Nerf AI conquering City States?

[MaximusPlatypus]

It's super annoying. Why put in a gameplay mechanic of CS diplomacy/suzerainty, only to have it rendered moot in the first 20 turns. It's out of control.

 

[iammaxhailme]

I agree. But it's good if you're Australia, Georgia, or Scotland!

 

[drubell]

Agreed. I'm not opposed to the AI starting with extra units at higher difficulties because it makes it that much harder for the player to just steamroll during Ancient Era, but I do oppose this ridiculous AI priority going on where the AI will use their extra starting units to just take over every darn city-state in the world.

 

[EEE_BOY]

agree, I like an old map back in CiV when most city states are placed on islands and major civs are in a big or two land masses.

 

[Ferocitus]

It's super annoying. Why put in a gameplay mechanic of CS diplomacy/suzerainty, only to have it rendered moot in the first 20 turns. It's out of control.

Asking for an immediate nerf is a cop out. Just play on a lower
level until you develop strategies and tactics to counter it.

 

[drubell]

Asking for an immediate nerf is a cop out. Just play on a lower
level until you develop strategies and tactics to counter it.

What exactly are you suggesting is the "strategic counter" to the AI capturing over 80% of the city-states in the game in the first 20 turns? And no, "liberating them later" is not a reasonable answer.

It's not fun and removes a system that clearly had a lot of resources spent into it.

 

[Uberfrog]

Does this depend on which AIs are in your game? I don't think city state extinction is as inevitable as many people are making out. In my first R&F game (Emperor, Continents, standard speed), a few CS bit the bullet but there were plenty still in play even to the end of the game. Mapuche even liberated Kumasi.

 

[Kyro]

Asking for an immediate nerf is a cop out. Just play on a lower
level until you develop strategies and tactics to counter it.

So it is the player's responsibility that most City States are destroyed early? Pray tell me how you stop such a situation without going all out militarily; and how does that advocate the fact that war should not be the best solution for everything in Civ 6?

 

[Tech Osen]

Does this depend on which AIs are in your game? I don't think city state extinction is as inevitable as many people are making out. In my first R&F game (Emperor, Continents, standard speed), a few CS bit the bullet but there were plenty still in play even to the end of the game. Mapuche even liberated Kumasi.

Don't think it depends on which AI are in but I also noticed that my games since R&F at least half of them are gone pretty fast. Most of them before I ever met them.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Its so odd. In my game, only 1 City State has been conquered. All others are intact.

 

[Athmos]

Yes it's quite common that most of them (75%) are eradicated during the classical age. You might as well conquer or ignore city states completely, apart from emergencies.

edit : at least it is that way in deity

 

[Kurnn]

I have noticed that citystates doesn't always keep a unit fortified in the city when its under siege. That should almost be mandatory.
I dont mind the new change, but I would like to see some upgrade to how citystates protecting themselves. They do get a lot of units if they stay alive long though. Thats fine.

AI doesn't seam to raze city states, so this isn't a huge problem IMO. Liberation doesn't only grant you the city state back, but also a reduction in warmonger.
I don't have any good suggestion myself how to make city states better though. But I don't see the update THAT bad.

 

[Ferocitus]

So it is the player's responsibility that most City States are destroyed early? Pray tell me how you stop such a situation without going all out militarily; and how does that advocate the fact that war should not be the best solution for everything in Civ 6?

Liberate them and reap the reward, or don't - your choice.
If you want to play without military action then you will have to come
up with something better than hoping Genghis is nerfed into a Quaker.

 

[SirViss]

I haven't used it yet but this mod might help: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1130568132&searchtext=city+states

I heard it helps a lot.

 

[Kurnn]

Also regarding Citystates gets attacked early. Getting another city with some pop and maybe a building is very powerful in the start. You also ruin other civs bonuses from it, not just yours. So it makes perfect sense that the AI goes for city states, even if I think they should be able to defend a little better.

 

[Kurnn]

I haven't used it yet but this mod might help: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1130568132&searchtext=city+states

I heard it helps a lot.

That's a great mod for helping the city states! Thanks for posting it.
I can imagine this mod makes it almost impossible for the AI to take any city state though

 

[Mojo85]

The mod city states start with ancient walls is a godsend. It completely eliminates early conquering city states so they actually are involved in the game

They still will take them later in the game but after he game is properly established and everyone has a chance to interact with them however they choose

 

[Ferocitus]

What exactly are you suggesting is the "strategic counter" to the AI capturing over 80% of the city-states in the game in the first 20 turns? And no, "liberating them later" is not a reasonable answer.

Tough luck for you then because you'll have to think of something better.
I like liberating them, or even taking (for example) religious city-states
I have no use for.

It's not fun and removes a system that clearly had a lot of resources spent into it.

Not fun for you, but fun for me. Why should Civ be nerfed to make it
easier for war shy players? If they choose an ahistoric path, they need
to find their own way, not have their (blood-free) hands held.

 

[StrideColossus]

The argument that players should be less war-shy and liberate conquered city-states is completely facile - the change in the AI behaviour just removes a major game mechanic, at least until later in the game when they can be liberated.
It's completely illogical for (most) AI players to conquer city-states and remove any bonuses they provide, especially when they get so many settlers and other leg-ups in the early game.
Obviously some AI should be very aggressive, no problem with that (I'm a war-monger by temperament ), but in just about every game the city-states are getting decimated - the devs might as well remove them altogether as things stand.

 

[Kurnn]

For those who don't like that AI attacks a city state, you could defend them. Warmonger isn't an issue in ancient and hardly even in classic.

I don't really understand why this change poses any bigger problem? Not all city states gets conquered, just like not all civs gets conquered early, but some do. Why shouldn't a civ attack another city to get it for themselves? Every player does that.