Getting annoyed by CS system

[Chibisuke]

I know some others have discussed this, but the way that the AI is so easily able to take over Suzeran status for a CS after you liberate that CS is pretty stupid. I have liberated city states and within one turn some AI civ has immediately taken over as Suzeran. This is particularly terrible when I am at war with that civ. So I just saved their people, then they suddenly declare war on me automatically due to the AI civ taking over Suzeran status.

Certainly, the main reason for this silly issue is that the game only gives you 3 envoys to a CS when you liberate them. It is such an arbitrarily low amount and is of course the bare minimum required for Suzeran status. That makes no sense to me. Shouldn't they be beholden to you for a long time after bringing them back from the dead?

 

[nzcamel]

Any AI that does that must have horded a few envoys! If it happens often, I'm impressed

 

[Victoria]

It normally takes a few turns but yes the AI seems to horde and concentrate. Looking through how many envoys they have over all indicates they are not cheating.
The way the AI works allows Pericles to take advantage of the unattractive CS for a very nice culture bonus.

Another thing, possibly a tip.

When I play with Kumasi and really want to keep it I try and stay 4-5 CS ahead. This seems to stop them laying down 3 at a time which they tend to do later in the game. It seems like they do not see the direct benefit of stopping me being suze so do not strategically place one or two in there to allow the next 3 jump to take me out.

 

[Leyrann]

I have to agree that 3 envoys for liberating is a really low amount. Would more like to see 6 or 8. Maybe even 10. Or 4 in ancient era, 6 in classical era and then 1 more for every era later when you liberate them, to scale with game time.

 

[nzcamel]

Another thing, possibly a tip.

When I play with Kumasi and really want to keep it I try and stay 4-5 CS ahead. This seems to stop them laying down 3 at a time which they tend to do later in the game. It seems like they do not see the direct benefit of stopping me being suze so do not strategically place one or two in there to allow the next 3 jump to take me out.

I try to get around 4 envoys ahead with the CSs I really want too. That and I usually keep one envoy up my sleeve to snatch back Suzeranty if another Civ does match my number of envoys.

I have to agree that 3 envoys for liberating is a really low amount. Would more like to see 6 or 8. Maybe even 10. Or 4 in ancient era, 6 in classical era and then 1 more for every era later when you liberate them, to scale with game time.

I'm down with your last suggestion.

 

[HF22]

6 envoys for liberating would seem to make a lot of sense, to max the bonuses.

 

[Chibisuke]

Yea I think it should be 6 envoys at least. That would at least give a bit of a buffer against the AI instantly taking over Suzeran. To be honest, the more I play this game, the more I think Civ 5's city state system was superior. It was a lot more dynamic with the way your influence would go up and down, and it also made more sense how you could start to form permanent alliances with city states toward the end of the game once you had the right civics. This system seems much more static and arbitrary for the player, and its rare (on Deity) that I have been able to maintain Suzeran with any city state for too long before one of the AI uses its superior bonuses to snatch it away. In Civ 5, even on Deity play, you could maintain alliances with multiple CSs if you played properly.

 

[nzcamel]

Yea I think it should be 6 envoys at least. That would at least give a bit of a buffer against the AI instantly taking over Suzeran. To be honest, the more I play this game, the more I think Civ 5's city state system was superior. It was a lot more dynamic with the way your influence would go up and down, and it also made more sense how you could start to form permanent alliances with city states toward the end of the game once you had the right civics. This system seems much more static and arbitrary for the player, and its rare (on Deity) that I have been able to maintain Suzeran with any city state for too long before one of the AI uses its superior bonuses to snatch it away. In Civ 5, even on Deity play, you could maintain alliances with multiple CSs if you played properly.

I think that city states themselves are far more interesting in VI. Maybe some varying diplomatic social policies can be added that can buff the envoy game. I wouldn't like to see it go too crazy though...

 

[TomKQT]

To be honest, the more I play this game, the more I think Civ 5's city state system was superior. It was a lot more dynamic with the way your influence would go up and down, and it also made more sense how you could start to form permanent alliances with city states toward the end of the game once you had the right civics. This system seems much more static and arbitrary for the player, and its rare (on Deity) that I have been able to maintain Suzeran with any city state for too long before one of the AI uses its superior bonuses to snatch it away. In Civ 5, even on Deity play, you could maintain alliances with multiple CSs if you played properly.

