Nerf AI conquering City States?

[Eliminator_Sr]

It's quite possible to strategize for it, but the only meaningful interaction is now war, either to protect or to liberate. Since you cannot deter AI from attacking (they can't even easily consider suzerain military might before declaring, as suzerain might change any time), your only option will be to declare war before the AI take the CS (and take all warmongering penalties even if you don't take any cities), or liberate it afterward, in which case all envoys will have been reset.

So basically the whole envoy game disappears. Unless you are already all around a city state and can physically prevent its conquest (you'll have to close borders), it makes no sense to invest any envoys since you can loose them any time. I don't know what changed to make the AI so much more aggressive toward them (I'd say Deity AI usually took one city state close to them before R&F, on average).

No it doesn't - it's just more challenging. You now have to think twice before pumping 6 envoys into that science CS on another continent. If you want to sink a lot of envoys into a CS then you better be prepared to defend it. Personally I don't see that much of a difference from Vanilla. When I played Deity there, CS always fell fairly regularly too. I think the developers probably made a conscious adjustment to deprive players of envoy bonuses or make them tougher to acquire and maintain. I think it adds a bit of a new dynamic to the envoy game - is it worth pumping some early envoys into a city state for a temporary bonus knowing you are likely to lose it at some point?

 

[steveg700]

Early CS conquering is a good and efficient strategy to sky rocket a Civ development, it should stay as it is now. Maybe decrease it a little in the lower difficulty levels but that's all.

It's absolutely not a problem, there are always a lot of 'surviving' CS, and the new loyalty system make them revive very often by themselves.

That chickenhaking CS's is a cheap way to walk the bases to victory is not a compelling reason to put away the nerf bat. It's the reason to whip it out. You're not telling us it isn't a problem because it isn't an exploit. Rather, it seems you're just telling you want the game to have an exploit.

Calling City States a reward rather than a given game feature is probably the most silly thing I've heard this week.

I dunno, "liberate them, or protect them from being taken or retaken again' is no prize either. And it's repeated glibly over the course of several pages. As the game currently stands, the protection route would mean constantly declaring wars on civ's non-stop. Declare a war, liberate, declare a war with the next civ that attacks, and the next and next, occasionally declaring peace. You'd be in a near-constant state of war just to protect a city-state because the behavior we're talking about is extremely prevalent. It's a much bigger hassle than that invested in treating the CS's as freebie cities to gobble up. There is a prima facie imbalance in investment/reward.

is it worth pumping some early envoys into a city state for a temporary bonus knowing you are likely to lose it at some point?

The answer is no. No, it's not--unless you are planning to be at war non-stop. So much for dynamic.

 

[Eliminator_Sr]

No, thatt's clearly not worth the investment. So much for dynamic.

First - envoys aren't that hard to come by so if you lose them it's not that big of a deal. I believe you get 3 envoys back when you liberate so if you lose that many envoys you recover them and just lose out on the bonus while it's occupied. Lastly, you often get era points for liberating and establishing suzerainty so there's that on top of the temporary bonus which can be pretty huge early. Seems pretty worth it to me.

On the other hand, I definitely wouldn't object to them applying the same unit bonus to a CS that the AI civs get on higher difficulties to even the playing field. That makes sense to me although then you would have people complaining that they get too many units when an AI declares war and their suzerain CS mobs them.

 

[Athmos]

The game can be hard on higher dificulties

No it doesn't - it's just more challenging. You now have to think twice before pumping 6 envoys into that science CS on another continent. If you want to sink a lot of envoys into a CS then you better be prepared to defend it. Personally I don't see that much of a difference from Vanilla. When I played Deity there, CS always fell fairly regularly too. I think the developers probably made a conscious adjustment to deprive players of envoy bonuses or make them tougher to acquire and maintain. I think it adds a bit of a new dynamic to the envoy game - is it worth pumping some early envoys into a city state for a temporary bonus knowing you are likely to lose it at some point?

You don't have to think twice before sending six envoys to a city state on another continent, you don't have to think at all. It's not worth it. You can't protect city states, you can't have diplomatic alliances with them. You can only liberate a posteriori, in which case your envoys don't matter anyway.
I guess you can create a wall of units around one ? but frankly If I have enough units do to that I'm probably already well on my way to a domination victory, City states or not. Let's face it, in the present state, city states are little more than free cities.

