Nerf AI conquering City States?
- Thread starter MaximusPlatypus
- Start date
historix69
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 1,412
Didn't some of the Great Greek Wars and the wars between Rome and Carthage arose from quarrels about influence in city states?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponnesian_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punic_Wars
historix69
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 1,412
City States with an Empire ...
Spoiler :
City States with an Empire ...
Spoiler :
Yes yes I know, I was just remarking for myself that both these empires were still named after their capital (a city), and I felt like pointing it out.
I mean, in reality anyway there's a continuum from City to State, and anyway the modern "nation" idea, where citizens actually have loyalties is a very very recent thing (starting with the industrial revolution).
So historical references to argue on one or both sides of a game mechanics discussion feels very artificial and pointless to me.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,902
It’s pretty simple, everyone complains about the lack of AI attacking and so the soup them up to attack, of course they are going to take city states. This happens more on higher levels because the AI starts with more troops.
There does not seem to be many dissenters to the idea of CS having walls, it seems an alegant solution.
You could get the AI to ignore CS but that feels wrong, it would work though. Another option may be start the CS with as many troops as the AI civs.
There does not seem to be many dissenters to the idea of CS having walls, it seems an alegant solution.
You could get the AI to ignore CS but that feels wrong, it would work though. Another option may be start the CS with as many troops as the AI civs.
Personally, I think giving them more troops sound better than straight-up walls; It's easier to scale with difficulty level, and it doesn't make Germany's bonus against CS as pointless.
I agree that It wouldn't feel right to just hard code some pacifism in.
historix69
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 1,412
Map space is limited. A CS usually has only 7 - 19 tiles (1-2 rings) . Some of them are usually blocked by water or mountains, so there is a tight limit. The more troops a CS has, the more difficult to maneuver (traffic jam). Maybe a combination of start with walls / priority to build walls and a buff for defending own territory would be good, so they do not need to crowd the map with more troops.
There is also already a mod which gives city states more units. It doesn't really help because the ai civs just unit spam and take them anyway. Walls probably won't help either, but worth a shot. Unfortunately I think firaxis is going to have to break down and actually code something so civs see reasons to keep city states around ...
Draco84
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2011
- Messages
- 244
My problem with city states isn't so much that they are taken out early, it's that when you liberate them, they are going to get immediately destroyed again, their tech does not advance with time while they are out of the game. I would prefer they came back with the same strength as barbs, or the max strength that city ever had (between it's conquerors), having a city go from 100 defence to 20 in the modern era seems a little strange, did they learn nothing working for their captors all those years?
There is also the point that taking out a city state is usually the correct move to make strategically, it's one of the few things the AI does well. If the AI doesn't care about faith, why keep Yerevan and risk them turning on you and helping your enemy instead of taking their city and boosting your own culture and science?
There is also the point that taking out a city state is usually the correct move to make strategically, it's one of the few things the AI does well. If the AI doesn't care about faith, why keep Yerevan and risk them turning on you and helping your enemy instead of taking their city and boosting your own culture and science?
isau
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2007
- Messages
- 3,071
City States don't even necessarily need real walls. Just add some minor fortification from Palaces themselves. One line of code. Then all players start with walls and a weak city attack and a little bit of defense. Not enough to ward off a hardcore attack but sufficient to survive a bit longer. The only downside to doing it this way is when the AI loses an existing capital and the Palace reappears elsewhere, the new city gains fortification from it, but I don't really consider this an issue since anything else related to Capitals also transfers to the new city.
I understand why in Civ 6 Firaxis didn't want Civ 5's well-defended-cities-only-capturable-by-ranged-units back like they had in Civ 5. But IMO they went too far with it and made capitals too vulnerable. It messes up the early game balance IMO.
I understand why in Civ 6 Firaxis didn't want Civ 5's well-defended-cities-only-capturable-by-ranged-units back like they had in Civ 5. But IMO they went too far with it and made capitals too vulnerable. It messes up the early game balance IMO.
