Independent powers need a tweak, perhaps?

[bigjim1]

I like befriending independents; can bring lots of benefits, but they tend to get scarcer and scarcer in each successive era. In my current, deity level game I'm early in the modern era. Only about 6 or 7 independents at the start of the era and 2 or 3 were wiped out before I could befriend them. I would prefer to see them persist. My suggestion is that at the end of an era, the smallest, weakest Civ simply disappears from the game and all its cities become independents. And, if you're playing with crises enabled, really unhappy cities should become independent instead of joining another Civ.

Any thoughts?

 

[MACKA0ili]

I like this idea
Recently in my games, befriended city states are the targets for my rival AIs instead of my actual settlements so I've been seeing even less of them. I have noticed though that other independent powers start to pop up once those city states are conquered so there's probably a hard cap on them. Would be really interesting to see that cap removed or increased so that the swathes of unsettled lands become filled with independents, just like they would barbarians back in older games.
When the idea of civ switching was first presented here, I had a thought that eliminated players could come back as new civs after the transition. I would suggest that, rather than eliminating them completely, they could start anew in unclaimed territory using the same system that advanced starts use to make sure they're not completely left behind while also leaving behind independent powers in their former lands. This, combined with a removed or increased independent cap, could really fill out the map in interesting ways. There could also be certain dark age legacies that play into this where you give up a few settlements to independent powers in order to get strong bonuses.
As for unhappy cities becoming independent, I agree 100% on this.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Right now, there are several 'gamey' restrictions on IPs:

1. There are no City States - that is, IPs you can trade with or get mercenary units from - except IPs that have been subordinated to a Civ. The Independent City State does not exist in this game.

2. You have no control over IPs in Game Set-Up. If you want more or less IPs on the map in your Homeland continent - you can't. If you want a Distant Lands with no Civs, entirely populated by IPs - again, you can't. If you want all Hostile, or all Neutral, IPs - you guessed it - you can't.

3. There are no Unique Units available from IPs, just the same 'ol Warriors, Slingers, Galleys et al that you can build yourself: More Of The Same. This is particularly annoying when you consider the number of Unique Units that were hired from the real-world equivalent of IPs: in Antiquity Age Baleric Slingers, Cretan Archers, Scythian or Hun Horse Archers, Sarmatian Cataphract cavalry. In Exploration Age Hungarian Hussar light and heavy cavalry, 'Northern Barbarian' cavalry for China, Cossacks in eastern Europe, Swiss pikemen, Scots and Irish assault troops. In Modern Age 'Hessian' Grenadiers, Swiss Infantry, the 'Wild Geese' Irish units, the Foreign Legions of famously France and less-famously, Spain - the list could go on for pages, and many of them had very unique attributes not easily available from 'regular' Civ units.

4. The IPs are distressingly Static in game terms. No matter how long a City State/IP has been associated with your Civ, at Age End they disappear unless you incorporate them completely. What re-appears in their place is Random, if anything appears at all. If the Civs have only passing connection to each other from Age to Age, the IPs have None. This, it seems to me, is in direct opposition to the stated purpose of letting the gamer create their own 'narrative' - you can create a narrative only as long as it doesn't include much about any IP.

5. In addition, as noted in posts above, there is almost no non-player interaction between Civs/settlements and IPs. IPs or City States do not become a Civ's settlements/towns unless the player (human or AI) takes action. Unhappy cities do not become IPs or City States. You cannot 'free' an IP that has been subordinated to another player with any amount of military action, Gold or Influence.

And as part of this, the Crisis period seems to have no effect on City States or IPs at all except to spawn new Hostile ones. No cities/settlements 'collapse' into City States, no City States break away and become independent, no Civ disintegrates into City States/IPs no matter how complete its collapse in the Crisis. Basically, the 'barbarians' are not going to crush western Rome or any Chinese Dynasty unless they come as a Barbarian Civ - no IPs or lesser entity need apply.

Addressing any of these could, IMHO, result in a much more variable and intriguing game, in which your interactions with IPs would be much more important both positively and negatively. You could, as arguably Carthage did historically, build a strategy around your treatment of IP/City State entities as sources/focuses of Trade and resources, mercenary troops and strategic control points against your enemies.

 

[moondog385]

I honestly wouldn’t mind loyalty coming back in some form. Once a city reaches a certain level of happiness, it rebels and becomes an IP that everyone, including you, can try to get influence over.

I think having an entire civ disappear in the last age is a bit extreme. If anything, they just need to make the IPs in modern stronger. Perhaps they should have special walls or something.

