[R&F] Independent Free Cities?

[OnceAKing]

I've briefly looked over the info released so far, but I haven't found details.

What do you guys think they mean by Independent Cities?

The loyalty system seems to lean heavily towards "flipping" cities. But it seems they left open the idea of those cities going independent.


But what niche will they fit in the game?

City-states? But then that means they'd have to have bonuses and such added to them right?

New Civ? Perhaps, a colonization mechanic that allows an America or Australia to arise out of an independent England city for example?

Civ that previously occupied that territory? Maybe a conquered city reanimates itself while the parent civ is in a dark age?

My fear is that these free cities will be sub City states that sort of run on autopilot until someone snatches them up.


Nevertheless, it seems ripe for modding into the mold of a certain namesake.....

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

An independent or free city is one that has left a civ due to low loyalty, but hasn't been conquered or absorbed by another civ (or the same civ) yet. It's sort of an in-between phase. You can't interact with them like a city-state.

That's about all we know.

 

[Art Morte]

I'd imagine that these neutral cities are perhaps not intended to stay neutral for very long. I somehow got the impression that their neutrality is just a phase before they convert to the civ that's exerting the most loyalty points on them. I could be wrong, obviously.

What could be kind of annoying is that if a neutral city starts building a useless (to you) district before you convert it to yourself.

 

[Leyrann]

I'd imagine that these neutral cities are perhaps not intended to stay neutral for very long. I somehow got the impression that their neutrality is just a phase before they convert to the civ that's exerting the most loyalty points on them. I could be wrong, obviously.

What could be kind of annoying is that if a neutral city starts building a useless (to you) district before you convert it to yourself.

I wouldn't be surprised if they don't build districts at all.

 

[Art Morte]

I wouldn't be surprised if they don't build districts at all.

What if the city was building a district when it became neutral? Also, sometimes there's only units or districts to build.

But the more I think of these neutral cities, the more I believe their neutral phase will be brief. It would be kind of weird if there were lots and lots of these neutral cities around, especially in the later eras.

 

[Leyrann]

What if the city was building a district when it became neutral?

Currently, if you conquer a city with a district in progress the district just disappears.

And in case of unit or district I suppose it'd go unit.

 

[shaglio]

I wonder how they’ll be distinguished on the map. They presumably won’t keep the color scheme of the civ they broke off from. Will they be similar to CSs with a black background and some currently unused color (red perhaps)? Will they have a different border style ala the dotted line of Open Borders?

 

[Siptah]

I wonder how they’ll be distinguished on the map. They presumably won’t keep the color scheme of the civ they broke off from. Will they be similar to CSs with a black background and some currently unused color (red perhaps)? Will they have a different border style ala the dotted line of Open Borders?

White on white?

 

[shaglio]

White on white?

That would go over just as well as Civ 5 Ethiopia vs. Barbarians.

 

[OnceAKing]

I'd imagine that these neutral cities are perhaps not intended to stay neutral for very long. I somehow got the impression that their neutrality is just a phase before they convert to the civ that's exerting the most loyalty points on them. I could be wrong, obviously.

What could be kind of annoying is that if a neutral city starts building a useless (to you) district before you convert it to yourself.

Aww well that's not very ambitious, I was hoping for at least colonization mechanics that allowed for emergent new players in the game. Especially with civs like Austrailia and Brazil present in the first iteration.


Well maybe they'll release the expansion with a wink and a nod towards modding.

 

[UWHabs]

Aww well that's not very ambitious, I was hoping for at least colonization mechanics that allowed for emergent new players in the game. Especially with civs like Austrailia and Brazil present in the first iteration.


Well maybe they'll release the expansion with a wink and a nod towards modding.

I'd love to see a system where if 2-3 cities near each other all split off, then they could join up to create a new civ.

 

[JacquesBquick]

I'd love to see a system where if 2-3 cities near each other all split off, then they could join up to create a new civ.

love this. further, there should be some sort of time limit for a decision to happen. If no civ achieves sufficient loyalty with a free city, it should become its own civ, even if just one city, but it should definitely also start generating loyalty from other nearby free cities. It could introduce some really interesting disruption in late game, both if you lose your own city, there's incentive to work to bring it back, or if you don't think you can, perhaps you have to go reconquer it militarily. OTOH, perhaps you manage to be friendly with an adjacent civ, but they do a bad job managing loyalty and lose a city on your border, you have a decision to make about whether you take that city via loyalty or military or what to do because it has the potential to turn into a new civ that could cause problems

the major drawback would be how could a new civ keep up with other civs. I presume it would carry over all civic and tech tree progress from its parent empire, but where will it get the science, culture, faith, production, military to stand on its own? The game would have to give it some kind of artificial boon, like a permanent per-turn bonus based on its parent civilization so it can stay relevant and defend itself

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I wonder how they’ll be distinguished on the map. They presumably won’t keep the color scheme of the civ they broke off from. Will they be similar to CSs with a black background and some currently unused color (red perhaps)? Will they have a different border style ala the dotted line of Open Borders?

