high

How much could we expect to find out tomorrow?

 

[aieeegrunt]

How much could we expect to find out tomorrow?

IDK, what is the usual pattern with this?

 

[Zegangani]

IDK, what is the usual pattern with this?

I don't think there is a Pattern from Dev Live streams. The last one (NFP 6) was the one that mentioned the least amount of infos, they menioned a lot of stuff about Portugal, the Wonders and the Zombie Mode, but very few about other balance/polish changes, like they even didn't mention the (small) change to the Tourism modifier of Monopolies (it was the main thing that I wanted them to talk about and how/if they gonna fix it). Apart from that they only talked about things that we already knew, like that there is going to be a huge community patch.

In Previous Live Streams they gived a lot of hints about upcoming content and discussed balance changes more thoroughly.

Since The Stream Tomorrow will be the last one of NFP, and becuase it holds more changes than any previous update, I think it's going to be a very long live stream with a lot of talk about all the changes, how they are inspired by the community (community patch anyone?) and maybe, MAYBE, some info about the future of Civ VI.

 

[Maat]

I think it’s great for a City State to give you a captured settler, but with barabarians because they are barbarians I think captured settlers would turn into slaves so most likely turn into builders I think. Even though the barbarians won’t use the builders, builders are the closest thing to slaves so that’s what I think. What do you think? ^-^