Nerf AI conquering City States?

[PeterChu]

Technically, I deal with this problem with just a simple mod, free wall for city-state. With this, few (almost none) of the city-states on the map got destroyed. To keep city-states alive and well seems of importance for semi-passive builders such as me. "Tall‘ strategies tends to relying on city-states to provide bonuses of various kinds in mid- and late- games. If so, it could be argued to keep city-states away is essential for those pursuing the optimal performance under 'wide' strategies, AI or not.

On the other hand, in one of my recent games with R&F expansion, one city-state ( a military one) was capable of razing two cities nearby and settled by the AI civs that declared wars on me, just by its own force. It was of course good for me, since I could get two cities razed without suffering any warmonger penalty. These two cities were without walls at that moment, which made them easy targets for this particular city-state with military power around half of mine. City-states in CIv 6 are always defenseless? Not necessarily.

In short, the R&F expansion seems to encourage AI civs to take city-states on their way to expand. Like many people here, I doubt this is simply intended in order to trigger the CS emergency for human players. But I suspect in mid- or late- game, another contributing factor might be that AI civs are hard to find new lands around without negative loyalty penalty.

 

[steveg700]

So, in essence, you don't want to use mods to make CS harder
to take, or to get the type of game you want. However, you want
to force those who are quite happy with the status quo to use
mods to get what they want, even though they already have it.

Sure, why not?

"Forcing" someone to use a mod, you say? Are you suggesting that having to use a mod is an imposition? Aren't mods to supposed to be the easy, simple, everybody-wins solution to everything? Lends itself to a circular argument nicely.

 

[Ferocitus]

Sure, why not?

"Forcing" someone to use a mod, you say? Are you suggesting that having to use a mod is an imposition? Aren't mods to supposed to be the easy, simple, everybody-wins solution to everything? Lends itself to a circular argument nicely.

No, I'm saying it's unnecessary to make changes to CS vulnerability.
You can use mods now to buff CS if that's what you want.

 

[Question]

How do you buff city states? Like, what file even has the city state stats?

 

[Morgawr]

Wow, I am surprised how long this thread has gone on. IMO it's very simple as well:

- Are you bothered by most CS's getting eaten up by AI (or human) in ancient era on high difficulties?
- NO > play on, don't offend others
- YES > you have choices:
1. Try AI+ mod which makes CS make more units
2. Also try CS have walls mod, which gives CS walls at start
3. If you are against mods or the idea of making CS stronger on par with AI bonuses on higher difficulty, then voice this in suggestions forum and hope Firaxis takes notice and implements in vanilla game

I personally do the AI+ and CS w/ walls mod and it works wonderfully. As people said a portion of CS still get conquered thru the course of the game (as they should), but it's not ridiculous like 80% of them getting wiped out by turn 40. (and to skeptics out there, YES it happens all the time on higher difficulties)

 

[TheMeInTeam]

So, in essence, you don't want to use mods to make CS harder
to take, or to get the type of game you want. However, you want
to force those who are quite happy with the status quo to use
mods to get what they want, even though they already have it.

That position is not consistent with the earlier position of "players should solve this issue with mods". There is no reason one person needing to use mods is worse than another.

Multiple posts on this thread have demonstrated that the "status quo" is an inconsistent implementation that turns an interactive mechanic into a glorified settler stealing race. To this point, there is zero refutation of those arguments...not even a credible effort to address them.

No, I'm saying it's unnecessary to make changes to CS vulnerability.

Repeating arguments does not address points that refute them.

 

[steveg700]

No, I'm saying it's unnecessary to make changes to CS vulnerability.
You can use mods now to buff CS if that's what you want.

A mod doesn't exist that addresses the issue. Just buffing CS's is not a cure for the problem, it's just a mild treatment. The AI is still lending itself to degeneracy, it just has a harder grind. The actual cure is a more systemic resolution that involves not merely buffing CS's, but addressing diplomatic options and AI conditional logic. Basically, it's something that needs to come from developers, not a modder.

Multiple posts on this thread have demonstrated that the "status quo" is an inconsistent implementation that turns an interactive mechanic into a glorified settler stealing race. To this point, there is zero refutation of those arguments...not even a credible effort to address them.

Or to put is more simply, it's not simply a matter of personal preference. If one holds that degenerate strategy is problematic, then objectively the game has an issue with how it handles city states. Nor is there validation simply in pointing out that some people enjoy the status quo. There are always people who resist change because they don't care about the big picture.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

A mod doesn't exist that addresses the issue. Just buffing CS's is not a cure for the problem, it's just a mild treatment. The AI is still lending itself to degeneracy, it just has a harder grind. The actual cure is a more systemic resolution that involves not merely buffing CS's, but addressing diplomatic options and AI conditional logic. Basically, it's something that needs to come from developers, not a modder.


