Nerf AI conquering City States?

[Thormodr]

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.

Definitely agree on the last paragraph. Perhaps a pledge or protection or a guarantee needs to be implemented to let hostile AIs know that you mean business and friendly ones know not to attack your interests.

 

[KandAffar]

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, be able to liberate City States or play the City State game.

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

A reasonable argument, but wouldn't the game be harder at deity if the AI sent envoys for CS bonuses and then used it's military resources to attack the player instead?

 

[Thormodr]

A reasonable argument, but wouldn't the game be harder at deity if the AI sent envoys for CS bonuses and then used it's military resources to attack the player instead?

In the short term perhaps it would be beneficial to have the city state and attack the player. I think the extra resources gained by having an extra city would be better in the long run.

 

[Josephias]

A reasonable argument, but wouldn't the game be harder at deity if the AI sent envoys for CS bonuses and then used it's military resources to attack the player instead?

Not really, as the CS are at easier reach for the AI players than the player (maybe except for one or two) at the start of the game. Also, I'm not sure if the deity AI gets bonuses to envoy generation, so there is playing at an even field with the player (so better clear it).

Otherwise, if the AI gets bonuses to envoy generation, that's deity play for city states, and you'll be also limited to play the city state game, since you would only be able to focus in a few city states, and be at certain risk of being outperformed by any AI that wants this city state also. You won't be able to get many suzerain benefits that way either (same as you don't get many wonders).

 

[MaximusPlatypus]

I changed the title to have a ? mark. as it suits the tenor of discussion. This topic was meant to spur discussion.

 

[Ferocitus]

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

Quite true, and the devs have said that there will be tweaks and changes
as information and feedback comes in. (There are an enormous number of
aspects that could and should be attended to!)

Specifically though, at this point, Quo's mod fixes the major issue people
in this thread have with AIs and City-States. So why not use that now and
let those who want aggressive AI behaviour play their preferred way?

 

[MaximusPlatypus]

is Quo's mod working? I've disabled all mods until I hear the load order issue was resolved.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

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.

This is not a coherent response to criticisms already made in the thread about what happens on deity.

 

[MaximusPlatypus]

This is not a coherent response to criticisms already made in the thread about what happens on deity.

OT perhaps but Phil are you going to stream anytime again? I always enjoyed them.

 

[Eva-kun]

I have no problem with Germany, with their bonus, conquering all city-states around them. Any other war focus civilization should do the same.

While civilizations that benefit from city-states or focus on peaceful play-style also go around conquering city-states. Doesn't make much sense.

Just wish they AI differ from one another. All of them are setup to conquer city-states likely due to being close to them and much weaker than other civilizations around them. They're all just aggressive by default toward city-states, which should change.

I also hate losing all my envoys when a city-state conquer and get a mere three if you liberate them. AI seems to get an absurd amount of envoy's and will displace you from suzerain status a couple of turns later. City states defense force tends to become very weak as era progress.

 

[Ferocitus]

Comes across more equivocal than rhetorical, as it tries to treat the concept of subjectivity as if it meant the same thing as "arbitrary".

Then you are overlaying your own patina for some reason. Of course each
person would bring in their own biases, opinions and wishes. There's nothing
arbitrary about that. Each person would (in the main) have reasons for why
they would want certain changes.

In any field of design, there are indeed objective standards. That is why if you study art, music, or game design...(snipped)

I know. I studied architecture before I became a mathematician.

Game theorists actually have a pretty good understanding of what makes for enjoyable game design and what doesn't.

Arguable on many grounds, and way off topic unfortunately.

I don't find this to be an acceptable answer. as many posters have pointed out since you posted.

And failed to convince me and others in the thread.

I hope this gets back to Firaxis.

Agreement reached!
They know people haven't had enough time to work through
the kaleidoscope of ways to play the game, and the subtle strategies
available, so they shouldn't be in any hurry to reduce AI aggro towards
CS for quite a while.

I don't think this is an intended mechanic, hence my objection.

It's a good aggressive game now, with a clear alternative in Quo's mod
for those who don't like that style of play, hence my defence.

 

[Japper007]

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.

That is still "quite" completely a matter of of opinion, whether or not a player should have more or less agency is a hotly debated topic within game design... I for instance can easily argue that in a non-sandbox game like higher difficulty civ 6, the player should not have absolute freedom of choice without consequences, some options should not be open to the player without a severe punishment for doing or not doing so.

Don't build an army---> get rushed
Don't want to go to the hassle of getting a Great Prophet early---> miss out on the more powerful religions
Don't want to build an army and liberate city states? --> Don't have City States!

 

[Kyro]

That is still "quite" completely a matter of of opinion, whether or not a player should have more or less agency is a hotly debated topic within game design... I for instance can easily argue that in a non-sandbox game like higher difficulty civ 6, the player should not have absolute freedom of choice without consequences, some options should not be open to the player without a severe punishment for doing or not doing so.

Don't build an army---> get rushed
Don't want to go to the hassle of getting a Great Prophet early---> miss out on the more powerful religions
Don't want to build an army and liberate city states? --> Don't have City States!

Funny how all the warmongering players actually think using Military Force as a solution for everything is actually the measuring stick of whether players "deserve" something or not.

There should be consequences for wrong choices. This is however, not the topic at hand. It is the fact that the every choice that is not a military one is currently a wrong one and people are actually against changing the status quo which is obviously flawed.

Those who claim it is not flawed and blame the problem on players instead have not been able to answer questions that debase their positions completely.

Don't want to restrain from using force all the time? Don't have City State allies because they exist as an archetype of diplomactic play and not to encourage war like some would claim it to be.

 

[Japper007]

Funny how all the warmongering players actually think using Military Force as a solution for everything is actually the measuring stick whether players "deserve" something or not.

