Hey, old buddy, old pal, could you stop attacking my city-state?

[steveg700]

How infuriating is this?

I've been both friends with Suleiman and the suzerain on Cathoka since the ancient era and we're now in the medieval. Suleiman will not stop attacking Cathoka. He isn't racking up any grievances for this attack (I was probably friends with before he declared war), so he keeps pounding. He's sending an endless daisy chain of chariots that I can't stop because as soon as one dies he has another lined up to take its place. Hell, I can't even break the siege.

Now, he's wasting tons of production on this attack, which actually seems to holding him back in terms of eras. I could attack him now, but since I'm Egypt I kind of want to tee him up for an allegiance.

There seems to be no peaceful recourse here. There is, insanely, no diplomatic option to request making peace. I tried asking him not to settle near me, thinking that might extend to deterring him from conquering a neighboring CS, but no dice. The AI seems to have nothing in its code to tell it not to kill his friend's envoys. Or, for that matter, not to squander multiple eras throwing units pell-nell at every CS within reach even if it has nothing special to offer (Suleiman already has the resources.

Worse still, if I were to go after him for this, I might wind up getting a backstabbing emergency thrown at me.

It would be nice if Cathoka would at least help itself by sending its chariot out for a sortie that would break the siege rather than leave itself housed in a pointless garrison.

Weren't city-states supposed to be harder to attack now? Have walls and such?

 

[Jaybe]

Do you ever attack city-states that a friend is suzerain of?
If so, what is your complaint about? AI has enough problems without being disadvantaged more vs the player.

CS auto-walls come with either a mod or at higher difficulties.

 

[steveg700]

Do you ever attack city-states that a friend is suzerain of?
If so, what is your complaint about?

Well, no, I typically don't. More to the point, were I to do so I would logically expect it to carry repercussions that would jeopardize our relationship, causing grievances accompanied by some bribe or demand to desist.

AI has enough problems without being disadvantaged more vs the player.

That's a mantra whose flippant regurgitation here doesn't seem relevant. The AI is not disadvantaged by being programmed to make peace with a city-state that belongs to a friend and whose capture would sour the relationship for fairly paltry gain. It is not advantaged by ignoring this behavior when I do it to the AI or when one AI civ does it to another. It is not advantaged by forcing a friend into a liberation war because there's no pro-active means to respond.

Rather, it would be it advantageous for both an AI and player not to antagonize those with whom it wishes to regard as friends and allies. And it would be advantageous for both to have a recourse in the event that such a diplomatic faux pas occurs.

 

[kb27787]

This was an option in BNW to trade peace on behalf of other AI and CS... I have no idea why they did not implement this in VI...

Anyhow personally I think it should make it such that you cannot declare war on CS whose suzerain you cannot declare war on (either friendship or peace treaty... Canada's CS should be completely immune unless he is denounced). Also there needs to be a severe diplo hit to all other AIs who have envoys in that CS in addition to the normal grievances gained.

 

[Troy Bruckner]

It would be nice to have the option to bribe or threaten an Ai Civ to stop attacking a CS.

 

[steveg700]

The problem here seems to be that the Ottomans declared war on Cathoka in the ancient era. Even though the game was in the renaissance era when I last left off, and Cathoka finally built walls, Suleiman is still plugging away at it. The AI's logic simply never allows for any reason to make peace with a city-state.

So at this point, I'm just going to let him take it, and then hope it generates grievances and that our alliance will expire before they evaporate. I'll liberate and hope he just gets over it.

 

[Medopu]

This situation is already too late, but otherwise, when you see AI mounting an attack, try levying CS troops and fight him off this way. While you're both occupied with fighting, rush a few of your own troops there and block all strategic surrounding tiles so that if you lose your levyed troops, the AI has no chance to even take the city because you're in the way.

 

[Abaxial]

There really needs to be a request you can make, "stop attacking X". I have managed to stop an attack myself by blocking access with my own units. The aggressor then wandered off.

 

[Archon_Wing]

The AI is not disadvantaged by being programmed to make peace with a city-state that belongs to a friend and whose capture would sour the relationship for fairly paltry gain. It is not advantaged by ignoring this behavior when I do it to the AI or when one AI civ does it to another. It is not advantaged by forcing a friend into a liberation war because there's no pro-active means to respond.