Or to put is more simply, it's not simply a matter of personal preference. If one holds that degenerate strategy is problematic, then objectively the game has an issue with how it handles city states. Nor is there validation simply in pointing out that some people enjoy the status quo. There are always people who resist change because they don't care about the big picture.

Ummm ... isn't holding that degenerate strategy is problematic in itself a personal preference?

Plus I think it requires knowing what game experience the developers intended, or in the absence of such knowledge, forming a personal opinion on their intention.

You guys go ahead and thrash this out. But you lose me when you equate your personal opinions to objectivety. And if you're losing me, you may be losing a part of whatever audience you're trying to convince, because I actually care about game mechanics and the unintended consequences of design choices.

 

[steveg700]

Ummm ... isn't holding that degenerate strategy is problematic in itself a personal preference?

Let's walk through it. Here's the proposition:

If you hold that A is problemtic, then B is objectively an issue that needs to be addressed.

For instance, if you hold that death by suffocation is problematic, then a gas leak in your basement is objectively an issue that needs to be addressed.

Now, if you enjoy death and suffocation (or are simply indifferent to it), then that's your personal preference and you can just forget about the gas leak. Sleep tight. However, a likely consequence is that you then lose credibility with all those folks who find that preference peculiar, or even downright absurd.

Or you can argue that you do not enjoy death by suffocation, but nonetheless contend that leak in your basement is fine, in the absence of a stellar a counter-argument you would seem to be refuting an objective observation.

Similarly, if you care about game design that provides players with a variety of meaningful choices, then degenerate strategy is objectively problematic.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Let's walk through it. Here's the proposition:

If you hold that A is problemtic, then B is objectively an issue that needs to be addressed.

For instance, if you hold that death by suffocation is problematic, then a gas leak in your basement is objectively an issue that needs to be addressed.

Now, if you enjoy death and suffocation, then that's your personal preference and you can just forget about the gas leak. However, you then lose all those folks who find that preference peculiar, or even downright absurd. Or you can argue that you do not enjoy death by suffocation, but nonetheless contend that leak in your basement is fine, you will seem to be refuting an objective observation.

Similarly, if you care about game design that provides players with a variety of meaningful choices, then degenerate strategy is objectively problematic.

You can care about game design that provides players with a variety of meaningful choices, and then discuss whether the AI taking out 80% of city states on Deity is a bad thing or simply a bigger challenge for players on Deity compared to players on King.

I'd like to see the designers address the survivability of city states in the core game, both through better diplomatic options and providing starting walls to city states, but I'm not convinced it's a game breaker for the AI to steamroll early, especially on Deity. The top levels of the Civ series have always offered fewer game play choices than the lower levels, because they require more optimal play in general, and optimal play means fewer choices are going to be "equally good". If developers like the current situation, we'll either have to play it as it is, or find a mod that tunes this aspect of game play to something more to our liking.

My advice - which clearly you don't need to take, but here it is in case you want to mull it over - is don't be so certain about your own opinion that you consider it objective and contrary opinions subjective. I mean, drawing an analogy to preferring suffocation? Come on. Your message will be heard and, I expect, better received and given more consideration, if you simply state why modding is an insufficient solution from your point of view, rather than suggesting that your point of view is the only rational one. End of unsolicited advice.

 

[steveg700]

You can care about game design that provides players with a variety of meaningful choices, and then discuss whether the AI taking out 80% of city states on Deity is a bad thing or simply a bigger challenge for players on Deity compared to players on King.

Well, that's been discussed, just not convincingly. The very contention that the loss of city-states is somehow tantamount to a greater challenge for the player is peculiar in its own right. What is the assumption there? That the AI is so incapable of using the game's resources that city-state suzerain bonuses only benefit the player? That the next-best-thing to the AI using resources competently is it destroying and removing those resources in a pyrrhic fashion? That is kind of where the discussion was left hanging. Have at.

My advice - which clearly you don't need to take, but here it is in case you want to mull it over - is don't be so certain about your own opinion that you consider it objective and contrary opinions subjective. I mean, drawing an analogy to preferring suffocation? Come on. Your message will be heard and, I expect, better received and given more consideration, if you simply state why modding is an insufficient solution from your point of view, rather than suggesting that your point of view is the only rational one.

If I find my logic to be impeccable, I'm going to be certain of its correctness in the absence of impeachment. What I provided wasn't an analogy insomuch as it was an illustration of a logical proposition at work. Although it shares a theme of toxicity, it is more illustrative by virtue of being more extreme. If you are explaining a syllogism to someone, it is both traditional and logical to explain it using variables that are unequivocal (e.g. Man is mortal. Heroditus is a man. Therefore Herodotus is mortal). You do no good explaining a logical proposition using debatable variables, or presenting an argument from a wishy-washy position, other than appeasing people who are peevish towards a tone of certainty. There are situations where concessions are made to the latter, but when people are resistant to reason, niceties grow strained.

