The failed City States

[AySteve]

The thing that annoys me is that if you do their missions then at some point they all end up wanting one thing, which is for you to destroy another city state. Now sometimes this is fine, but if you are trying to befriend all the city states then it is kind of annoying. The amount of influence you get for doing it is large but it wears off pretty quick, and then you have one more city to control and one less potential city state ally left around. In most of my games they nearly all eventually end up being conquered (and not by me). I dont think that is how it was intended to work

 

[r_rolo1]

The thing that annoys me is that if you do their missions then at some point they all end up wanting one thing, which is for you to destroy another city state. Now sometimes this is fine, but if you are trying to befriend all the city states then it is kind of annoying. The amount of influence you get for doing it is large but it wears off pretty quick, and then you have one more city to control and one less potential city state ally left around. In most of my games they nearly all eventually end up being conquered (and not by me). I dont think that is how it was intended to work

The only way i see this as intended is if Firaxis wanted that civs listened to those "burn a CS for me , pls" and then either burn enough CS to make all of them enter in perpetual war ( other rather stupid mechanic ), dragging the allies of those CS, or to start a war because you captured a Cs that other civ liked ( been there ... too bad archers and warriors don't dent on rifles, Biz ). In other words, this only works to put the world on fire. Neat, isn't it ? And in fact I remember somone of firaxis saying something like that ...

I normally ignore those requests. There is more potential for them to be pissed if I do what they ask than if I don't do ... rather paradoxical

 

[crownthomas]

Especially in large/huge map with a lot of civ, city state are the way to go both in term of expansion and military strategy. Perhaps they have trouble by themselves to conquer city, but with a little help they can go a long way.

During my last game (prince/Earth map/Huge/12 Civ/28 city states), I manage to take the lead in science, and every time I have a surplus of unit (especially after a war) I would send at least 50% of my army to a city state in need. The units take time to arrive, but when they do they shift the balance of power toward the city state (thus me in the process).

In that game, Hanoi conquers 3 cities plus the capital of the ottoman, Bucharest 3 city to Ramesses II, all of this without me having to declare war since they were under attack. On the North America continent (I was in Europe personally) I armed the 4 city states and they wipe out the US and Germany (which was lagging in term of tech) plus take 2 city to the Iroquois. In that case CS did all the heavy lifting. All I add to do was to become allies with the CS, send my unit that I had built for another war that just ended (upgrading them if necessary) & send three carrier and a navy to protect them, and 4-5 scoot to find the target to bomb. If you take into consideration the money save from unit maintenance and the resource free, it’s a pretty cheap way to take care of 2-3 civ on the other side of the world.

So city states are much more useful that only been your food supply. They give the possibility to bother a great deal enemy (especially the aggressive one) without having to be in a direct conflict. And since it easy and rapid to build an army in case you come under attack and with the maintenance cost in Civ 5, there is actually no reason to keep a huge army in standby. So why not give it away to someone in need? Personally, on the long term, building unit or upgrading old one just to send them to city states is worth it.

Worth case scenario the city state get kill, too bad but your maintenance cost is down, freeing resource each turn that can be affected elsewhere. If they don’t capture a city, you have an enemy IA that is block in a war it cannot win, which will crush its treasury and shift its focus on something else, like attacking you or developing itself toward its victory goal. And sure best case scenario, the CS defend itself and go on the offensive, and put out of the race for good another major CIV.

Thus, city states are probably the best way to control the balance of power, in particularly in large map. Especially since sending unit as a gift is not public information, no-one, including the aggressive Civ is going to blame you. So does it make you feel powerful? Hell yes! Been able to take down a “bad guy” and been seen as the good guy in the process feel damn good! It is like been the US during the cold war or the British Empire, messing with the situation in continental Europe so that no one can compete with its powerful navy.

And best for last, one the CS has conquered a couple of city and armed, they can become powerful allies when you go to war, especially since they open a second front on the other side of your enemy. And there is nothing worse than having to defend yourself when you realize that you are being attack on your “back side”.

 

[Dearmad]

They are kind of dry and boring- much as the OP said. The reviews, as usual, made more of them than they should have. The road mission is especially funny as you can destroy it right after you built it. lol.