And you get just as many envoys BTW, a little more even with some additional wonders. They just don't have much of a purpose.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If people want to play a game where they get bonuses from CS then let them do
something for those advantages. Why should CS give you bonuses just for being
you? Liberate them, or protect them from being taken or retaken again, or from
flipping, and earn the bonus.

That's not a coherent response to what was quoted. OP's solution is misguided, but the problem has otherwise been cleanly presented in the thread already.

 

[Ferocitus]

I dunno, "liberate them, or protect them from being taken or retaken again' is no prize either. It's repeated glibly over the course of several pages that I just don't see reason prevailing. As the game currently stands, the protection route would mean constantly declaring wars on civ's non-stop. Declare a war, liberate, declare a war with the next civ that attacks, and the next and next, occasionally declaring peace. You'd be in a near-constant state of war just to protect a city-state because the behavior we're talking about is extremely prevalent.

What's wrong with near-constant war against other civs over CS? If it's not the
style you prefer, then there are mods that add city walls, or that give CS extra
units. Those mods were created to avoid or temper the very issues you presented.

Asking for the base game to be changed is just special pleading, as of course is
arguing for it to remain the same, or pointing out that mods are another avenue
to get the game you want.

 

[steveg700]

First - envoys aren't that hard to come by so if you lose them it's not that big of a deal. I believe you get 3 envoys back when you liberate so if you lose that many envoys you recover them and just lose out on the bonus while it's occupied. Lastly, you often get era points for liberating and establishing suzerainty so there's that on top of the temporary bonus which can be pretty huge early. Seems pretty worth it to me.

Envoys aren't easy to come by. They are pretty well allocated in fixed amounts. You may get a fair amount over the course of the game, but that's nothing to do with the hassle of losing them. You may need to spend many to maintain suzerainty, but you can also lose them if you aren't willing to constantly go to war over them. In fact, if you don't want the enjoys to get killed, you usually have to forego casus belli and be the warmonger.

As I've said a couple times already, this is such prevalent behavior in the game now that the flippant attitude about going to war to liberate or protect them is way too glib. If it was a sporadic occurrence, driven by different AI personalities, agendas, and strategies, that would be one thing. But you can sit there in the early eras and just see the "Defeated!" icon coming up every turn. And that's because attacking a CS isn't balanced with appropriate mechanisms for protecting them. Can't send them units as in Civ V, and you can't declare yourself their protector, giving the AI reason to treat attacking that CS as seriously as they would DOW'ing you.

I, for one, am not saying the AI should never attack CS's. The AI needs to assign proper weight to its actions, and it's simply not right now.

What's wrong with near-constant war against other civs over CS?.

Does anyone else want to field this one?

Actually, I think TMIT and others already kinda have.

 

[Ferocitus]

Does anyone else want to field this one?

Treat it as rhetorical. There's no wrong or right answer, only
opinion and personal preference.

 

[Athmos]

There are also situations with more or less possible choices, which is not quite a matter of opinion. In game design, it's called player agency.

 

[Ferocitus]

I, for one, am not saying the AI should never attack CS's. The AI needs to assign proper weight to its actions, and it's simply not right now.

Yes it is. If you don't agree, use the mod. What's wrong with that?

There are also situations with more or less possible choices, which is not quite a matter of opinion. In game design, it's called player agency.

And in Civ you have a variety of mods that increase your choices so
you can play in ways that don't affect the way the game runs for other
people with different preferences.

 

[isau]

My Combined Tweaks mod gives Palaces the effects of walls, effectively making the capital city and all city states fortified. I wrote that feature for Vanilla, not R&F but I'm mostly pleased with what I've been seeing. The AI will occasionally take City States, but usually not until the Classical or early Medeival era at earliest. A few more, located away from where I can defend them, fall later in the game but thats actually intelligent of the AI.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Does anyone else want to field this one?

Actually, I think TMIT and others already kinda have.

It's a red herring question, especially if you consider "kinds of wars". Fighting over them in some capacity is and should be a design goal, since they are a resource. The balance of how that resource is used and how easily it is accessed (by both AI and player) is what's really in question.

Either this argument is too uncontroversial or too challenging to address so it's not really getting much weight despite that it's central to the "are civs conquering city states too easily" question.

 

[KandAffar]

Yes it is. If you don't agree, use the mod. What's wrong with that?

