Gameinformer article on City States

[Thyrwyn]

can be found here.

One thing I was pleased to see is that you take a diplomatic hit with your rivals for aggressively expanding your influence over city-states just as you do for taking a huge tech lead, settling land near them, building a large military, or any other threatening action. I lost a very profitable trading partner in Rameses when he cut diplomatic ties with me for allying with Brussels, which he considered within his sphere of influence. I've had to do a lot more diplomatic tap-dancing with my rivals in this game than any other round of Civilization I've played over the last two decades.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Yeah, that's a cool quote. I'm thinking that diplomacy can be a lot of fun this time through, but it will probably be something that will take a couple of games for people to get the hang of.

City-State strategies sound quite fun, however. Certainly one way for people to go.

 

[Scramble]

DAMMIT! I am having HUGE difficulty deciding which Civ and what style I want to play on my first game. I was going to do India, but now I think Greece.

 

[JonoLith]

Ok... but I'm skeptical of one thing.

How transparent is it that when I make certain actions, such as taking tiles near Brussels, that it's going to piss off Egypt. If it's opaque, then I might just accidentally incite wars I don't intend. If I'm creating accidental wars all over the place, then this game will frustrate me more then anything.

Diplomacy being a balancing act is cool, but just constantly getting blindsided because of X, Y, or Z, is not.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

can be found here.

Damn you Thyrwyn-every time I get really frightened about this game not being good, you bring up an article like this that drags me Right Back In Again . Still worried about the whole culture & happiness thing, though, but this article alone has re-sparked my interest in getting the game!

Aussie

 

[AriochIV]

Ok... but I'm skeptical of one thing.

How transparent is it that when I make certain actions, such as taking tiles near Brussels, that it's going to piss off Egypt. If it's opaque, then I might just accidentally incite wars I don't intend. If I'm creating accidental wars all over the place, then this game will frustrate me more then anything.

Diplomacy being a balancing act is cool, but just constantly getting blindsided because of X, Y, or Z, is not.

From the screens we've seen, it tells you if the city-state is allied with someone else, but not who it is friends with.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Ok... but I'm skeptical of one thing.

How transparent is it that when I make certain actions, such as taking tiles near Brussels, that it's going to piss off Egypt. If it's opaque, then I might just accidentally incite wars I don't intend. If I'm creating accidental wars all over the place, then this game will frustrate me more then anything.

Diplomacy being a balancing act is cool, but just constantly getting blindsided because of X, Y, or Z, is not.

I do agree with your concerns JonoLith, though I'm hoping that-based on the quote above-that Egypt did warn them, but they continued on regardless . I'm cool with a less transparent diplomacy system *as long* as I get enough information (from either the leader or my Foreign Advisor) to guide me in my decisions!

Aussie.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Damn you Thyrwyn-every time I get really frightened about this game not being good, you bring up an article like this that drags me Right Back In Again . Still worried about the whole culture & happiness thing, though, but this article alone has re-sparked my interest in getting the game!

Aussie

It is intentional, you know

 

[Tylerryan79]

It's going to be like playing against real people, sorta. If you had a city state near you, then Greece became allies with it, but you thought it was yours to claim, wouldn't you be pissed?

 

[Ogrelord]

That's awesome for the quote. It will be like playing the Great Game. HELLO Crimea!

One day these city-states will get tired being used as pawn in the Great Game, and will form a city-state world alliance, and they will become Sid Super Civilization, crushing all those who dare oppose.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Culture:
+44 from cities
+84 from city-states
And that's Greece.

Damn, Siam is the best candidate for culture victory, together with Aztecs!

 

[stealth_nsk]

last I looked I'm the third-largest faction, behind the Aztecs and Songhai

Warmongers grow, as expected.

 

[Zhahz]

Ok... but I'm skeptical of one thing.

How transparent is it that when I make certain actions, such as taking tiles near Brussels, that it's going to piss off Egypt. If it's opaque, then I might just accidentally incite wars I don't intend. If I'm creating accidental wars all over the place, then this game will frustrate me more then anything.

Diplomacy being a balancing act is cool, but just constantly getting blindsided because of X, Y, or Z, is not.

They're trying to make the AIs behave like players - so they get irritated by the same things that irritate us, like poaching tiles, city states, city sites, military build up, etc.

I don't play MP civ, but in MP other players don't really tell you that they're going to invade, or that you're irritating them, unless they're talking trash, they just make plans and act.

And I'm pretty sure there are cues, there may just not be a chart saying you've accumulated x brownie or z hate points with each civ.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Actually, I thought this quote was interesting as well:

...luxury resource (all city-states spawn near one, and sometimes will expand their borders to control a second or possibly a strategic resource like iron or horses)

I take this to mean that all City States will have at least one resource to offer to their allies. Expected, but still nice to have confirmation.

 

[Zhahz]

I like the final statement, and I agree completely:

Civ V's September 21st launch can't come soon enough.

 

[craig123]

I like the final statement, and I agree completely:

Civ V's September 21st launch can't come soon enough.

I would agree completely if I lived in North America; but alas, I don't.

 

[Diplomat32]

I think city-state diplomacy will be one of the best parts of the whole game. I am excited. Finally, a civ game with some real geopolitical maneuvering.

And did anyone notice from the screenshot that SP cost increases by 30% per new city? I can see small but well developed empires will have an advantage. That is super cool!

 

[Schuesseled]

DAMMIT! I am having HUGE difficulty deciding which Civ and what style I want to play on my first game. I was going to do India, but now I think Greece.

I'm gonna play on random, so i don't have to choose.

I would agree completely if I lived in North America; but alas, I don't.

Same problem but at least we can get the demo on the 21 st, that will easily kill 3 days.

 

[aziantuntija]

Same problem but at least we can get the demo on the 21 st, that will easily kill 3 days.

I think its great that i can warm up with a demo first

 

[VikingMaekel]

I do agree with your concerns JonoLith, though I'm hoping that-based on the quote above-that Egypt did warn them, but they continued on regardless . I'm cool with a less transparent diplomacy system *as long* as I get enough information (from either the leader or my Foreign Advisor) to guide me in my decisions!

Aussie.

From: http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Featu...ngs-we-love-about-the-new-version-part-2.aspx

That means that if your opponents spot you building cities or buying land that they consider is ‘theirs', they'll politely but firmly ask that you refrain. In some cases, they'll insist.

Of course, just how close you get to their lands before they start thinking of territory as theirs differs. Militaristic and expansionist nations have a tendency to think that a plot of wheat 20 hexagons away is rightfully theirs and any encroachment is tantamount to poaching.

Others will timidly suggest you may be getting a little close only when you have them surrounded and snatch their gold mine from under their noses with a culture bomb.

Stepping over the lines once is grounds for a slap on the wrist or a note on the fridge, but if you promise not to do it again, and then breach their trust, they'll get really angry. The less trustworthy you are, the harder it is to build alliances with everyone else, so tread carefully.



So yeah, according to me you will get from conversation with their leaders warnings, treaths and such to warn you that furthering those actions will lead up to bad things.

I think, from what I read, that the new Diplomacy system will be better than in previous iterations of Civ.