 

[Kwami]

There are no Unique Units available from IPs, just the same 'ol Warriors, Singers, Galleys et al that you can build yourself: More Of The Same.

Well, you can get Foederati, Corsairs, and Partisans from the militaristic city states. They have somewhat unique bonuses (especially the Corsair).

You cannot 'free' an IP that has been subordinated to another player with any amount of military action, Gold or Influence.

This is top on my list of changes that I hope to see soon. It's very frustrating when an AI conquers a city state during war and my only options are to incorporate it into my nation, destroy it, or let the AI keep it. And it's not clear what happens to the bonus that I picked when I created the city state.

 

[CliffCo]

If you consider IP as being independent tribes then it's true to life as they declined in numbers over time.

 

[Patine]

If you consider IP as being independent tribes then it's true to life as they declined in numbers over time.

Yes, but even to use the modern world, and to take the number of civ player slots, there's still almost 200 of them in the RW, recognized and de facto independent, as a reference point. Certainly not remotely near the number in 1492, definitely.

 

[CliffCo]

Yes, but even to use the modern world, and to take the number of civ player slots, there's still almost 200 of them in the RW, recognized and de facto independent, as a reference point. Certainly not remotely near the number in 1492, definitely.

I feel the decrease in the games IP's as eras progress is realistic and proportionate to how much they declined historically.

 

[bigjim1]

I feel the decrease in the games IP's as eras progress is realistic and proportionate to how much they declined historically.

To some extent, but the USSR disintegrated into numerous smaller states, as did the various other empires that fell apart in the C20. In any case, I think the "realistic/unrealistic" debate really went out the window as soon as the designers created immortal rulers. It seems more useful to focus on whether a particular game mechanic is enjoyable to play. My personal view is the independent states get less and less interesting over time, which contributes to the modern era being the dullest (for me, obvs.)

 

[MutilationWave]

To some extent, but the USSR disintegrated into numerous smaller states, as did the various other empires that fell apart in the C20. In any case, I think the "realistic/unrealistic" debate really went out the window as soon as the designers created immortal rulers. It seems more useful to focus on whether a particular game mechanic is enjoyable to play. My personal view is the independent states get less and less interesting over time, which contributes to the modern era being the dullest (for me, obvs.)

For everyone brother/sister. For everyone.

And I compulsively have to get all the legacy paths so I can't just rush culture victory and be done with it.

 

[CliffCo]

To some extent, but the USSR disintegrated into numerous smaller states, as did the various other empires that fell apart in the C20. In any case, I think the "realistic/unrealistic" debate really went out the window as soon as the designers created immortal rulers. It seems more useful to focus on whether a particular game mechanic is enjoyable to play. My personal view is the independent states get less and less interesting over time, which contributes to the modern era being the dullest (for me, obvs.)

I would say less useful to a certain extent but most of the time in the later part of the game i'm only befriending them so i can incorporate them into my empire.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

If you consider IP as being independent tribes then it's true to life as they declined in numbers over time.

But if you think of them as being 'smaller than playable Civs', then the fact that there are currently over 200 members of the United Nations that claim to be independent states indicates that there are still plenty of candidates.

 

[CliffCo]

But if you think of them as being 'smaller than playable Civs', then the fact that there are currently over 200 members of the United Nations that claim to be independent states indicates that there are still plenty of candidates.

yes but you're missing my point. the world had thousands of independents at one point but has far less now. You cant show the real life amount in the game so they show a portion of that total that is proportionate to real life.

 

[Patine]

But if you think of them as being 'smaller than playable Civs', then the fact that there are currently over 200 members of the United Nations that claim to be independent states indicates that there are still plenty of candidates.

And, if one includes the fact that, in the post-WW2 era, major powers have had a lot more trouble trouncing, or keeping vassalage over, what in game would be independent powers, even, at times, withdrawing in humiliating defeat, despite military technology and industry having increased, significantly.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

And, if one includes the fact that, in the post-WW2 era, major powers have had a lot more trouble trouncing, or keeping vassalage over, what in game would be independent powers, even, at times, withdrawing in humiliating defeat, despite military technology and industry having increased, significantly.

Major Powers always had problems forcing Minor Powers into submission if the minors had support from other Major Powers. Examples are many but would have to include Armenia who played Persia and Rome off against each other in Antiquity, Bavaria who invoked France whenever the HRE tried to make them actually do what they were supposed to do as an Elector of the Empire, and of course, the United States, which might have remained 'united colonies' were it not for the intervention of France and Spain.

