New City State Info

[Thormodr]

Escorting a spy, an individual or small group that is supposed to go undetected, with a large army seems kind of strange...

But as for whether envoys should be units on the map, I think the main question should be what would be gained by having them be units on the map? They can't fight or interact with the terrain in any way, so is the benefit just so they can be captured?

Well, if they happen to have the Mongols in the game, it could well represent the Mongol Agenda. Ambassaders/envoys were humiliated or executed and that prompted a war where Khwarezmia was destroyed.

Genghis then sent a 500-man caravan of Muslims to establish official trade ties with Khwarezmia. However Inalchuq, the governor of the Khwarezmian city of Otrar, had the members of the caravan that came from Mongolia arrested, claiming that the caravan was a conspiracy against Khwarezmia. It seems unlikely, however, that any members of the trade delegation were spies. Nor does it seem likely that Genghis was trying to provoke a conflict with the Khwarezmid Empire, considering he was still dealing with the Jin in northeastern China.[5]

Genghis Khan then sent a second group of three ambassadors (one Muslim and two Mongols) to meet the shah himself and demand the caravan at Otrar be set free and the governor be handed over for punishment. The shah had both of the Mongols shaved and had the Muslim beheaded before sending them back to Genghis Khan. Muhammad also ordered the personnel of the caravan to be executed. This was seen as a grave affront to the Khan himself, who considered ambassadors "as sacred and inviolable."[7] This led Genghis Khan to attack the Khwarezmian Dynasty. The Mongols crossed the Tien Shan mountains, coming into the Shah's empire in 1219.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_conquest_of_Khwarezmia

 

[bite]

I wonder if they all have unique bonuses or if there is just a type like trade city state bonus etc

 

[Kelvrin]

must we have city states??

 

[Seek]

must we have city states??

Yes! But you don't, just turn them off in the setup screen.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

must we have city states??

Yes. They're fun. And they're quite realistic too, they made them more interesting than simple puppets this time, so we might see some interesting gameplay changes with them.

 

[Acken]

I just hope they dont clig the map as much as civ5

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I just hope they dont clig the map as much as civ5

You can adjust the number of city-states in the advanced options when you setup a game.

 

[player1 fanatic]

Personally, I would more prefer "minor nations" over simple city states. Have them slowly expand up to 3 cities over time.

 

[dexters]

Personally, I would more prefer "minor nations" over simple city states. Have them slowly expand up to 3 cities over time.

Given the map sizes, city-states are the best way to abstract minor Civs, and they are IIRC called Minor Civs as well as city-states.

All they need to do is allow City-States to keep a 2nd or 3rd city if they ever conquer any extra ones like they allowed them to do in vanilla (and maybe G&K-- i don't remember)

The big change with this game is city-states likely having a diplomatic angle whereas in Civ5 they sort of exist in their own bubble.

 

[OnceAKing]

A couple things lept to mind while reading the blog....


Israel not in as someone already mentioned... kind of disappointing.

Adding what will essentially mercenaries adds a really new element to the game that opens up alot of options. For example, if you are a Tall Builder but you have a lot of city state friends... You can save that 1 gpt on each military unit you never built and keep a war chest of money... If you get Dow'ed or decide to dow someone when an opportunity strikes.... You can just buy what are essentially mercenaries to fight for you. The balance is the fact that you would have had to invest in a relationship with these city states and I assume you'd have to march them from their place on the map all the way over to the battlefield. That's a fair trade off.

Also if you go to war with a city state's army. Of course, you can put them in the vanguard of your invasion force so that you don't have to lose your own troops in some bloody situations. Further, it means that if that city state ever turns on you, he has less units to do it with since you sent them on a death mission through that Aztec jungle.

Lastly, this adds a quasi mercenary system to the game. What'd be REALLY interesting is if it's coded in such a way to allow modders to allow certain civs to have mercenary unique units. Imagine being able to play on the same map as a spartan civ and being able to buy his Spartan troops for a price.... That could lead to some misuse though as you may purposely wreck a neighbors army..... could use some tweaking..

ooh oh what if some militaristic civs have special Unique units that every civ REALLY wants to take advantage of their abilities.....

