Liberating conquered Civs

[Emperor Giulio]

Prior to the latest patch, I was playing a successful game as Rome where I was in a winning position. It was different from how I usually play because I took up Liberty and Freedom. I controlled and entire continent with the exception of the City-States. Mongolia was causing a lot of trouble on the other continent, conquering city-states and whole civs. So I constructed a powerful army of modern armors and invaded successfully. I had liberated all of the city-states he controlled, turning them into my allies. But when I occupied a former capital of Siam, I liberated it, resurrecting the Siamese empire. Initially Siam was “emotionless” but shortly after (just one turn I think) he became guarded and was upset by my army. I took the rest of the cities that used to belong to him and gave it back to him. Later I went on to liberate Babylon, again “guarded” like Siam. I went on to undo all of the conquests that Mongolia had achieved, redrawing the map status quo ante bellum. However, it was kind of pointless; but it shouldn't be IMO.

Now, my point is, shouldn’t these new liberated civs be more thankful towards me for resurrecting them from the grave? This would have been a perfect situation for the creation of a Vassal State, like in Civ 4. If it was so in Civ 5, an incentive to “liberating” these conquered civs would be a sure-fire UN vote. That and a permanent subordinate ally.

I hope some developers are reading this, because this would be a pretty cool idea, and would give a Diplomatic victory oriented player an incentive to build an army to secure the balance of power in the world so they may become secretary general.

 

[noncognosco]

A liberated civ does give you an automatic UN vote. So does a liberated CS. This is regardless of what their status is toward you at the time. Even if they are Hostile, they will still vote for you.

 

[Emperor Giulio]

Really?

well I'd still like to see vassals come back

 

[EasyBee]

This happened to me too! I didn't to anything but free them, and they were quick to become hostile and stayed that way! It was Monty though...

 

[Emperor Giulio]

This happened to me too! I didn't to anything but free them, and they were quick to become hostile and stayed that way! It was Monty though...

Both Babylon and Siam where guarded at me initially. I think it would make more sense that they would be friendly, since the new gov't installed would be chosen by the liberator . Moreover, there should be a 10 turn grace period to remove your army from their land. I can see a hostile sentiment grow over time if troops remain.

I would like to trade with reborn civs, It seems odd that this unmerited hostility prevents this.

 

[bryanw1995]

Post patch now if they are in a mutual war with you against mongolia you'll get tons of diplo bonuses from killing off mongol units. If that's not enough you can give them some favorable trades/etc.

 

[bcaiko]

Prior to the latest patch, I was playing a successful game as Rome where I was in a winning position. It was different from how I usually play because I took up Liberty and Freedom. I controlled and entire continent with the exception of the City-States. Mongolia was causing a lot of trouble on the other continent, conquering city-states and whole civs. So I constructed a powerful army of modern armors and invaded successfully. I had liberated all of the city-states he controlled, turning them into my allies. But when I occupied a former capital of Siam, I liberated it, resurrecting the Siamese empire. Initially Siam was “emotionless” but shortly after (just one turn I think) he became guarded and was upset by my army. I took the rest of the cities that used to belong to him and gave it back to him. Later I went on to liberate Babylon, again “guarded” like Siam. I went on to undo all of the conquests that Mongolia had achieved, redrawing the map status quo ante bellum. However, it was kind of pointless; but it shouldn't be IMO.

Now, my point is, shouldn’t these new liberated civs be more thankful towards me for resurrecting them from the grave?

I agree with you, but to give a real life example: France.

 

[Palaiologos2]

Ok, how exactly do liberations of civs work? In some pre-patch games i was given an option to "liberate" cities back to their original AI living owner when i captured them. I just finished a game, winning a cultural victory, but nothing of the sort happened. I intervened at wars between other AI trying to keep the balance of power, but i ended up trading cities back, without the liberation diplo bonus. Capitols and normal cities.
And as i recall now in a pre patch game when i liberated a dead civ he didn't appear on the diplomacy list.

 

[KaiserKevin]

I still think the liberated bastards should be a little more grateful, two times I remember I did it they DoW on me whilst still fighting the people that conquered them in the first place >_> Haven't done it since.

 

[TPQ]

People always bang on about the UN vote, as if it really matters that much. By the time the UN arrives you should have oodles of cash and/or pretty much all the non-hostile city states in your back pocket anyway, so that one vote doesn't really matter much most of the time.

What I want to see is a green bullet point positive modifier saying something along the lines of "You liberated our city/s", or "You gave us back our independence" or "You rescued our Civilization from extinction". The positive modifier could be very big but degrade slowly over time, or be moderate and stay fixed for the rest of the game.

It's not against the spirit of "the AI plays to win" to have them like you if you resurrect them, as at that point they'd already lost anyway, so liberating them should make them more friendly towards you.