Even without other Great Power intervention, of course, Minor Powers could frequently simply be more trouble than they were worth because of distance, topography, relative military prowess and sheer bloody-mindedness (frequently reinforced by cultural or religious differences). Those factors played a large part in the continued independence of many central Asian tribes and polities and the continued portrayal of the Arabian peninsula on maps for centuries as an 'empty quarter' - the tribes living there were simply too hard to pin down in any sense until Islam transformed the map and the tribes both.

 

[Askia Muhammad]

And, if one includes the fact that, in the post-WW2 era, major powers have had a lot more trouble trouncing, or keeping vassalage over, what in game would be independent powers, even, at times, withdrawing in humiliating defeat, despite military technology and industry having increased, significantly.

I wish independent powers could ultimately acquire more than one city. I think them being able to eventually transition over to even perhaps being a full Civ if they eclipse three settlements (arbitrary number) would be amazing

Though, obviously, with the limited number of civs not possible right now

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

yes but you're missing my point. the world had thousands of independents at one point but has far less now. You cant show the real life amount in the game so they show a portion of that total that is proportionate to real life.

A case can be made, certainly, that human history since the very first urbanization has been a slow trend towards more centralization economically, politically, and culturally. For all the states and groups in the world today, separate languages are still disappearing, cultures are homogenizing as much as they are remaining separate in any meaningful way, and distances that used to separate groups and keep them independent have effectively shrunk until they are largely meaningless.

But, my point was that for the purposes of the game, since it portrays this on a much, much smaller scale than historical reality, any number of 'minor powers' can be included in the game, and neither the game nor the gamers should be constrained by trying to precisely portray any historical percentage of minor to major powers, civs to city states.

 

[moondog385]

This is top on my list of changes that I hope to see soon. It's very frustrating when an AI conquers a city state during war and my only options are to incorporate it into my nation, destroy it, or let the AI keep it. And it's not clear what happens to the bonus that I picked when I created the city state.

My assumption is that you no longer receive the effects of the bonus nor can you apply it to any city-state in the future (in that age). I agree with you that's one of the most important changes that needs to be made. The AI always targets my city-states during a war and I don't want them to be part of my territory when I'm taking them back.

 

[Krikkit1]

I like befriending independents; can bring lots of benefits, but they tend to get scarcer and scarcer in each successive era. In my current, deity level game I'm early in the modern era. Only about 6 or 7 independents at the start of the era and 2 or 3 were wiped out before I could befriend them. I would prefer to see them persist. My suggestion is that at the end of an era, the smallest, weakest Civ simply disappears from the game and all its cities become independents. And, if you're playing with crises enabled, really unhappy cities should become independent instead of joining another Civ.

Any thoughts?

Making the crises strong enough so that players actually lose some settlements (and not to other players) is something they need to do.

Also Independents
1. need to be able to defend better (both more units and keeping them at home)…increasing in later ages
2. need to allow “runner ups” benefits for other civs to befriend besides the suzerein (say similar to the endeavors)

And Liberation should be allowed (makes you suzerein…previous suzerein gets “runner up” benefits.

 

[CivKirk64]

I've been think that the IPs need some work.
I'm always finding that with the settlement cap, there is quite a bit of open space still available, Id rather see the gaps filled with independent powers. Part of this can be explained with the CPU choosing garbage spots for their own cities, opting to settle useless little corners before they would jump next to resources, near rivers and mountains, or lean into their strengths.

One problem seems that they don't quite seem strong enough to defend themselves, I know I wouldn't prefer them to march over and stomp me every other game, however, I've found too often when I want to lean into befriending & supporting them, that even in exploration they get wiped out in too great numbers.
I suppose ti ties back into the CPU intelligence, but I wouldn't mind seeing some really well constructed, settlements, that prioritize development, resources, food, and structures.
I love that IP are not trying to win the game, but I love for them to thrive, to have more than a single settlement. coridnate with each other to ensure their survival. Have unique improvements units and buildings, heck you could even take them from civs that aren't in the match.

I'd love if that initial influence investment helps determine which will grow and which wont, and after you get the first pop of rewards, you can continue to support them to take advantage of additional bonuses that keep rolling in to you, or whose influence can be flipped through various means (Defending them during wars, supporting mini endeavors of theirs)

Ideally we want a mix of traditional barbarian hostiles that exist to get in your way and for you to train your commanders on, small settlements you can annex peacefully or forcefully and , strong well grown city states and mini nations which you can interact with, set against your enemies.