The Civ5 system also wasn't perfect. In most my games (almost all in fact) I was ally with all city states at the later ages. And it was very common that I didn't give myself all the available votes in the World Leader election, because I didn't want to win the diplomatic victory (or didn't want to win the game so early). It was just very easy to combine all the ways to increase influence and maximize the effect in order to be ally with everyone.

What I prefer in Civ6 over Civ5 is the quest system (regarding CS). It is more variable and interesting. But please, make the icons different for every basic category of quests (religious convertion / producing of something / getting eureka / getting a great person / destroying a camp etc.). Because when you advance to a new era and have 15 copies of the same icon on every CS in the list and you have to hover your mouse on it to find out what are you supposed to do, this is driving me crazy....

 

[Chibisuke]

Yes, the quests in civ 6 are better, and the Suzeran bonuses are better, but everything else is worse. Like I said, it's just not all that feasible to maintain long term Suzeran status with one city state on deity since the AI will eventually overtake you. There's pretty much no way to avoid it. Holding Suzeran with 2 or more for the long term on deity is impossible, no matter how well you're playing. The amount of unpredictability makes it not fun.

 

[Victoria]

I have held Kumasi all game on Diety many times.
Many things affect this like how early you can get to it, what other Civs are in the game and how good their quests are.
Naturally if you want 6 envoys in 6 CS then holdng Suze is going to be hard. You sort of have to make a call. In most cases going for 6 in each is just such a good all round benefit but it just does depend on your requirements.
2 or more? well if they are popular then sure you will struggle, As Pericles I have been suze of about 8 in the mid game. Its just about looking for the ones the civs are not interested in.

I in fact find it quite predictable. They tend to go for the same thing and even compete with each other. There is no point playing their game, find other quieter ones or super concentrate. If you can get about 4 ahead they seem to stop bothering so much.

 

[Chibisuke]

Yea I agree you can hold Suzeran on a city state that they don't care about. But if it's a city state that the AI wants, on deity they will overtake you sooner or later unless you can manage to funnel all of your resources and planning toward completing every quest of that CS and put all envoys in there. Then maybe they'll never catch up. But that just seems annoying to me. In Civ 5 I could hold alliances with city states simply by playing the game in such a good way that I always had gold to buy back influence if the AI bought it away, or I properly used trade routes with the civic that increases influence from trade routes, or gunboat diplomacy. None of that exists here.

 

[ShakaKhan]

Another thing, possibly a tip.

When I play with Kumasi and really want to keep it I try and stay 4-5 CS ahead. This seems to stop them laying down 3 at a time which they tend to do later in the game. It seems like they do not see the direct benefit of stopping me being suze so do not strategically place one or two in there to allow the next 3 jump to take me out.

How do you find out how many envoys an AI civ has with a particular city state?

Also, agree 3 for liberation is too low. It should be 6, with the added caveat that you are guaranteed to maintain suzerein status until peace is settled between the liberator of the city state and the party who conquered it initially.

 

[Victoria]

You go into the CS screen and click on the envoys bit, have a play

 

[Chibisuke]

Yea it makes no sense that you could liberate a CS from AI X, then while you are still at war with them, they somehow grab Suzeran status with that CS they just previously attacked. Now that CS declares war on you. It is a stupid thing.

 

[Jarms48]

I think they should just change the current envoy city-state bonus levels to 2/4/6. This nerfs the current bonus for just finding a city-state, it buffs the +2 envoys for the first time sent card, and you could then buff the liberation envoy award to 4. It also makes city-state missions more enticing.

 

[gettingfat]

I think they should just change the current envoy city-state bonus levels to 2/4/6. This nerfs the current bonus for just finding a city-state, it buffs the +2 envoys for the first time sent card, and you could then buff the liberation envoy award to 4. It also makes city-state missions more enticing.

I am fine with the current bonus levels. The game needs to somewhat reward the players who take the risk to explore early. That's said, the first meeting bonus does need some nerfing. I think halfing it will be adequate.