The point is, if people collectively hold something to be true (even if that truth is a collective preference), that can lead to axiomatic conditions. There's nothing supercilious about such a statement.

I'd like to see the designers address the survivability of city states in the core game, both through better diplomatic options and providing starting walls to city states, but I'm not convinced it's a game breaker for the AI to steamroll early, especially on Deity. The top levels of the Civ series have always offered fewer game play choices than the lower levels, because they require more optimal play in general, and optimal play means fewer choices are going to be "equally good". If developers like the current situation, we'll either have to play it as it is, or find a mod that tunes this aspect of game play to something more to our liking.

It's not an issue of the developers liking the situation insomuch as an issue of the squeaky wheel getting the oil. Problems get addressed as players raise awareness through the almighty power of complaining. Conversely, devs are content with anything that players are quiet about.

You are right about the utmost difficulty settings being about optimization, and therefore more about exploiting degenerate methodologies. The issue does not seem to be limited to the utmost levels, though.

 

[whacker]

Has this been hotfixed? In my last 2 deity games 10 out of 12 CS survived, without any of them being liberated. After the release of RnF i was happy if 3-4 could make it...

 

[steveg700]

Has this been hotfixed? In my last 2 deity games 10 out of 12 CS survived, without any of them being liberated. After the release of RnF i was happy if 3-4 could make it...

Here's hoping. Map and diff?

 

[whacker]

Standard, continents, deity.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Has this been hotfixed? In my last 2 deity games 10 out of 12 CS survived, without any of them being liberated. After the release of RnF i was happy if 3-4 could make it...

Not that I'm aware of. It's always been random how many survive, it's just that the likelihood of survival appears to have dropped dramatically post R&F, especially at higher difficulty levels. I haven't seen any statistics, though, just anecdotes, with my own observations matching this theme. I recall one game with all but 1 city state surviving in R&F, but I think I was playing that at Emperor, not Deity (standard, continents).

 

[steveg700]

Agreed, I've had games where most CS's survive. They're just outliers.

It's worth observing if in such games there is more direct war against other civ's.

 

[whacker]

It is odd, i wanted to play more peacefully in RnF and after realizing how much gold you get from emergencies and the AI slaugthering all CS, i wanted fall back on warmongering (only to liberate CS ofcourse ) but suddenly they are not interested in capturing CS anymore...

 

[steveg700]

Keep rolling maps and see what becomes normative.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'd like to see the designers address the survivability of city states in the core game, both through better diplomatic options and providing starting walls to city states, but I'm not convinced it's a game breaker for the AI to steamroll early, especially on Deity.

Most of us aren't claiming game-breaker, that's a moved goalpost. From a discussion standpoint your position requires a refutation that this is a degenerate strategy situation or a credible reason this particular degenerate strategy is somehow a good thing in a strategy game.

My advice - which clearly you don't need to take, but here it is in case you want to mull it over - is don't be so certain about your own opinion that you consider it objective and contrary opinions subjective.

That's not what's going on here. After 13 pages where the same arguments from different posters are repeatedly not even addressed, let alone refuted, confidence in their eventual refutation should decrease and confidence in their accuracy should increase.

"It's okay on deity" is a non-argument and given the discussion to this point, intellectually rude.

1. The game crashing makes it harder to win a game. Deity is supposed to be hard, so crashing is okay if it's only happening on deity.
2. AI Poundmaker starting in the Atomic era due to a bug makes it harder to win a game. Deity is supposed to be hard, so Poundmaker starting in the Atomic era is okay on deity.

^ These statements have equal logical value to the case that a degenerate strategy is "okay because it happens on deity and makes it harder (maybe)". What allows us to conclude this case is different from those should be part of the counterargument. In contrast, the argument steveg700 presented is not so easily interchangeable. One must hold that this is not a degenerate strategy situation or demonstrate why less strategy in a strategy game is okay. It is possible to provide evidence for either of those refutations, on the condition that the evidence exists. It's been 13 pages and nobody is even trying. Rejecting an analogous logical proposition out of hand with "come on" is not a credible way to refute the reality that the logical proposition as stated is objective...while the supporting discussion (not argumentative reasoning) for the mechanic as-is subjective.

 

[azmundai]

the mods dont really work, though I havent found the walls one to try out, more units is a very marginal improvement, and really annoying because they generally just clutter movement. City States still get jacked like crazy. They could design a toggle, Aggressive vs City States, or not aggressive vs city states ..

Or they could go with what is obviously more intended to work with civs like germany and go back to less aggressive overall and design in some more secondary traits that are CS aggressive .. to add variety so some games you get germany and a few other aggressive city state hunters, and other games you don't get any of them