Is there a reason the AI are particularly aggressive against city states?

[BackseatTyrant]

I don't have enough fingers on my hand to count games where my allied civs didn't just declare war against city states I had suzerain-ship over, but downright sacked them. In many cases, the leaders even had the "city state protectorate" agenda. So, what's going on here? Is the AI deliberately tuned to hate city states as a difficulty and/or historical accuracy measure?

 

[kaspergm]

Can't give the exact details, but I think it comes from the general way the AI is programmed: If the AI is military very superior to another civ - which probably also applies to city states - it will consider a military assault. So I think it's simply a question of city states having too few units because of their limited territory. I don't think the AI takes diplomatic relations to suzerain into account at all, nor does it target city states particularly to limit your progress.

 

[MrRadar]

I don't think the AI takes diplomatic relations to suzerain into account at all, nor does it target city states particularly to limit your progress.

I would not be so sure about the aspect of Suzerainty. I had quite a few examples, when a distant (to me) CS was living happily under the Suzerainty of a big neighbouring AI civ, and as soon as I overturned their Suzerainty there and made sure I stayed the Suzerain from that point on, the former Suzerain AI would just declare war on that CS before too long and take it or even raze it. It happened enough times for me to change my ways: nowadays I tend to take control only of those CS that I can defend, meaning those closer to me or with an easy access. If you take control of a distant CS that you can't easily defend, you just paint a big red target on it for the AI.

Overall, I find the aspects of AI aggressiveness towards city states quite realistic. AI is showing "tall players" their place in history In the beginning they seek to have just another city in their empire, and the more cities, the better. Afterwards they seem to dislike if anyone upsets things in their spheres of influence: "if I can't have it, neither can you" - this is very plausible.

I would only have more diplomatic options at hand, for example, issue a warning to an ally or declared friend: leave my little friend alone or this alliance or DOF is terminated early.

 

[Linklite]

I would not be so sure about the aspect of Suzerainty. I had quite a few examples, when a distant (to me) CS was living happily under the Suzerainty of a big neighbouring AI civ, and as soon as I overturned their Suzerainty there and made sure I stayed the Suzerain from that point on, the former Suzerain AI would just declare war on that CS before too long and take it or even raze it. It happened enough times for me to change my ways: nowadays I tend to take control only of those CS that I can defend, meaning those closer to me or with an easy access. If you take control of a distant CS that you can't easily defend, you just paint a big red target on it for the AI.

Overall, I find the aspects of AI aggressiveness towards city states quite realistic. AI is showing "tall players" their place in history In the beginning they seek to have just another city in their empire, and the more cities, the better. Afterwards they seem to dislike if anyone upsets things in their spheres of influence: "if I can't have it, neither can you" - this is very plausible

This matches my observations as well - if I gain Suzerainty over a CS that isn't close to me, the AI is far more likely to attack it. I play TSL quite often as a European or Asian civ, and La Venta and Buenos Aires are often DoW'd, most games in fact. Probably about 80% of the time, it's after I've gained Suzerainty, despite having lots of time before get cartography so I can actually meet them. Wrestling away Suzerainty from an AI definitely seems to be a prompt for a DoW on the CS in question.

The only beef I have with it, beyond my lack of options to prevent it (particularly if it's my ally or friend), is their propensity to raze them. Barb Clans is an option so it can resurrect, but then I either have to pick which CSs are present (I like not knowing who or what is out there) or have the map spammed with CSs. Also, it doesn't work on TSL, or at least not the Standard TSL Earth. Something to do with the fact they predefined the CSs I think.

 

[The Civs 6]

It's kind of frustrating, but it feels like good balance for playing the city state life. Like, if you had a juicy city state halfway across the world, you should have to deal with the fact that a rival can just swoop in and blow it up.

 

[bbufa]

99% off my paceful games turned into domination ones after AI razed my favorited CS. Some CS have huge impact on empire (ex Auskland vs water map). I hope there is a mod to make CS un-raze-able as they were in civ5

 

[playshogi]

I don't have enough fingers on my hand to count games where my allied civs didn't just declare war against city states I had suzerain-ship over, but downright sacked them. In many cases, the leaders even had the "city state protectorate" agenda. So, what's going on here? Is the AI deliberately tuned to hate city states as a difficulty and/or historical accuracy measure?

The AI "knows" it can't beat you, so it beats up on itself.

