The game would be more interesting if city states sometimes acted alone.

Peng Qi

Emperor
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Messages
1,431
Location
Irrelevant.
Imagine the following scenario:

You are maintaining peace with a powerful rival; neither of you is strong enough to eliminate the other without significant risk of damaging your infrastructure too much and leaving you vulnerable to subsequent attack. Each of you have scooped up city state allies along your shared border to further discourage aggression. The situation is stable, but precarious. The situation goes on like this for some time, until you pass turn only to find out that one of your rival's city state allies, Almaty, has declared war on one of yours, Kuala Lumpur.

This kind of scenario would inject a lot more diplomatic tension into the game. Superpowers funding secret armies inside their smaller allies' borders to fight their wars, or directly intervening in them, happens a lot in real life and is often the catalyst of major wars. It doesn't have to be limited to wars, either; consider that for each kind of city state, different independent actions could be taken, which would also act as a tool to balance the different types of state; Maritimes might more often take actions that cause problems for their great power ally, and Militaristics might take actions that could be less irritating or even helpful. Just off the top of my head:

Maratime States:
1. Send ships to blockade ports of civs they don't like; those civs ask player to rebuke their maritime ally. Player either rebukes the maritime, who backs down and player loses relation points with them, or refuses, getting a diplo hit with the requesting civ and risking that civ going to war with the maritime state.
2. Establish "trade stations;" tile improvements in unclaimed territory that have +1 gold over trade posts. Civs settling the territory don't remove the post and gain a small relations boost with the state.
3. Establish "privateer havens;" function like barbarian camps, except they only produce boats, and those boats never attack the city state or its ally. (Basically hidden nationality units the AI controls.)
4. Declare war on and invade other coastal city states.

Militaristic States:
1. Send out small (2 unit) raiding parties to clear nearby roaming barbarians and camps. If they successfully clear a camp, they give their ally a unit (or if no ally, get a free unit). While at war, the raiding party stops its current activity and tries to pillage enemy tiles.
2. Sometimes build a "training camp" in their territory; a tile improvement which provides no resource boost but gives +1 XP to any unit sitting in it each turn, to a max of 40.
3. Declare war on and invade nearby city states.

Cultural States:
1. Build "minor wonders," buildings only cultural states can build and only one of each per map (maybe one or two such wonders for each age), which provide +:c5happy::c5happy::c5happy: to the controller of the wonder and +:c5happy: to their ally. This would make some cultural states more valuable than others and provide additional incentive to invade city states.
2. Send out explorer units and share their findings with their ally.


As I said, those are just rough ideas off the top of my head, but some of them as you can see provide more reasons to invade city states or more reasons to align with one or avoid aligning with one. The concept of city states is so good but the implementation is so barebones at the moment, which is unfortunate. They really could be the driving force behind a lot of diplomacy and interest with a little work.
 
Some very interesting ideas. :)

Hopefully with the source code, modders can start implementing ideas like this.
 
Imagine the following scenario:

You are maintaining peace with a powerful rival; neither of you is strong enough to eliminate the other without significant risk of damaging your infrastructure too much and leaving you vulnerable to subsequent attack. Each of you have scooped up city state allies along your shared border to further discourage aggression. The situation is stable, but precarious. The situation goes on like this for some time, until you pass turn only to find out that one of your rival's city state allies, Almaty, has declared war on one of yours, Kuala Lumpur.

This kind of scenario would inject a lot more diplomatic tension into the game. Superpowers funding secret armies inside their smaller allies' borders to fight their wars, or directly intervening in them, happens a lot in real life and is often the catalyst of major wars. It doesn't have to be limited to wars, either; consider that for each kind of city state, different independent actions could be taken, which would also act as a tool to balance the different types of state; Maritimes might more often take actions that cause problems for their great power ally, and Militaristics might take actions that could be less irritating or even helpful. Just off the top of my head:

Maratime States:
1. Send ships to blockade ports of civs they don't like; those civs ask player to rebuke their maritime ally. Player either rebukes the maritime, who backs down and player loses relation points with them, or refuses, getting a diplo hit with the requesting civ and risking that civ going to war with the maritime state.
2. Establish "trade stations;" tile improvements in unclaimed territory that have +1 gold over trade posts. Civs settling the territory don't remove the post and gain a small relations boost with the state.
3. Establish "privateer havens;" function like barbarian camps, except they only produce boats, and those boats never attack the city state or its ally. (Basically hidden nationality units the AI controls.)
4. Declare war on and invade other coastal city states.

Militaristic States:
1. Send out small (2 unit) raiding parties to clear nearby roaming barbarians and camps. If they successfully clear a camp, they give their ally a unit (or if no ally, get a free unit). While at war, the raiding party stops its current activity and tries to pillage enemy tiles.
2. Sometimes build a "training camp" in their territory; a tile improvement which provides no resource boost but gives +1 XP to any unit sitting in it each turn, to a max of 40.
3. Declare war on and invade nearby city states.

Cultural States:
1. Build "minor wonders," buildings only cultural states can build and only one of each per map (maybe one or two such wonders for each age), which provide +:c5happy::c5happy::c5happy: to the controller of the wonder and +:c5happy: to their ally. This would make some cultural states more valuable than others and provide additional incentive to invade city states.
2. Send out explorer units and share their findings with their ally.


As I said, those are just rough ideas off the top of my head, but some of them as you can see provide more reasons to invade city states or more reasons to align with one or avoid aligning with one. The concept of city states is so good but the implementation is so barebones at the moment, which is unfortunate. They really could be the driving force behind a lot of diplomacy and interest with a little work.

i like it. you could have some tense but interestingly fun cold war like scenarios and city states would be more useful than just to win a diplomatic victory
 
I like the ideas of the OP. What I would like to see is them fix the fundamental problems that already exist in diplomacy first, and then impliment something like this afterwards. It would make for a much more interesting game.
 
I think there's some interesting ideas here. Some of them seem like they might feel unnatural/heavily scripted (such as Maritime CS blockades) but overall stuff like this would definitely make them feel more alive. Maybe at least as a starting point, make the hostile/irrational City States actually act that way and have them harass/attack others that they aren't friends with. There's definitely a lot of potential improvements in regards to city states.
 
I agree with most of your ideas and some of them are seriously interesting. I've always felt that city states were just there to be there, but some of these concepts could change that.
 
That scenario sounds like it would be very fun. I would love for there to more often be some sort of catalyst for conflict.
 
I'd stick with the basic premise: more independent action from
City states. That alone would make the game much more interesting.

I'd say the main problem is in motivation: CS have little reason to Dow if they can't take cities.

So i think it would be essential to allow city states to capture cities, making them much more like minor civs.
 
I believe that the City States already kind of hate each other every other turn, it seems like. If you send them troops, and the rival CS is nearby, they WILL attack and eliminate that CS. It happened to me accidentally. I didn't mean for that rival CS to die. :(
 
If u have a trainer or cheats, u can buy a massive army and give them to any city state and make them ur friends. If u declare war on any country that is close to that city-state then the city-state will automatically declare war and start taking over nearby cities. If you continue to feed units to the city-state then they will eventually conquer everything in a circular area around the home city. Anything hostile that is close to the city-states will always will be attacked but eventually the city-state will start to raze captured cities, I believe due to unhappiness. It's stupid using cheats in Civ 5, but it's fun to start wars on other continents using city-states, they always win if you fund them a large enough army and watching countries slowly converting into a large black blob on the minimap is very satisfying.
 
Back
Top Bottom