PC Games N article

[Aussie_Lurker]

On resources, they are a bonus of either production of gold as said on the packet but agree they are worthless from a CS and they have some potential for improvement.

What I think can be vastly improved is CS because they ARE a power house to civs currently and once you have envoys they are there for good beyond direct war.

Having them more protected early on will limit the silly snowball we get with players steamrolling any victory condition.

These CS have more value now you cannot make peace with them immediately and they can be a pain but their troops do need to be kept up to date more to make them scarier.

I believe if you declare war on a civ that is suze of a CS you should have all your envoys kicked out, it's too cosy at the moment and makes later wars potentially more costly. Equally having an ally CS with up to date troops makes it worth taking them over with gold during war. People just do not bother currently.

Adding political intrigue into them as well as another distinction for spies has great potential also.

A CS having an vote in a late game UN style mechanism we all know gives additional interest.

I would like to see bribes come back also, a reason to harvest that crab and copper in times of need.

Giving CS a government type and personality could also be of use.

I guess the main argument against all of the above is the game gets more complex.

I would love to see resources-especially bonus ones-provide economy wide benefits beyond whatever they currently produce. Something that makes having multiple copies of a certain resource beneficial, beyond their benefits in inter-civ trade or military unit production. Like having horses create a culture & gold bonus to cities that have stables and arenas, or copper producing bonus gold for markets & banks-& bonus production for workshops & factories......just as an example.

Maybe have a range of new buildings, around the Middle Ages onwards that can generate various bonuses based on the number of a specific resource you have.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

On resources, they are a bonus of either production of gold as said on the packet but agree they are worthless from a CS and they have some potential for improvement.

What I think can be vastly improved is CS because they ARE a power house to civs currently and once you have envoys they are there for good beyond direct war.

Having them more protected early on will limit the silly snowball we get with players steamrolling any victory condition.

These CS have more value now you cannot make peace with them immediately and they can be a pain but their troops do need to be kept up to date more to make them scarier.

I believe if you declare war on a civ that is suze of a CS you should have all your envoys kicked out, it's too cosy at the moment and makes later wars potentially more costly. Equally having an ally CS with up to date troops makes it worth taking them over with gold during war. People just do not bother currently.

Adding political intrigue into them as well as another distinction for spies has great potential also.

A CS having an vote in a late game UN style mechanism we all know gives additional interest.

I would like to see bribes come back also, a reason to harvest that crab and copper in times of need.

Giving CS a government type and personality could also be of use.

I guess the main argument against all of the above is the game gets more complex.

Yep, I think we are all in agreement re: City State Diplomacy. Placed envoys should decay if you ignore the CS you placed them in, in which case we would need more ways in which to interact with them. Giving them a preferred government (per era) & Religion would certainly help, as would an ability to gift units, build infrastructure for them & offer them protection from Major Civs & Aggressive CS's. Bring back bullying, give the CS's the ability to build much more than their speciality district (even to the point of building Wonders) & bring back the ability to use Espionage to add envoys to CS's and/or reduce another Civ's envoys.

 

[nzcamel]

God, I hope they really do this. It's a great irony of the game that it (sort of) models human history, and yet becomes its most stagnant and repetitive right when actual human history became the most volatile and exciting. Revolutions, global wars, social upheaval, religious reformations, population explosions, technological and scientific leaps that boggled the minds of the people leading them. Starting around the Renaissance, this game needs to get shot out of a cannon with a rocket shoved up its

Most of these things won't happen because they are the equivalent of a dark age - "unfun" alledgedly. So is there a golden age equivalent...?

I believe if you declare war on a civ that is suze of a CS you should have all your envoys kicked out, it's too cosy at the moment and makes later wars potentially more costly. Equally having an ally CS with up to date troops makes it worth taking them over with gold during war. People just do not bother currently.

But not if they suddenly change suzerain and declare war on you. A lot of effort can very unrealistically be burnt up that way.

 

[kaspergm]

But not if they suddenly change suzerain and declare war on you. A lot of effort can very unrealistically be burnt up that way.

I think Victorias idea would work as long as it only applied if you were the aggressor. I.e. if I snatch city state A from you and then I DoW you, you won't lose envoys, but if you DoW me, then you will lose your envoys. Otherwise it would be super easy to exploit.

I also think there needs to be other ways to earn envoys in late game. I know we have a "Gunboat Diplomacy" policy card, but there's really not much Gunboat Diplomacy about it. This was something I really liked in BnW, how you could actually intimidate city states to influence through military presence.

 

[nzcamel]

I think Victorias idea would work as long as it only applied if you were the aggressor. I.e. if I snatch city state A from you and then I DoW you, you won't lose envoys, but if you DoW me, then you will lose your envoys. Otherwise it would be super easy to exploit.

Still a degree of exploitableness about that. I'm not sure that envoys should ever be lost in wars between Civs.

I also think there needs to be other ways to earn envoys in late game. I know we have a "Gunboat Diplomacy" policy card, but there's really not much Gunboat Diplomacy about it. This was something I really liked in BnW, how you could actually intimidate city states to influence through military presence.

Yeah, good idea.