There should be consequences for wrong choices. This is however, not the topic at hand. It is the fact that the every choice that is not a military one is currently a wrong one and people are actually against changing the status quo which is obviously flawed.

Those who claim it is not flawed and blame the problem on players instead have not been able to answer questions that debase their positions completely.

Don't want to restraint from using force all the timr? Don't have City State allies because that exists for diplomacy, not to encourage war.

Apart from the Brave New World expansion for civ 5, war has always been a big part of civ games to the point that the other victories often just became a way to expidite an already dominant military position. There is a reason we have dozens of different unit types and a deep counter system while only having a few buildings across the entire game. No title before civ 5 BNW was ever played without warmongering unless the player was deliberately handicapping himself, even in civ 4 a peacefull Builder game was always only a way to reach a certain tech advantage (drafted rifles anyone?) before crushing the AI or other opponents.

I think the fact that civ 5 had such braindead AI that you could happily just Builder your way to victory without even needing more than token defenses, even on Deity, has falsely changed peoples viewpoint that peace had been any more than a variant in previous games (above a certain level of competance at least, of course if you putter around in your sandbox on lower difficulties you can do whatever you want).

The point I and other "warmongerers" (I would just call it efficient players) are making is that an obvious solution to your problem already exists ingame, so why should we unnesessarily nerf the AI to suit players like you who don't want to pursue this option? Should we also give more science to players who don't like building Campuses? After all, shouldn't all "strategies" be equal?

 

[Kyro]

Apart from the Brave New World expansion for civ 5, war has always been a big part of civ games to the point that the other victories often just became a way to expidite an already dominant military position. There is a reason we have dozens of different unit types and a deep counter system while only having a few buildings across the entire game. No title before civ 5 BNW was ever played without warmongering unless the player was deliberately handicapping himself, even in civ 4 a peacefull Builder game was always only a way to reach a certain tech advantage (drafted rifles anyone?) before crushing the AI or other opponents.

Civ 6 is a 4X game and the key difference between a 4X game and a War Game is non-military options to supremacy. That IS the difference and for that difference to be maintained all paths to supremacy must be properly balanced to ensure the diversity of strategies remains viable that is a major selling point of the game. To ignore this balance is to lose the game's identity and enter into direct competition with true war games that ignore all other aspects of civilization other than war. No title before Civ 5 BNW was ever played without warmongering and that's exactly what Civ 5 BNW did right that led to its superior success in attracting builder/peaceful players.

And there are many more non-military exclusive elements in the game than there are military elemnts. Your math was off there.

I think the fact that civ 5 had such braindead AI that you could happily just Builder your way to victory without even needing more than token defenses, even on Deity, has falsely changed peoples viewpoint that peace had been any more than a variant in previous games (above a certain level of competance at least, of course if you putter around in your sandbox on lower difficulties you can do whatever you want).

You speak as if "Builder" players are less skilled than warmongers and are playing a sandbox. Since when has warmongering prowess been the definition of skill and competence? I could just as easily say that you could happily warmonger your way to Victory in Civ 6 without building as much as token infrastructure. What a sandbox way to play.

The point I and other "warmongerers" (I would just call it efficient players) are making is that an obvious solution to your problem already exists ingame, so why should we unnesessarily nerf the AI to suit players like you who don't want to pursue this option? Should we also give more science to players who don't like building Campuses? After all, shouldn't all "strategies" be equal?

And the point we are making is that the title of "efficient" players should not belong to warmonger players alone and as an extension of that the bastion of Diplomatic Play that is City States should not be reduced to a pawn of warmongering play that can be used by such players to belittle others.

Putting "Should we also give more science to players who don't like building Campuses" as an example of "shouldn't all "strategies" be equal" is a childish parody that misrepresents what balance is all about. I.e. Straw man Argument. You know full well what we mean by strategy and not building campuses for a science victory doesn't sound like strategy at all.

Not having to conquer everyone you meet but engaging in peaceful collaboration as a path to Supremacy, that is something that deserves equal placing with conquest as that is the reality that we live in now.

 

[Thormodr]

The idea that no Civ game before Civilization 5: Brave New World was ever played without warmongering is flat out wrong. I won numerous peaceful games in cIV without going to war once. Even in Civ III, I did that. In Civ II, I made ludicrous amounts of $$$ and just bribed whole empires to my side without any military force.

 

[plus]

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.

i tried it it's good only till the classical era and than they fall

 

[Pietato]

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

Stop blindly defending everything Firaxis does.

 

[Athmos]

That is still "quite" completely a matter of of opinion, whether or not a player should have more or less agency is a hotly debated topic within game design... I for instance can easily argue that in a non-sandbox game like higher difficulty civ 6, the player should not have absolute freedom of choice without consequences, some options should not be open to the player without a severe punishment for doing or not doing so.

Don't build an army---> get rushed
Don't want to go to the hassle of getting a Great Prophet early---> miss out on the more powerful religions
Don't want to build an army and liberate city states? --> Don't have City States!

Don't misquote me please. I didn't say that it was a fact that the game should do or offer this and that.
I said it was a fact that the game did offer more or less choices - that is not a matter of opinion.

My opinion is that more choices make for better games, and this is what i hinted at with the second sentence. In particular relation to the discussion at end, the whole envoy game seemed to be included to provide an alternative to conquest as a benefit from city state (I'm not in Ed Beach's head, but it seems quite clear to me). With the various nerfs to city states and the periodic conquest of most of them in most games, the value of that alternative is lessened.

 

[Athmos]

Stop blindly defending everything Firaxis does.

Stop feeding the troll please.

Moderator Action: Calling someone a troll is, itself, trolling under our rules -- that sort of response undermines civility and only escalates the situation. If you have a problem with someone's post, please report it and let us handle it. -- Browd
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889