 

[fantsu]

I actually love city states.
Just imagine this game without them?
Civ 5 without city states?
What would be left?

 

[AySteve]

I normally ignore those requests. There is more potential for them to be pissed if I do what they ask than if I don't do ... rather paradoxical

Yeah, I am the same. So if I attack one city state then some others will be my friends, but if I attack several they all become my enemies forever? It seems money is the only feasible way to retain city state friendship (apart from liberation)

I noticed that the AI civs quite often end up getting into the permanent war situation with city states but the result always seems to be all the CS getting steamrolled

 

[zonk]

They are kind of dry and boring- much as the OP said. The reviews, as usual, made more of them than they should have. The road mission is especially funny as you can destroy it right after you built it. lol.

That's the problem, really -- the first game or two, yes... they're a neat little new thing. But they wear thin incredibly fast - I've already gone from "hey, cool" to "well, I guess not building any troops makes for a nice exploit" to "I'd just turn them off already they're so annoying, but at least its something to conquer and who am I to pass up an exploit".

The sweet spot for City States is probably somewhere between "this" and the Revolutions mod that allowed barbarian cities to evolve into civs. Give them more nuanced diplomacy - perhaps adding in a casus belli system... let them trade their wares if unallied, then perhaps giving empires a CB if they ally with someone (and as a consequence, break your trade deal). Let them "grow" into real civs... maybe not transform into the majors, but let Copenhagen become Denmark (where Denmark is a generic civ with no distinct leaders or civ bonuses or special units/buildings). When they reach this point - let them build settlers and expand as a normal civ.

Also - they ought to spawn, not just "exist".

 

[MkLh]

City states are not exactly a bad feature (after they've been balanced), but nothing great either. Managing them is just so simple and straightforward. I can't understand people saying they are replacing diplomacy from Civ4 etc. cause there aren't any diplomacy involved. They actually have some sort of hidden diplo relations with each other (cause they request for eliminating their enemies), but you don't need to care about it all - it's perfectly possible to make allies from two city states that both have just a few turns ago asked for eliminating each other.

I think city states are the new corporations - maybe nice but quite shallow feature.

 

[Sir Og]

Only one civilization can be allied with a city state at one time. If another civ is competing with you for a city-state, the one with most influence will be considered the ally. It also makes other civs unhappy with you if you steal their allies, as it should.

My only real issue with city-states is that the AI civs need to be a bit more aggresive in allying with them, to reflect their value.

So it is the lame AI that lead me to believe that multiple players can be allied with a CS. So far I have never lost my allied status to anybody. (half a game on price and half on emperor)

It's good to know that at least this is taken care of though.

 

[zonk]

City states are not exactly a bad feature (after they've been balanced), but nothing great either. Managing them is just so simple and straightforward. I can't understand people saying they are replacing diplomacy from Civ4 etc. cause there aren't any diplomacy involved. They actually have some sort of hidden diplo relations with each other (cause they request for eliminating their enemies), but you don't need to care about it all - it's perfectly possible to make allies from two city states that both have just a few turns ago asked for eliminating each other.

I think city states are the new corporations - maybe nice but quite shallow feature.

I don't think they have any sort of hidden diplomacy to them -- The cross-city state "disputes" seem entirely random. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but based on the fact that random city state X wants Y eliminated -- and I know damn well they shouldn't realistically even know of Y's existence, I find it hard to believe there's any sort of real mechanism that causes a tiff between them.

What's more - I've had city states on opposite ends of the continent who spend centuries with me as allies suddenly decide one wants the other eliminated.

Finally - and this is just really the headscratcher... I had a game where 5 different CS's all wanted the same one eliminated. Fair enough, did not -- but then 2 of the 5 (whom I had trespassed over substantially, and thus had a lot to make up for when I got the bonus for the elimination) then band together with OTHER CS's in war against me because they felt the need to 'band together against my aggression'.... In other words - CS A and B request I kill C. I kill C, A & B are now upset because I'm a warmonger.

In fact, I'd go further than saying CS diplomacy is completely random... I think it's nonsensically random.

 

[zonk]

So it is the lame AI that lead me to believe that multiple players can be allied with a CS. So far I have never lost my allied status to anybody. (half a game on price and half on emperor)

It's good to know that at least this is taken care of though.