Green isn't used. Shade of Red is used for Military.

 

[OnceAKing]

love this. further, there should be some sort of time limit for a decision to happen. If no civ achieves sufficient loyalty with a free city, it should become its own civ, even if just one city, but it should definitely also start generating loyalty from other nearby free cities. It could introduce some really interesting disruption in late game, both if you lose your own city, there's incentive to work to bring it back, or if you don't think you can, perhaps you have to go reconquer it militarily. OTOH, perhaps you manage to be friendly with an adjacent civ, but they do a bad job managing loyalty and lose a city on your border, you have a decision to make about whether you take that city via loyalty or military or what to do because it has the potential to turn into a new civ that could cause problems

the major drawback would be how could a new civ keep up with other civs. I presume it would carry over all civic and tech tree progress from its parent empire, but where will it get the science, culture, faith, production, military to stand on its own? The game would have to give it some kind of artificial boon, like a permanent per-turn bonus based on its parent civilization so it can stay relevant and defend itself

Interesting question on keeping up. On one hand you have America or Canada that kept up or surpassed their parent but


You have alot of former colonies in Africa that were perpetually stunted after independence.

 

[eso12por8]

I'd love to see a system where if 2-3 cities near each other all split off, then they could join up to create a new civ.

This is the exact concept I've been pitching for a few years. Even if the civ has no actual cultural connection to the one that breaks off, it should still become a new civ, not already in the game if the neutral city is not captured or swayed by culture, etc.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don't think emerging civilizations would be that fun. Civilizations are built around their history and leaders. A couple of randomly separated cities can't fullfill this role. Civ4 had similar mechanics, though.

I would prefer to see:
- A specific city-state type for free cities. Make them work like regular city-states, just without uniques.
- Make split City-state become the same city-state again.

 

[eso12por8]

I don't think emerging civilizations would be that fun. Civilizations are built around their history and leaders. A couple of randomly separated cities can't fullfill this role. Civ4 had similar mechanics, though.

I would prefer to see:
- A specific city-state type for free cities. Make them work like regular city-states, just without uniques.
- Make split City-state become the same city-state again.

To expand on this, I've seen city-states capture cities. They should be allowed to keep them without a forced pillage, IMO

 

[Uberfrog]

I don't think emerging civilizations would be that fun. Civilizations are built around their history and leaders. A couple of randomly separated cities can't fullfill this role. Civ4 had similar mechanics, though.

I would prefer to see:
- A specific city-state type for free cities. Make them work like regular city-states, just without uniques.
- Make split City-state become the same city-state again.

I agree, this is one area where the core gameplay has to trump reality. Civilisations in Civ are all about the gradual progression through the ages, and all represent the "players", whether they are AI or human. New players should not enter a game halfway through.

In Civ IV independent colonies were nearly always weak rump states that had no chance of winning, as you wouldn't grant independence to any core productive cities. They don't really provide an interesting new dynamic to the game. They are either ignored or gobbled up by another civ, which is entirely covered by the new Independent Free Cities.

 

[Deggial]

I certainly hope that some of those "Free Cities" exist on the map rigth from the beginning without the need to leave a major civ due to low loyalty.
I don't share OnceAKing's fear that "...free cities will be sub City states that sort of run on autopilot until someone snatches them up." in the slightest. Why would this be so bad?
Personally, I would like an opportunity to wage limited wars without any warmonger penalty.

Free cities could muster a relatively strong army so they aren't a low hanging fruit.
They also could have a limited city range (only 2 rings instead of 3; reason: their inferior government) in order to make them less annoying when not conquered/absorbed.

 

[Ferocitus]

I'd love to see a system where if 2-3 cities near each other all split off, then they could join up to create a new civ.

I can't see it happening: it would be too tough to implement sweetly.
What would happen if you are already playing with all of the civs (including
DLCs)?