 

[HiRezAudio]

The worst part of this behaviour is that if an AI attacks a CS you are Suzerain of, there is no option to demand they cease & desist or else!
The diplomatic options are not fit for purpose

 

[The Civs 6]

99% off my paceful games turned into domination ones after AI razed my favorited CS. Some CS have huge impact on empire (ex Auskland vs water map). I hope there is a mod to make CS un-raze-able as they were in civ5

 

[kaspergm]

This matches my observations as well - if I gain Suzerainty over a CS that isn't close to me, the AI is far more likely to attack it. I play TSL quite often as a European or Asian civ, and La Venta and Buenos Aires are often DoW'd, most games in fact. Probably about 80% of the time, it's after I've gained Suzerainty, despite having lots of time before get cartography so I can actually meet them. Wrestling away Suzerainty from an AI definitely seems to be a prompt for a DoW on the CS in question.

The only beef I have with it, beyond my lack of options to prevent it (particularly if it's my ally or friend), is their propensity to raze them. Barb Clans is an option so it can resurrect, but then I either have to pick which CSs are present (I like not knowing who or what is out there) or have the map spammed with CSs. Also, it doesn't work on TSL, or at least not the Standard TSL Earth. Something to do with the fact they predefined the CSs I think.

Yes ok, maybe my wording was bad, what I ment was: The AI will not be more or less inclined to attack a city state that you are suzerain of based on the diplomatic relationship between you and the AI - i.e. your AI ally will happily attack a city state that you are suzarain of.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

Another thing I just realized, is that maybe the AI is declaring war on nearby city-states, because the AIs are by default wide/expansive, and aim to raze/conquer any nearby foreign cities if they happen to block their only patch of settleable land

 

[Socrates99]

Anybody ever thought we may be irrationally non aggressive towards CSs? Logically speaking, if there's a CS you'll never suzeraine and only get minor benefit from, it only makes sense to neutralize this probable threat on your borders. Jerusalem is a great example. If I'm a non founder I'll take it out any time it's on my borders. The diplomatic penalty is pretty small in the early game so even when I'm a non warmonger it doesn't really hurt.

When a player is hyper aggressive about spending envoys in a far off CS and the AI calculates that it will never be its suzeraine it kind of makes sense to get a new city while wiping out a number of opponent envoys. One more city in your empire and the player loses suzeraine bonuses. Win win.

 

[PiR]

Agree, and this is historically OK to have CS conquered/attacked a lot. The only thing is you can only resurrect them if they have not been razed.

 

[bbufa]

Jerusalem is a great example.

Except the fact that Jerusalem was not razed to dust. Capturing CS is OK since there would be emergency/ casus belli as a reaction to a "crime", razing CS completely negates consequences. When an ally/ declared friend attacks and razes your suzerain CS, you can not break alliance to help the CS.

 

[Socrates99]

Except the fact that Jerusalem was not razed to dust. Capturing CS is OK since there would be emergency/ casus belli as a reaction to a "crime", razing CS completely negates consequences. When an ally/ declared friend attacks and razes your suzerain CS, you can not break alliance to help the CS.

Yeah, allies shouldn't behave like that. Although IRL the US has kind of dealt with that with the Turks and Kurds. Of course IRL there's actions you could take in game there isn't. That should be fixed.

I did say penalties are minimal for capturing. Razing is another ballgame. Players can either swallow pride and accept the loss or view the aggressor as a warmonger like any AI would and skip renewing alliance when it comes up.

I get it. Shaka razed Rapa Nui in a CV I was playing a few games ago. Its frustrating. At the same time hurting player strategy is kinda what they're supposed to do. This is criticizing them for doing something people constantly complain they dont do, challenge the player.

 

[Alaindor]

At the same time hurting player strategy is kinda what they're supposed to do. This is criticizing them for doing something people constantly complain they dont do, challenge the player.

Exactly! Too many people complain about the AI being too weak, and at the same time are frustrated when the AI hinders their progress

 

[uhu]

at the same time

Perhaps we should resolve the timescale a bit more.
Eg executing class tests you see a suspicious flipping of interests: before the test all pupils want it to be easy in order to increase their chances to succeed -- after the test all pupils want it to be difficult in order to document their heroic deeds.

 

[Alaindor]

Well, I was referring to the expression in these forums, where I read both tendencies (sometimes from the same people).

 

[uhu]

Oh, really? And I thought, some players like to see themselves as heroes, who demand strong enemies before the battle in order to increase their glory even more afterwards -- while in* the battle dislike the situation actually being hard.
Everyone is inferior to themself.

* (after in case they don't quit)

 

[HiRezAudio]

Exactly! Too many people complain about the AI being too weak, and at the same time are frustrated when the AI hinders their progress

It's not the act that irritates me - I understand this - it is the abysmal lack of any diplomatic options that bugs me.
At the very least there should be a dialogue that allows me to tell my alleged 'ally' to cease & desist & leave my CS the eff alone!
They would of course be at liberty to tell me to go take a hike, and then deal with the consequences of their actions.
Diplomacy in Civ6 is a bad joke and not fit for purpose, but hey - the devs add stuff like Vampires & Zombies, so who cares if they don't fix the bugs.