Taking Over City States

[Brew God]

Hello Fellow Die Hard Civ V Fans:

I am sure this question and thread has been discussed before so Mods please move this if needed.

Are there beneficial reasons for taking over City States in the game. I for one try to bribe them the best I can to gain culture or resources like horses or gems or etc. Is this usually the best way to deal with City States...work on requests which they want and then give a gift to gain resources from them.

Any thoughts would be great.

Yes playing Gods and Kings with all the updated expansion packs and maps.

Brew God

 

[ixias]

Taking over a City State is almost never a good thing. The diplomacy hit with other Civilizations is pretty severe and usually sticks around for the entire game. The only time I would ever take over a City State is if I'm at war with a Civilization they're allied with (and they're in a strategic place). I actually don't remember the last game I've taken over a City State just because of how annoying it makes the rest of the game. Perpetual denouncements, bad trade deals, random wars, etc.

 

[joncnunn]

About the only time I take over city states is when playing Austria / Venice (Marrying them and buying them), exactly due to the diplomatic penalties mentioned by above poster.

 

[Sagax]

I'm Spain and the City-State has a delicious Natural Wonder within its territory. To me this is the only case when a hostile take-over could be somewhat justified.

Shedding a single tear toward Mongolia's UA.

 

[MattZed]

I'd say the circumstances where it's a good idea to take a city-state are pretty rare.

I'll list a few where I think it would be a good idea to take a city-state:

1. You're Venice/Austria. (and it's a city worth having)
2. You're Spain, and the city-state has a good natural wonder
3. You're Assyria, and you need some techs (BNW, but worth noting)
4. You're Arabia, and the city-state has some nice luxuries
5. You're preparing to go to war with a major civ that is allied to the city state (easier to take it now than to fight the major civ at the same time)
6. The city-state has strategic resources (i.e. Coal, Uranium) you'd like, and you can't reliably ally the city-state (if they're allied to Greece on a high difficulty, for instance)
7. Everyone hates you, and you have a lot of happiness (can't lose friends you don't have)
8. The city-state has a world wonder (someone else conquered the city-state, built a wonder in it, and now it's up for the taking)
9. Another civ is about to take the city-state, (or buy/marry it) and you can't afford for them to have it (you'll take a warmonger hit, but at least the other civ won't get the territory or luxuries you just acquired)
10. You're at war with the city-state's ally, and it's not feasible to ignore the city-state
11. It's nearly the end of the game, and you want some extra score

EDIT:
12. The city-state is allied to a civ that you don't want to have votes in the World Congress. (such as going for a diplomatic victory, BNW only)

 

[Sturmgewher88mm]

I'd say the circumstances where it's a good idea to take a city-state are pretty rare.

I'll list a few where I think it would be a good idea to take a city-state:

1. You're Venice/Austria. (and it's a city worth having)
2. You're Spain, and the city-state has a good natural wonder
3. You're Assyria, and you need some techs (BNW, but worth noting)
4. You're Arabia, and the city-state has some nice luxuries
5. You're preparing to go to war with a major civ that is allied to the city state (easier to take it now than to fight the major civ at the same time)
6. The city-state has strategic resources (i.e. Coal, Uranium) you'd like, and you can't reliably ally the city-state (if they're allied to Greece on a high difficulty, for instance)
7. Everyone hates you, and you have a lot of happiness (can't lose friends you don't have)
8. The city-state has a world wonder (someone else conquered the city-state, built a wonder in it, and now it's up for the taking)
9. Another civ is about to take the city-state, (or buy/marry it) and you can't afford for them to have it (you'll take a warmonger hit, but at least the other civ won't get the territory or luxuries you just acquired)
10. You're at war with the city-state's ally, and it's not feasible to ignore the city-state
11. It's nearly the end of the game, and you want some extra score

I'll add another one:

If another civ is trying for a Diplomatic Victory, take away his "extra votes".

 

[LoneRebel]

What Sturmgewehr said.

Despite the diplomatic consequences, sometimes limiting a colossal annoyance like Alex is priority number one. I still prefer it if one of the others does it, that way Alex gets gimped without me having to do anything.