 

[Eklabiaan]

So will the envoys be real units? Which can be send on a mission like a missionary or a great prophet

Or are they virtual like the spies in CiV which have no animation, and exist only in a few dialog screens.
Which I dislike. Spies are to invisible and feel more like a point system than a unit, to me.

 

[stealth_nsk]

So will the envoys be real units? Which can be send on a mission like a missionary or a great prophet

Or are they virtual like the spies in CiV which have no animation, and exist only in a few dialog screens.
Which I dislike. Spies are to invisible and feel more like a point system than a unit, to me.

We don't know, but considering quests are the main source of envoys we, I really doubt they are real units. Making players able to build envoys directly would deteriorate the value of quests, the same as it was in Civ5 with bribing.

 

[Chinese American]

They should make a separate panel for non-military operations which have no business on the map. Especially with the 1UPT rule so they don't clog up the valuable map area. This includes trade routes, spies, and envoys. This way you can view and activate all intercity interactions at a glance while eliminating micromanagement and map clutter.

 

[stealth_nsk]

They should make a separate panel for non-military operations which have no business on the map. Especially with the 1UPT rule so they don't clog up the valuable map area. This includes trade routes, spies, and envoys. This way you can view and activate all intercity interactions at a glance while eliminating micromanagement and map clutter.

Envoys don't belong there, they can't be removed from city-state once gained, so they are just part of relations with city-states and thus should be displayed on city-state list.

Trade routes if they are Civ5-style - yes, But considering Trader is now unit which could actually move through the map, they are likely to work differently.

And we know nearly nothing about espionage. The only thing we know is what in the first 60 turns we don't have Civ4BTS-style espionage output. I really hope for something more connected with the rest of the game than Civ5 espionage.

 

[Thalatta]

The real important question...

...Can we raze them?

 

[stealth_nsk]

The real important question...

...Can we raze them?

Let me put it that way. The city-states need to be designed in way what significant amount of them survive till the end of the game most of the times. To have this they could do:

1. Huge obstacles to conquer city-states.

2. Large obstacles to conquer city-states, huge obstacles to raze them, bonuses for freeing them. Civ5 way.

3. Several ways for new city-states to appear, replacing those conquered/razed.

The third approach is incompatible with city-state uniqueness, so most likely the city-states can't be razed, because the other approach to their survival is to stop conquerors at the step of conquest by things like huge diplomatic penalties.

 

[JtW]

3. Several ways for new city-states to appear, replacing those conquered/razed.

The third approach is incompatible with city-state uniqueness

Not necessarily. If the pool of CSs is large enough, they could spawn new ones throughout the game (e.g., from barbarian camps - if left unchecked long enough.)

 

[stealth_nsk]

Not necessarily. If the pool of CSs is large enough, they could spawn new ones throughout the game (e.g., from barbarian camps - if left unchecked long enough.)

Spawning from barbarian camps is not something what could fullfill the late-game need for city-states. Once the map is filled the main way to get new city-states is from existing cities. The ways I see are something like founding cities as colonies; conquering cities as vassals; losing cities due to riots.

And it would become a little strange to have riot in a city and suddenly it becoming a Jerusalem.

 

[Lord Tirian]

Given the map sizes, city-states are the best way to abstract minor Civs, and they are IIRC called Minor Civs as well as city-states.

Especially given the district system which could arguably represent smaller satellite cities.

One thing I really want to see, though, is more dynamic city states, i.e. have them actually appear during play. For example, if a new continent is discovered, let the coasts be populated with city states over time. If a big empire gets destroyed, maybe have a city or two splinter off after the capital is sacked.

That would not only add a bit of life to them but also make it less necessary to have the Civ5-style aggression of "telepathically linked" city states after taking one or two. If they can re-appear, major civs conquering them has less impact.

CivBE experimented with trade stations that appeared over time - it didn't work very well, but perhaps somebody in the CiVI team looks at that and goes "we can do that better!".

 

[BenZL43]

With cloves being unique to Zanzibar CS, it's almost certainly that Indonesia won't make it to the game.