You can "out-influence" -- i.e., multiple players can have enough influence over a CS to be the blue "ally" zone, but in that case -- the player with the higher influence score wins.

This is another flaw in City states.... I understand the concept of influence/anger degrading to zero over time -- but it's ridiculous sometimes.

I was alone on an island with one CS -- allied them around 3000 BC, completed all the quests, gifted them when necessary to keep them as allies for nearly 4000 years. You'd think that by that point, we'd have developed a "special" relationship to some extent... nope -- just because my influence was only a few points above allied, they dropped me like a hot potato and allied with someone else because that someone else conquered another CS halfway across the globe that NEITHER of us could have possible met yet.

Then, in the same game -- I had another CS royally ticked at me for breaching their borders (they occupied a chokepoint and explorations kept passing through them). We had barely met, I had ticked them off --- but suddenly, they want another CS eliminated (just so happens it was my former 4000 year ally... and given their fickleness -- plus the fact I no longer needed their food -- yeah, I stomped 'em good).

How on earth does that make sense? A 4000 year ally with a gamelong history of being satisfied drops me while another CS who had every reason to hate me readily allies with me?

That has all the hallmarks of a horrifically exploitable system -- like the initial post said --they're basically just another form of tile bonus at this point.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I do like the idea of them having a 'demanded resource'
and of being able to form trade routes with them. Either for money or influence points... more if you are an ally. [how about Influence if friend, Influence + gold if ally]

(perhaps rail routes to city states can give a production bonus to your capital, +20% per city state trade route)

 

[Gorey]

The addition of city states was not worth the loss of so many other game mechanics IMO.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I think calling them failed is not on the mark. A few games in I figured out how to deal with them to my advantage and it is quite fun. On the other hand, I can see how you might expect a bit more out of them given the hype. I just don't think they are "fail"

 

[El Caballerion]

I just wish you could tell them to attack a specific CIV during wartime. Usually, they're my allies, but they don't seem to want to do anything warlike.

 

[edpovi]

I love the addition of city states in Civ V. I have a hard choice in the early-mid game to either use my gold to gain the awesome bonus or resources they have, or rush buy key units/buildings.

I think they can add more flavor to the system, but it works as it is now.

I like the idea of trade routes, I think it would be very good if that adds to your income, and perhaps also reduces the lost of influence by 25% while allied.

 

[Lightzy]

I totally agree with the OP.

Every and all interactions that you have with city states should have been planned with the real civs in mind.
Buying and selling surplus food to a civ to be friendly or to make them dependant on you, buying and selling military units from other civs.. the whole vassal state thing from civ4..

I dunno.
they seem totally pointless, those city states.
It's true i just them as a 'get culture' button.

 

[Ravellion]

II've never seen CS unite so far. Are you sure it wasn't for other reasons, like an allied major power declaring on you?

I can back him up on this. Persia was conquering everything on the map, and suddenly the 5 remaining city states declared war on him together. I couldn't ask Persia to make peace with them either, with a mouse-over stating that the city state was sworn to defeat Persia for aggression against city states or something like that.

With a "little" help from me, they did

 

[Pococurante]

I think the city states work great. If you just put a little imagination into it.

I agree. I love them. It's great being a Great Power playing The Great Game.

The only thing I truly detest is that they declare permanent war. This puts me in the position of constantly spawning new units to give them, which in turn they throw against the AI I've already beat into the ground until I let the AI conquer them.

I expect City states to have their own interests. But perpetual war for the entire span of history is absurd. I consider it a hang over from the previous versions of Civ that make unfixable every grudge no matter how insignificant.

But aside from that they are an absolutely fantastic addition.

I actually love city states.
Just imagine this game without them?
Civ 5 without city states?
What would be left?

I do think a lot of folks are having a hard time adapting to an entirely fresh take on a very old franchise. And we're already seeing mods that bring those behaviors back if one really wants them. Win win...

 

[Gaizokubanou]

City states give players too much function that AI cannot handle at all.

Every game I played so far, AI civs always just kill all the city states they have around them. This gives the human player who actually uses city states exclusive insanely cost effective food/culture/military.