However, the way I see it, conquering city-states is less beneficial now than it was before (if indeed it ever was). Maintaining the affection of city-states is easier now than in vanilla thanks to the variety of quests they offer, even for civs that are not seeking the diplomatic victory. Add to that the aforementioned diplomatic consequences and it really looks like a bad idea.

The problem with conquering city-states is that conquering CSs angers both civs and other CSs, while conquering civs only angers other civs. CSs don't give a damn what you do to other civs, unless they happen to be allied to that civ.

And there is no victory condition that involves conquering city-states. You're supposed to conquer the capitals of other civs, not city-states. That means there's even less incentive to attack CSs. "Attack civs, get along with city-states" seems to be the meta nowadays, especially if you're Germany.

I think an added side effect of this is that Mongolia is effectively nerfed, since their UA revolves around attacking city-states.

 

[Sturmgewher88mm]

What Sturmgewehr said.

Despite the diplomatic consequences, sometimes limiting a colossal annoyance like Alex is priority number one. I still prefer it if one of the others does it, that way Alex gets gimped without me having to do anything.

However, the way I see it, conquering city-states is less beneficial now than it was before (if indeed it ever was). Maintaining the affection of city-states is easier now than in vanilla thanks to the variety of quests they offer, even for civs that are not seeking the diplomatic victory. Add to that the aforementioned diplomatic consequences and it really looks like a bad idea.

The problem with conquering city-states is that conquering CSs angers both civs and other CSs, while conquering civs only angers other civs. CSs don't give a damn what you do to other civs, unless they happen to be allied to that civ.

And there is no victory condition that involves conquering city-states. You're supposed to conquer the capitals of other civs, not city-states. That means there's even less incentive to attack CSs. "Attack civs, get along with city-states" seems to be the meta nowadays, especially if you're Germany.

I think an added side effect of this is that Mongolia is effectively nerfed, since their UA revolves around attacking city-states.

You make some good points, and I think CSs need a nerf. Take away the concept of "City States" and replace them with "Minor Civs". They act like CSs, but they're aggressive towards other MCs, especially if their neighbor is allied with a different civ. They should also add diplomacy in addition to the influence system, so you have to enter diplomacy to become allies. Add a domination requirement that you have to be influential with half of all MCs. Then take away the warmonger penalty for capturing a MC city IF you immediately turn it over to a MC ally, where they pay you somehow. Oh and change the "protect" action to require diplomacy.

 

[Koiranputki]

I'm Spain and the City-State has a delicious Natural Wonder within its territory. To me this is the only case when a hostile take-over could be somewhat justified.

Shedding a single tear toward Mongolia's UA.

Yes...in my current game I did just that....A nearby city state had the only reasonable access to both Great Barrier Reef tiles.... So I captured it, something I rarely do, but it seemed to make sense this time.

[Aside: I noticed something interesting before capturing the city state. I was allied with this particular city state...returning workers...capturing Barbarian camps...the usual. Then all of a sudden I was given 1000 G when the city state grabbed a sea tile and exposed the GBR....I had no units nearby to actually see it for myself, but because I was an ally I got the credit for the discovery....I hadn't realized the game mechanic worked this way. Another reason to consider allying some city states....you may get credit for some natural wonder lurking in the fog nearby.....]

But, wow, it has turned into one of my most interesting games in a long time.

The closest AI is India and, well, it didn't take long before I was denounced...which I expected, and although I was building up my military anyway....to eventually grab wonder-stuffed Delhi..... Gandhi DOW'd before I really expected it. And sent a G&K-type swarm of units towards Madrid.

And something that hasn't happened to me for a while... I lost my capital... But Gandhi couldn't hold it. I got it back about three turns later. I also managed to capture his second city, Mumbai...and proceeded to raze it, but could only hold it for about five or six turns, then he took it back.

I thought of "rage-quitting"... But actually this has turned into a rather riveting game..... I have a feeling that I will eventually prevail and capture Delhi and then maybe win a cultural victory, but it's still too early to tell... He DOW'd again, though gave me a reasonable peace settlement ...some GPT... Hey, there is still something disconcerting about being DOW'd by Gandhi, isn't there?

I don't think I've ever been "put on the ropes" quite so badly since starting with BNW and I kind of want to see if I can pull an eventual win out this mess.... Oh yes...I'm playing this out at the Emperor level...