It could be said that the AI's current behavior is to its determent and possibly suicidal since it basically gives you full reign to kill them off, especially if an emergency is declared. Often times they lose the city to loyalty. The recent changes that have made CS's harder to attack seem to have been beneficial to the game.

While there are workarounds like writer blocks and whatnot, it would seem that there should be better options that carry more depth than abusing AI pathing.

 

[WillowBrook]

Yeah, this problem is perhaps my biggest gameplay complaint at this point. Lots of possible changes to deal with it, but at the very least, there should be consequences for attacking a friend or ally's city state.

 

[Troy Bruckner]

The worst is when your ally is at war with one of your CSs and one of your ally's city states kills your city state. I had Grenada take out Kandy in my game yesterday and Kandy went poof :/

 

[Haig]

I guess it's by design, as there exist the casus belli Protectorate War where you can attack a force hostile to your suzerain CS.
So you need to wonder if a war is worth it.

Yeah it can suck if your CS has the resources you need but then again I like the choices it bring.

 

[steveg700]

I guess it's by design, as there exist the casus belli Protectorate War where you can attack a force hostile to your suzerain CS.
So you need to wonder if a war is worth it.

Yeah it can suck if your CS has the resources you need but then again I like the choices it bring.

Not sure if this is what you meant, but I don't think it makes sense to conclude existence of a cassus beli means it's intentional design for friends to engage in endless war with a friend or ally's suzerained CS.

At one level, the AI should simply have conditions wherein it will make peace. For instance, the AI currently knows that when it makes peace with the player, it should make peace with any CS's it was at war with (it's known to do that since Civ V).

At another level, existing diplomatic options should provide recourse, such as asking for a promise to leave my CS's alone.

 

[Stringer1313]

I guess it's by design, as there exist the casus belli Protectorate War where you can attack a force hostile to your suzerain CS.
So you need to wonder if a war is worth it.

Yeah it can suck if your CS has the resources you need but then again I like the choices it bring.

I agree with this. Though I was originally frustrated by this mechanic, that is indeed what the Protectorate War is for, and this is also the price of friendship - so maybe think twice before automatically becoming friends with whomever is willing. In a game that is still starving for meaningful choices, I like this one.

 

[steveg700]

I agree with this. Though I was originally frustrated by this mechanic, that is indeed what the Protectorate War is for, and this is also the price of friendship - so maybe think twice before automatically becoming friends with whomever is willing. In a game that is still starving for meaningful choices, I like this one.

Writing off your envoys and suzerainties to other civ's as "the price of friendship" seems a rather absurd proposition. Likewise, saying "that's what Protectorate Wars are for" is overly reductive. It certainly does not reflect a meaningful choice. Solving every problematic AI behavior through war denotes the absence of choices.

Does it really need to be stated that curbing belligerent behavior is the cornerstone of a friendship? The expectation that common sense offers is that you treat your friends better than you treat other people. Should friendship preclude the possibility that an AI will attack a friend's CS? Perhaps, perhaps not. Friends might barter such assets, but in the void of any such diplomatic options, "not" makes more sense.

Then again, some friends are simply poor friends. I'm all right with a civ disregarding my request for a promise not to forward settle, spy, or spam religion. But in those cases, at least an option exists. The fact that a CS is aligned with a friend should certainly carry weight. In the current game, that weight is in the form of grievances. It is obviously something of a glitch in design that as long as you declare war in the ancient era, all you have to do is never make peace to continue attacking for eras afterward without any reflection the grievance system.

Any meaningful choices would come in the form of a negotiation. For instance, a civ might ask for a promise to cease attacking a city-state in exchange for diplomatic favor, and the other civ might respond by accepting, flatly rejecting, or requesting permission in exchange for diplomatic favor.

There have been posts about the AI's rapacious appetites for city-states for years. They made some efforts to tamp in down in GS, by knocking down the number of civ's that will attack city-states near them as a de facto mode of expansion. They supposedly made changes in patches so that cities would build walls, but taking steps to resist an attacker who lacks any programmatic condition for making peace is a futile endeavor.

