1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

The city states will be missed thread

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Alexey86, Mar 11, 2014.

  1. Alexey86

    Alexey86 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    Messages:
    79
    Since we are looking forward for a Civ6, I hope many fans of the series realize that there are biggish chances for the next civ entry not to include the city states gameplay mechanic. Either eliminate the idea for good or their return in first expansion just like they did with religion or espionaje for bigger sales. Religion and espionage were really important in Civ4 and they left it out in next vanilla, so they could do it again. However I wonder if they could do that and later on bring them back in ,since city-states are pretty important in the overall coding. Also they left out the random events wich were pretty fun. So its not like they improve each game but keeping a lot of content from previous games, they do make some radical changes and some features will be missed.

    What do you think, are they an absolute must to return? Would it be pretty dull without them? How would you improve their mechanic?

    IMO they 100% should return with added features.
     
  2. CraigMak

    CraigMak The Borg

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,058
    I would like to see them not return. I feel that they just dilute the game with free junk to help weak players. Free tribute gold, free worker steal, free pantheon, free food/culture/faith/units for being their allies.

    Spending the game becoming allies with city states is way too strong and effective for what it is. Voting really made being their allies imbalanced beyond belief. The game should be about skill, not getting free crap from imbalanced mechanics in the game.

    I also absolutely hate how they are always in the way and can't be razed. Although I did see a city state raze another city state once in an FFA. That was interesting.

    IMO they should not return.
     
  3. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,020
    City-states should definitely remain, but should be much more than static barb camps that offer freebies, which is pretty much what they are now. They make the diplomatic game dynamic to a degree, but I don't dispute the above point that their diplomatic influence is too great. There's a lot of missed potential for linking them to the ideology system, for example, and they work very well with the espionage mechanics.

    Realistically, I'd say that there's very nearly zero chance that they will be missing from Civ VI at release - they've proven a popular way to namecheck countries that aren't likely to make it into the game as civs but which have a large playerbase (such as Australia, Canada and Malaysia, to name the three represented by the largest number of CSes - also they're the best way to represent the Phoenicians, often requested as a civ, and other requested civs like Tibet that are excluded as full civs for various reasons), and quite a few cities significant enough historically to warrant inclusion in the game that don't fit into civs (again, the Phoenician city of Tyre being a prime example).

    Also, religion and espionage were much less integral to the Civ IV code than city-states to Civ V - espionage in its final form was itself a Civ IV expansion addition, and religion was just a spreadable happiness resource that unlocked certain buildings; codewise it was tacked on and so straightforward to remove.

    Though it's possible Civ VI will re-add Kiev to the Russian city list...
     
  4. TheMarshmallowBear

    TheMarshmallowBear Benelovent Chieftain of the BearKingdom

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2006
    Messages:
    7,289
    Location:
    Inside an Ikanda.
    If a pattern is to be observed then Civ 6 might be nothing more than a revamp of Civ 5.

    Which means City States are likely to be included.

    Quite frankly, they add a spice to the game, they just need to be given a bigger role and more autonomy than just being cannon-fodders.
     
  5. reddishrecue

    reddishrecue Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009
    Messages:
    5,225
    Gender:
    Male
    City states have been there for awhile, I have no idea why you guys are planning to take them out. Why should city states be removed and how can city states be improved? If there aren't any city states then how could diplomacy victory change when the city states no longer exist?
     
  6. mrwho

    mrwho Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    Messages:
    342
    It's not free. It usually costs you gold. Yes, City States give you bonuses. So does everything in Civ V. What makes City-States 'dilute the game with free junk to help weak players' but makes social policies not like this? One costs culture, the other costs gold or a city state quest.
     
  7. TheMarshmallowBear

    TheMarshmallowBear Benelovent Chieftain of the BearKingdom

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2006
    Messages:
    7,289
    Location:
    Inside an Ikanda.
    We're talking about Civ 6 and the possibility of them not being present in the game.
     
  8. White Out

    White Out Prince

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    358
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Calgary
    I typically keep city states off. no loss for me. I find them to be annoying and diplomatic victory with a city state seems so.. cheesy
     
  9. LoneRebel

    LoneRebel Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,257
    Location:
    Distinguished and Ever Loyal City
    City-states are a way to include countries that didn't make it (not yet at least) as civs. That can only be a good thing.

    In addition, the game's more realistic with them around. The real world isn't just 8 or 12 or even 22 massive space-filling empires. The real world has almost 200 countries. CS help to replicate that partially.

    I say keep city-states.
     
  10. j51

    j51 Blue Star Cadet

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,041
    Location:
    Ping Island
    Replace city states with minor civs! Basically city states that can found more than one city. Also, maps should hold way more cities in general to accommodate such a change.
     
  11. CraigMak

    CraigMak The Borg

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,058
    When you demand tribute the gold is free, when you steal a worker the worker is free, when you become allies by doing random stuff they want you to do you become their ally basically for free. Giving them your gold is the least efficient means of winning their loyalty.

    Comparing free stuff that CS give you to adopting policies is absolute failure.
     
  12. CraigMak

    CraigMak The Borg

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,058
    100% agree. CS are annoying and diplo victory is the stupidest victory in the game. Most people turn that victory condition off.
     