And, yeah, a tear for Mongolia...when I play as the Mongols now, I'm finding that if you are going to be a warmonger...and why else would you be playing as Ghenghis, it seems rather than capturing the city states you want to be able to buy them off as allies to get the luxuries...happiness seems to be in short supply in the Mongol Empire.

 

[MattZed]

I'll add another one:

If another civ is trying for a Diplomatic Victory, take away his "extra votes".

Didn't occur for me to list that, but it's definitely a situation where you'd like to conquer a city-state.

What Sturmgewehr said.

Despite the diplomatic consequences, sometimes limiting a colossal annoyance like Alex is priority number one. I still prefer it if one of the others does it, that way Alex gets gimped without me having to do anything.

However, the way I see it, conquering city-states is less beneficial now than it was before (if indeed it ever was). Maintaining the affection of city-states is easier now than in vanilla thanks to the variety of quests they offer, even for civs that are not seeking the diplomatic victory. Add to that the aforementioned diplomatic consequences and it really looks like a bad idea.

The problem with conquering city-states is that conquering CSs angers both civs and other CSs, while conquering civs only angers other civs. CSs don't give a damn what you do to other civs, unless they happen to be allied to that civ.

And there is no victory condition that involves conquering city-states. You're supposed to conquer the capitals of other civs, not city-states. That means there's even less incentive to attack CSs. "Attack civs, get along with city-states" seems to be the meta nowadays, especially if you're Germany.

I think an added side effect of this is that Mongolia is effectively nerfed, since their UA revolves around attacking city-states.

There's also no victory condition that involves religion, yet it's generally a good idea to get one. In short, conquering city-states is a tactic, not a strategy; it's something you use to support your long-term plans, especially if you're Assyria or Spain.

I agree that there has been a shift toward befriending city-states since Vanilla. (for instance, you're not asked to conquer them anymore) That's technically a nerf toward Mongolia, but to be fair, it's widely held that Mongolia's UA was weak to begin with; if you gave Mongolia Keshiks AND a good UA, they'd be OP.

 

[sendos]

I'd say the circumstances where it's a good idea to take a city-state are pretty rare.

I'll list a few where I think it would be a good idea to take a city-state:

1. You're Venice/Austria. (and it's a city worth having)
2. You're Spain, and the city-state has a good natural wonder
3. You're Assyria, and you need some techs (BNW, but worth noting)
4. You're Arabia, and the city-state has some nice luxuries
5. You're preparing to go to war with a major civ that is allied to the city state (easier to take it now than to fight the major civ at the same time)
6. The city-state has strategic resources (i.e. Coal, Uranium) you'd like, and you can't reliably ally the city-state (if they're allied to Greece on a high difficulty, for instance)
7. Everyone hates you, and you have a lot of happiness (can't lose friends you don't have)
8. The city-state has a world wonder (someone else conquered the city-state, built a wonder in it, and now it's up for the taking)
9. Another civ is about to take the city-state, (or buy/marry it) and you can't afford for them to have it (you'll take a warmonger hit, but at least the other civ won't get the territory or luxuries you just acquired)
10. You're at war with the city-state's ally, and it's not feasible to ignore the city-state
11. It's nearly the end of the game, and you want some extra score

EDIT:
12. The city-state is allied to a civ that you don't want to have votes in the World Congress. (such as going for a diplomatic victory, BNW only)

Hold on. With point 3, can someone verify that? I thought it only applied to capturing civ cities not CS'. As for point 4, I would capture a CS as Arabia if they happened to have more than 1 copy of the same luxury resource. Then again, it would mean lots of denouncements.

 

[MattZed]

Hold on. With point 3, can someone verify that? I thought it only applied to capturing civ cities not CS'. As for point 4, I would capture a CS as Arabia if they happened to have more than 1 copy of the same luxury resource. Then again, it would mean lots of denouncements.

I personally haven't done it since I don't play Assyria very much, but I believe so. I recall an episode of PolyCast where they were discussing Assyria strategies, and it was brought up as a way to gain techs easily.

Sources verifying that it works:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=509317
http://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/1lkks1/

 

[Pietato]

This is what usually gets Genghis ganged up on.