 

[Victoria]

While I agree that you should not be able to declare war on an allies CS this is a different situation.
The Ottomans declared war before an alliance existed and it is at this stage a choice needs to be made. Do I want to ally with someone at war with a CS I like/have envoys at.
Do I let them take it and then release it for 6 envoys and everyone else’s destroyed?
I see other green troops half on screen so Could I block off this tiny avenue in?

It is fairly common on emperor for these attacks and you can make an opportunity out of them by declaring formal war ASAP if a protectorate is not available. If any negative grievance is gained it is small and soon forgotten but now you can loot their lands with impunity and my goodness, looting a civs entire land gives great rewards. Also if you are size of Cahokia they now have to make peace with them... and you keep in mind they hate Cahokia and likely will declare again you will get much better value out of milking them for their obsession that some puny alliance. There are other people to ally with and you get no grievances for your milking.

This sort of feels like complaining for the wrong reason. There are times it is wrong but this could have been resolved earlier with a jolly good looting... ah yes, you did say that.

I could attack him now, but since I'm Egypt I kind of want to tee him up for an allegiance.

 

[steveg700]

While I agree that you should not be able to declare war on an allies CS this is a different situation.
The Ottomans declared war before an alliance existed and it is at this stage a choice needs to be made. Do I want to ally with someone at war with a CS I like/have envoys at.
Do I let them take it and then release it for 6 envoys and everyone else’s destroyed?
I see other green troops half on screen so Could I block off this tiny avenue in?

It is fairly common on emperor for these attacks and you can make an opportunity out of them by declaring formal war ASAP if a protectorate is not available. If any negative grievance is gained it is small and soon forgotten but now you can loot their lands with impunity and my goodness, looting a civs entire land gives great rewards. Also if you are size of Cahokia they now have to make peace with them... and you keep in mind they hate Cahokia and likely will declare again you will get much better value out of milking them for their obsession that some puny alliance. There are other people to ally with and you get no grievances for your milking.

This sort of feels like complaining for the wrong reason. There are times it is wrong but this could have been resolved earlier with a jolly good looting... ah yes, you did say that.

I doubt I achieved suzerainty through any great decision of my own, and I doubt I was aware that the Ottomans were even at war with it when I accepted their friendship request (I don't even know off-hand where I'd see that state of affairs). Regardless, my expectation would be that there would be some condition by which the Ottomans would ultimately make peace, not simply attack for all eternity. Even if not for my friendship, might they not just pinch it off after losing the first twenty chariots? Apparently, no such condition exists and I don't feel much value in sliver-lining that bug as a feature which promotes exploitable opportunities.

Sure, Civ VI is an exploitable game. I can exploit overly-generous pillage wars, I can exploit the way liberation wars where facilitating its capture sets me up to be its savior. I can exploit and AI's willingness to rack up grievances and visit military emergencies upon themselves. But I am ultimately disappointed by this situation, not excited.

 

[ShakaKhan]

I think it was in civ5 where if party A attacks a city state that has party B as a suzerein (or patron or whatever it was at the time... pu-tay-toes/pu-tah-toes), then party A inherently declares on party B as well - I don't think this was the optimum solution as the AI's programming fails to be able to factor in the repercussions of this action, but at least it allows you to protect your interests.

While it's costly, my favorite way of dealing with this situation (again, in previous iterations of the game) was to use this opportunity to engage in a proxy war - you had the ability to gift units to your city-state supporter to enable them to protect themselves and at the same time cause your belligerent fried to lose some of their ability to bully. "OK good buddy Tomyris... your're going to send waves of horsemen 2 by 2 to attack Auckland who is my strongest supporter? Then pay no attention to these impi corps of mine that are headed to Auckland, and how your target suddenly has a half dozen corps of my civilizations unique unit obliterating your efforts."

But, sigh, you can no longer gift units...

 

[Victoria]

But I am ultimately disappointed by the situation, not excited.

Got ya.... them banging their head against a brick wall is the issue here. I must admit I had not noticed thIs long term dedication to CS in the past but did a couple of weeks ago for the first time.
Looted to death twice by me in Protectorate wars the Zulu still went after Bologna.
Not sure if it’s a new thing but now more evident due to walls.

 

[steveg700]

So, what is it that triggers a military emergency?

When Suleiman did ultimately capture Cahokia, the net result was 50 grievances. Barely enough to negate my denouncement. No emergency triggered.