  13. dashwinner

    dashwinner Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2010
    Messages:
    318
    Personally I would like them to stay, and I wouldn't see why the devs would choose to remove them. Hoewever, I agree that there is a lot of unused potential with CSs. They should have a much larger role in diplomacy, ideologies, religion, etc. Right now they just don't feel alive. They don't seem like they really have a role in the progression of the game, and seeing a CS raze a (non capital) city they capture due to some silly happiness mechanic is stupid. They should be much more dynamic, wether founding a religion, having a voice in diplomacy, expansion, etc.

    I guess a lot of it is due to the limitations imposed by the current code, but the idea of minor civs, or breakaways from empires, seems very interesting. Like I said, a lot of unsued potential with CSs, there are many threads on this subject already.
     
  14. caiman0815

    caiman0815 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2013
    Messages:
    75
    Location:
    Vienna
    Nice idea for CS in future would be a possibility for them to switch into major empires, becoming an AI Civ.
    Say, there is the CS Rio de Janeiro, and if certain conditions are met, they switch into the empire of Brazil. Of course, the CS of Rio can only be in the game if Brazil is not.
    Every Civ could then have associated CS, which can be in the game if the correspondending Civ is not.

    Examples for CS that switch into a CIV:

    Rio --> Brazil
    Vienna --> Austria
    Berlin --> Germany
    Dublin --> Celts
    Amsterdam --> Netherlands

    and so on.

    Conditions to switch into a civ:

    - Conquering enemy cities
    - Consecutive empty space near them --> build settler and found second city
    - Elimination of an AI Civ
    - Eliminating a certain amount of enemy units
    - Being target of an certain amount of Trade routes from a certain amount of Civs
    ...
     
  15. Teproc

    Teproc King

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2013
    Messages:
    835
    Location:
    Lyon, France
    Demanding tribute is not free, you need a big army and it needs to be close to them. On higher difficulties, it is practically impossible to do it.

    Stealing a worker isn't free either. Declaring war to a CS is a pretty relevant diplo hit with every civ, especially if they pledged to prect the CS in question, and it also prevents you from eve declaring war to another CS in the game (unless you want perma -20 with everyone).

    Doing random stuff they want to do, by definition, is not free. You have to modify your play to fulfill the quests. Sure, sometimes they ask for stuff you want anyway, but that's not the majority of the cases.

    If you find keeping CS allies too easy, you should move up in difficulty. It's really not that easy unless you're playing Alexander.
     
  16. Juanholio

    Juanholio Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    166
    I quite like this idea of them developing. I personally think CSs are far too static throughout the game. The history of civilisation as we know it moved from city states to nations and in some cases on to empires. I liked how in Civ-gone-by how civs knocked out early could be replaced with a new spawning civ.

    I think close ally CSs should somehow assimilate to their nearest allies over time so there are fewer left in the endgame.

    I also think there is some room for some major tweakage; I agree they add something to the game but the consequences for declaring war and capturing one are far too draconian since the AI does excatly the same thing with no apparent problem. It's seems odd that it is far less of a problem to attack (and annihilate your nearest neighbour than it it to conquer one CS).

    For example one game I played peaceably the only exception being a CS worker steal. A couple of thousand years later I was greeted by hostile civ as a warmonger even though they themselves had captured two city states and neighbours cities. Another game I totally annihilated my neighbour raizing one and keeping two cities including their capital. I was friends with everyone else for the whole game and with all but one even with differing ideologies (the rest of the world hated that one civ). This seems kinda strange to me.
     
  17. beetle

    beetle Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Messages:
    5,815
    Location:
    Frederick, MD
    If you are not playing with CS then you are not playing the game as envisioned by the developers. I don’t disagree with much of the criticism, but it is one of the bigger changed mechanics from IV. Just the CS quest aspect alone warrant their inclusion, as it gives the player additional (and optional) activities. It is quite improbable to make a game more engaging by turning off features. It is possible that you are interacting with the CS in an unusual or sub-optimal way that is decreasing your enjoyment of the game, rather than adding to it.

    FTFY
     
  18. Teproc

    Teproc King

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2013
    Messages:
    835
    Location:
    Lyon, France
    It is extremely unlikely that CS will be gone in Civ VI. They arrived in Civ V and were largely well-received, and Civ VI is likely to be similar to Civ V in many ways (as IV was to III, and II to I).

    I quite like CSes, but I do agree that their implementation could be a lot better. Seeing how they improve (hopefully) is one of my big expectations for CiVI.
     
  19. Alexey86

    Alexey86 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    Messages:
    79
    Agree.
     
  20. GoStu

    GoStu King

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2013
    Messages:
    656
    Location:
    Calgary
    I don't think they're going anywhere, and I'm glad. I rather like the city-states. There's only a few things I'd change about them, namely coups, pledges to protect, and the insane amount of hate you get for harming them.

    Coups are more of a problem with espionage, but their 'sacred' status is obnoxious. What if I'm playing as Spain and need the natural wonder, or all the good coastal locations are being hogged? You can basically kiss your ass goodbye diplomatically if you ever hurt one. The whole city-states grow wary mechanic is bull as well: that haunts you with faster influence decay until the end of time.

    Pledging to protect has never worked properly in my opinion. It's totally backwards: one pledges to protect every city state you meet just for 5 influence, but pledging to protect a long-term ally does nothing?
     

Share This Page