pre-release info Game Mechanic Discussion: Independent Peoples/City-States

[Elhoim]

Potato in this video explains that you can pick their suzerain bonus.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I hope Carantania won't have that weird toga guy during game launch. Aren't they supposed to be ancient Slavs?

I wouldn't be surprised (or that upset) if the Independents had more generic guys representing them.

 

[bbbt]

Overview

• Independent Peoples do not start as city-state but as encampments of sorts.
  • Encampment strength can be modified by game events, like a Crisis.
  • Additional Independent Peoples are added to the game when the game map expands during an Age Transition.
  • It seems that these encampments may be initially hostile, friendly, or neutral.
  • It is not yet known if these encampments are mostly passive or if hostile encampments will send raiding parties. It is implied in the Gameplay Reveal though that encampments send out units and actively interact with you.
• If you befriend and invest in them they will develop into a city-state.
  • Investing in Independent Peoples requires spending Influence (which is also used for diplomatic actions with major powers).
  • When developing into a city-state they will also gain a Suzerain, which I suppose is the civilization which invested most in them. The Suzerain chooses which Suzerain bonus to gain.
• You can continue to invest in city-states to help them grow their city, territory, and military.
• With enough investment you will be able to annex your client city-states.

This is definitely one of the changes I'm excited for in Civ 7 and was hoping they'd do. I was sort of hoping for a bigger variety of interaction that lead to their growth than just a currency (ie you could send them a trade route, which helped their development and likelihood of being a economic CS; you could convert them, increasing their likelihood of being a religious CS, etc), but I know that's probably overly complicated.

In Endless Space 2, you kept suzerainty bonuses if you assimilated independent people. I wonder if that's the case here or not.

If it's not the case, it seems ripe for a special leader ability at the least.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

I hope Carantania won't have that weird toga guy during game launch. Aren't they supposed to be ancient Slavs?

Carantania was located in what's now Slovenia, so there's a good chance they would've been at least partially influenced by Greco-Roman culture. Then again, the Western Roman Empire was already dead for a few centuries by the time Carantania was first mentioned in literary sources, so there's something to be said about the guy looking more like a Byzantine king than anything else

 

[Haig]

I dont know if it was written yet but in the interaction panel you can choose 'Incite raid - Target" so you probably bribe them to attack another empire. Sounds cool.

 

[Paisley_Trees]

I dont know if it was written yet but in the interaction panel you can choose 'Incite raid - Target" so you probably bribe them to attack another empire. Sounds cool.

Oh I think I misunderstood the action then! It’s to have them attack someone else, not to raid them for money for yourself? I feel like there must be a way to battle them though? Maybe it’s on a totally different screen than the ones shown for independent people

 

[Jabberwockxeno]

Are Independent Peoples era specific? Like will the Mixtec only show up in the Antiquity or Exploration era, etc?

 

[Kulko]

Are Independent Peoples era specific? Like will the Mixtec only show up in the Antiquity or Exploration era, etc?

Not sure, but I am pretty sure thats the way it will work.
Would feel very strange to meet Monaco in the antiquity or the hittites in modern.

 

[Evolena]

The PAX Australia panel has shown various "miniatures" for each type of Independant Power, presumably for each Age.
In the various showcase and livestreams, we've seen the Mixtec People to have the 2nd Scientific mini in was almost certainly the Exploration Age, whilst others had the 1st Scientific mini, either in Antiquity Age or Exploration Age, indicating that an IP can survive the Age transition (as shown by the Shomron City-State in the Antiquity Stream).

Here: https://forums.civfanatics.com/media/independent-powers-representation.7579/

 

[AriochIV]

I would think that having individual IP's disappear at the Age transition would defeat the sense of map persistence and destroy whatever effort you've put into developing them, so that seems unlikely. If they change with Age transition they may just update visually, and/or change name; or perhaps IP's also transform into different but related IP's for the next Age.

 

[chaosprophet]

I would think that having individual IP's disappear at the Age transition would defeat the sense of map persistence and destroy whatever effort you've put into developing them, so that seems unlikely. If they change with Age transition they may just update visually, and/or change name; or perhaps IP's also transform into different but related IP's for the next Age.

I agree with your first part, and think it is also unlikely for them to change name because as different from the civs they don't have the leaders to keep a better sense of continuity and changing names then can get confusing.

 

[King Flevance]

I am hoping minor civs pose a threat in the early game somehow. Raging Barbarians have not felt dangerous in civ since 4. I would like for minor factions to make it actually difficult to rise above that status yourself. I dont like when minor civilizations just feel like an occupied city with a bribery bonus. It would be nice if they were a notable presence on the map you had to take into consideration for more than 1 reason.

I have never really cared for minor civs in any previous iteration so far. They seem too easy to leverage and never actually a power that matters really. So it is like dead zones on the map. If they were able to support larger armies, I feel it would make their presence more note worthy. Especially if it would be intimidating to have them turned against you, as the player and not easily disuaded or persuaded.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Raging Barbarians have not felt dangerous in civ since

I've seen them maul civs in 6 quite a few times. A nearby barb camp is a more consistent danger than AI invasions. Particularly on marathon, where Barbarian spawn rate vs unit production rate is more in favor of the Barbarians.

They weren't existential, though. They could never take a capital because it would remove said capital from domination win conditions, and could only raze cities.

There were moments in my marathon games where for whatever reason it made sense to direct my initial military rush at AIs and ignore the 8 unit strong horde endlessly assaulting my completely undeveloped capital for a time. Particularly common if I founded a tundra city as a capital and happened to have a few forested deer tiles to work, which are productive without development and growth is largely prohibited by tundra anyway, making economic investment there rather than in new conquests questionable.