It seems like that would make the game too easy. Giving the CS walls or more units might not stop the AI from attacking CS, it would just make them fail when they try. That gives the player an advantage because the AI will waste resources.

"Nerf" was the wrong word to use in the thread title, it should be "modify AI decisions regarding how they utilize CS to reduce mass CS conquest."

 

[steveg700]

Treat it as rhetorical. There's no wrong or right answer, only
opinion and personal preference.

Comes across more equivocal than rhetorical, as it tries to treat the concept of subjectivity as if it meant the same thing as "arbitrary". In any field of design, there are indeed objective standards. That is why if you study art, music, or game design, you start with a class in appreciation, so the student can get past personal likes and dislikes. Opinions can have variable weight based on how well they are supported. That is why some people's have successful careers as critics. That is why a teacher can grade an art project. Every opinion is not simply an expression of preference on the level "I don't like onions" or "my favorite color is green".

Game theorists actually have a pretty good understanding of what makes for enjoyable game design and what doesn't. The behavior we are talking about is degenerative gameplay, what happens risks aren't balanced against rewards, actions aren't balanced against consequences.

 

[KandAffar]

And in Civ you have a variety of mods that increase your choices so
you can play in ways that don't affect the way the game runs for other
people with different preferences.

Just because a mod can improve something doesn't mean the base game shouldn't also consider improvements.

 

[steveg700]

"Nerf" was the wrong word to use in the thread title, it should be "modify AI decisions regarding how they utilize CS to reduce mass CS conquest."

The problem is, there's a dichotomy between behavior that is reasonable and behavior that will garner a response. If you want your post to have more than a page or two, a hot-button word "nerf" goes a longer way than a cogent argument. And that dichotomy can hit you at some level when you're about to hit the "post topic" button.

Ask for an explanation about something, and people are usually like "not worth my time". Say something critical on the topic instead, and wait for people to dazzle you with their acumen.

 

[KandAffar]

The problem is, there's a dichotomy between behavior that is reasonable and behavior that will garner a response. If you want your post to have more than a page or two, a hot-button word "nerf" goes a longer way than a cogent argument. And that dichotomy can hit you at some level when you're about to hit the "post topic" button.

Ask for an explanation about something, and people are usually like "not worth my time". Say something critical on the topic instead, and wait for people to dazzle you with their acumen.

A good point. To be honest, I don't have a problem with the word Nerf here. In context of the post, it seemed clear it was a request for a change to improve the ability to use the CS system designed, not a complaint that the game is too hard because the AI steal my CS bonuses.

Certain people, however, argued that the poster should just play on a lower difficulty level, so I thought I would point out the requested change doesn't necessarily affect difficulty.

 

[Thormodr]

I think that the AI should definitely aggressively conquer City States on Diety. It’s got all those extra military units so it should look to conquer. If the player doesn’t like it, tough. Diety should be a near impossible challenge.

On Prince/King, only the more warlike Civs should be aggressive towards City States. There should be a balance so that the player, depending on what Civ they are playing, should be able to liberate City States or play the City State game.

So, IMHO, AI aggression towards City States should scale with difficulty level.

 

[Josephias]

Does anyone else want to field this one?

Actually, I think TMIT and others already kinda have.

But actually, being at costant state of war about a city state is something that has happened IRL and makes city state positioning a great factor. Say 20th century europe, you're playing England and look on Armagh and Brussels as city states you want to care for (maybe Vilnus and Stockolm also). Well, Armagh won't present a problem, as you are "protecting" it, but you (well, your ally Teddy), will need to liberate Brussels twice, due to it being a sweet spot for first step of Barbarossa attacking CdM. -- Until Brussels gets fed-up and invents something called EU to get Germans and French make peace (and they will still fight over over Brussels loyalty ).

Main point: liberate and Protect. keep them away from enemies that try to conquer them. a buferr area concering some of your enemy's cities if you need it. Otherwise, you are exposing your ally to someone you know will prey on him.

Only thing I think the game fails to do is not considering an Alliance is broken if your Ally attacks a city state you're suzerain of.

 

[MaximusPlatypus]

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

I don't find this to be an acceptable answer. as many posters have pointed out since you posted. I hope this gets back to Firaxis. I don't think this is an intended mechanic, hence my objection.

Good thread, everyone. Lots of reasonable opinions expressed.