Deadly Dog
Prince
I'm waiting a bit longer before complaining about losing CS too early. Like a few others in this thread I've been trying out turning this to my advantage for managing warmongering penalties. Certainly, in the early eras you don't need an emergency triggered to declare war...just denounce and formal war or even surprise war, take the cities you want and liberate CS to offset the warmongering.
I suspect a liberation emergency takes more than just one player having suzerainship. The other civs invited have to have contact with the CS, I'm pretty sure, and probably have invested envoys or Armani maybe? A trade route?
I've had 2 CS liberation emergencies in 2 games, neither occured before the renaissance and neither was the first CS to be conquered.
I suspect a liberation emergency takes more than just one player having suzerainship. The other civs invited have to have contact with the CS, I'm pretty sure, and probably have invested envoys or Armani maybe? A trade route?
I've had 2 CS liberation emergencies in 2 games, neither occured before the renaissance and neither was the first CS to be conquered.
Rome and Carthage had a tug of war over Syracuse on the island of Sicily, yes.
Lily_Lancer
Deity
For players, conquering a city-state early if you have enough troop is a good option.
So why shouldn't AI do that?
So why shouldn't AI do that?
Agreed. Humans may know what victory condition they will go for right from the start and are astute at judging things immediately. So, the human player may take out Religious City States if they are planning not to work with faith.
The AI, not so much. I would think the AI doesn’t immediately choose a victory condition right away but kind of defaults to domination. Maybe not immediately attacking the player or another AI but by building a large empire quickly. Part of building a large empire quickly is gobbling up City States. It’s smart behaviour by the AI.
The trouble if you get the AI to have pre-set victory conditions they will strive for (eg Mongol AI always domination, Netherlands AI always culture, Scotland always science) is that it becomes predictable and stale. Also, the human player can exploit that knowledge.
Just a thought, anyway.
Lily_Lancer
Deity
In Rise and Fall due to CS bonus change, I guess even taking an early science city-state may be helpful to victory. All other CSs are of course to be taken rather than suzerain if you can take them.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
That ignores the point and is a disingenuous response given the discussion.
Walls or same starting units as other AIs (w/o settlers), either would work. I like the units because they can scale with difficulty just like the AIs.
Lily_Lancer
Deity
Ais are also players, they have their right to make their strategies and follow their path to win (although their approach are silly).
Capturing CSs definitely helps everyone to win and is a common strategy. Why can't AIs do that?
If you think that's not to your favor you can try to defend or liberate CSs instead of complaining. Of course Ais don't have to play in your favor.
Capturing CSs definitely helps everyone to win and is a common strategy. Why can't AIs do that?
If you think that's not to your favor you can try to defend or liberate CSs instead of complaining. Of course Ais don't have to play in your favor.
No, capturing CS's doesn't "definitely" help everyone to win. No, nobody's actually contending that the AI shouldn't be able to attack CS's. No, the reason people complain isn't simply that it's "not to their favor". No, declaring war on every AI civ that attacks a CS is not an ideal solution. Read at least some of the thread.
Sorry to not provide you with the reasons why your statements are fallacious here, but if you'd read at least some of the thread--even just the last few pages--you'd have run across counter-arguments and examples multiple times by now. Go take a look. Go tell me why Lataro should be attacking Yerevan. You are asking questions that have already been answered many times as you misuse words like "definitely" and "of course".
Bottom line: the behavior is too rampant for its own good, and very often does nothing to advance the AI's own ends, and commits the gravest gameplay crime of all: it leads to degenerate strategy.
Last edited:
Lily_Lancer
Deity
1: I never played game to be T230, except for the GOTM T250 score ones. And I see a lot of people reporting weird bugs after T200 like game not working or so( I myself also experienced that in my only post-200 game.), I guess every bug is expectable if you play that late game.
2: Given your situation attacking Yerevan is beneficial. I see no point not attacking it if I am Lautaro.
Similar threads