 

[King Flevance]

I never really ran across anything like that in 6. I had a couple oversight inconveniences from them but they never even felt like anything more than a pest. The outposts were easily dispatched and they even made it somewhat worthwhile to hunt them down. It would be nice to be concerned about Barbarians outposts becoming cities near you. However still have some level of diplomacy. But I feel like they should be very stubborn and xenophobic. Making it very hard to win their favor. But make them loyal if you manage it with a bonus. Make it even harder to win over 2+ either with penalties or vassal caps based on social techs.

 

[Jabberwockxeno]

The PAX Australia panel has shown various "miniatures" for each type of Independant Power, presumably for each Age.
In the various showcase and livestreams, we've seen the Mixtec People to have the 2nd Scientific mini in was almost certainly the Exploration Age, whilst others had the 1st Scientific mini, either in Antiquity Age or Exploration Age, indicating that an IP can survive the Age transition (as shown by the Shomron City-State in the Antiquity Stream).

Here: https://forums.civfanatics.com/media/independent-powers-representation.7579/

Do you have an example of the miniatures we've seen the Mixtec with?

In the screenshots I've seen they seem to be using a North American set of unit graphics/models, but in the PAX aus. stream there's clearly a Mesoamerica/South American line of miniatures up a the top, so...?

 

[The_J]

@thecrazyscot have you considered updating this here too ?

 

[Evolena]

Do you have an example of the miniatures we've seen the Mixtec with?

In the screenshots I've seen they seem to be using a North American set of unit graphics/models, but in the PAX aus. stream there's clearly a Mesoamerica/South American line of miniatures up a the top, so...?

I think the unit represent the people, but I was more referencing the background of the miniature (either only scrolls for Age 1, or alchemic equipement for Age 2).

Spoiler Images :

 

[RedCourtJester]

I hope Carantania won't have that weird toga guy during game launch. Aren't they supposed to be ancient Slavs?

I'm expecting some civs to be assigned to macro-regions, and then get those refined as we get expansions there. So when the Balto-Slavic expansion hits, those will be replaced with more accurate clothing. If they haven't already been replaced by then.

The color scheming, surely, has to mean something. We see "white" and "green" IPs here. Religious IPs wouldn't make sense in antiquity, I think? I wonder if these colors are assigned to the six civ/leader types, with each IP only associating with one rather than two. So, the Slavs and Magyars would likely be "expansionist" (which in a way, aligns with our more broadened idea of "religion" in VII) while green would be maybe "diplomatic?" Would we describe the Mixtec and Ghana as "diplomatic?" I think we could. One would expect cultural to be pink/purple, economic to be yellow, scientific to be blue, and militaristic to be red, which may be why they aren't being spoiled yet hehe.

That's my guess.

Oh yep, I think I may be right. Look at that blue and yellow and red design from Pax West. Also, noticed some color combinations I will be putting in the main civ speculation thread.

 

[moysturfurmer]

I'm expecting some civs to be assigned to macro-regions, and then get those refined as we get expansions there. So when the Balto-Slavic expansion hits, those will be replaced with more accurate clothing. If they haven't already been replaced by then.

The color scheming, surely, has to mean something. We see "white" and "green" IPs here. Religious IPs wouldn't make sense in antiquity, I think? I wonder if these colors are assigned to the six civ/leader types, with each IP only associating with one rather than two. So, the Slavs and Magyars would likely be "expansionist" (which in a way, aligns with our more broadened idea of "religion" in VII) while green would be maybe "diplomatic?" Would we describe the Mixtec and Ghana as "diplomatic?" I think we could. One would expect cultural to be pink/purple, economic to be yellow, scientific to be blue, and militaristic to be red, which may be why they aren't being spoiled yet hehe.

That's my guess.

Oh yep, I think I may be right. Look at that blue and yellow and red design from Pax West. Also, noticed some color combinations I will be putting in the main civ speculation thread.

View attachment 706408

It’s been mentioned that as you put points into an IP, you’re able to help it develop and specialize towards a specific… specialization. Does that suggest IPs are unnamed, and only get their name and specialization once you pick one for them? Or are they already named and they’re default agnostic of any specific historical bonus?

 

[RedCourtJester]

It’s been mentioned that as you put points into an IP, you’re able to help it develop and specialize towards a specific… specialization. Does that suggest IPs are unnamed, and only get their name and specialization once you pick one for them? Or are they already named and they’re default agnostic of any specific historical bonus?

That's an interesting idea, I am not sure! Or maybe that determines the background and not the color. I would think each IP would still want to be and play of a certain type like in V/VI, just to better differentiate them over player choice. So I'm guessing that the color is constant for them as an identity, while maybe the little figure's background changes depending on what relationship you choose to form with them.

I don't think the color has changed when we've seen a relationship established in the past, right?

Nope, seems like it might be the other way around here?

Assuming these are the same civs across three eras, the colors do not match their type. The econ civ has a military (maybe science?) arrangement (later a military/economic), the military sci has a science (later an economic/scientific) arrangement, and the science civ has a military (later military/economic) arrangement.

Another possibility I see is that maybe that blue in the economic civ's antiquity means we actually can get two colors in antiquity as well? They just by default assign one and the other assets are "default" color. I don't know, there's multiple potential explanations and we don't have quite enough info to go off. For now I'm going to assume the simplest explanation which is one color, one era.