What can you do? He's a mate, you know?

[Navelgazer]

Pardon me if this has been brought up over here once or a million times before now, but maybe the most maddening thing in Civ 6, which somehow has apparently never been updated or fixed, just came up again, and I need to make sure I'm not missing something obvious here.

Put simply: I'm John Curtin. I'm declared friends with Saladin. I'm suzerain over Singapore. Saladin goes to war against Singapore. I can't demand that he stop. I can't make a deal with him to make peace. I can't go to war to defend my vassal. I can't give a cassus belli. I can't do anything at all with this, except for I guess wait for it to play out and then liberate Singapore once the DOF has lapsed (not the worst thing in the world playing as Curtin, but still...)

Am I missing something? If not, how has this game gone through this many expansions and patches without this being addressed?

 

[Linklite]

No, you're not missing anything, and it is a common complaint. This isn't intended as "this fixes it" so much as a workaround, but you could create a unit wall around Singapore to prevent the actual takeover. Not ideal or what should happen, but at least it's something that you can actually do.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

No, you're not missing anything, and it is a common complaint. This isn't intended as "this fixes it" so much as a workaround, but you could create a unit wall around Singapore to prevent the actual takeover. Not ideal or what should happen, but at least it's something that you can actually do.

I really didn't enjoyed the way they changed the relationships system in Civ 6, in Civ 5 you could backstab an ally/friend by just declaring war, it's no longer possible (and even if it did, you know it would've been seen as a huge warmonger penalty anyway).

 

[tedhebert]

No, you're not missing anything, and it is a common complaint. This isn't intended as "this fixes it" so much as a workaround, but you could create a unit wall around Singapore to prevent the actual takeover. Not ideal or what should happen, but at least it's something that you can actually do.

Don't even need to be a complete wall... most times, the AI will just not be able to complete a takeover if you occupy 2-3 tiles that are adjacent to the CS city center.

of course, if, like me, you play mostly huge maps, and the CS is halfway around the world, then tough luck

Still, I can't wrap my head around this. Shouldn't be able to do that to CSes that are suzed by allies....

 

[Leyrann]

of course, if, like me, you play mostly huge maps, and the CS is halfway around the world, then tough luck

Levy the city-state.

 

[tedhebert]

Levy the city-state.

yeah… but sometimes they don’t even have a valid standing army but if they do, absolutely

 

[Navelgazer]

Levying the city state is a good idea there, but it doesn't address the fact that one shouldn't be allowed to DOW an ally's vassals.

 

[Leyrann]

Levying the city state is a good idea there, but it doesn't address the fact that one shouldn't be allowed to DOW an ally's vassals.

I agree that it's a really strange mechanic.

 

[aieeegrunt]

It’s dumb and shows how little playtesting and QA gets done

 

[steveg700]

Levying the city state is a good idea there, but it doesn't address the fact that one shouldn't be allowed to DOW an ally's vassals.

Well, I'm not certain what is desired in the way of addressing it here. I think there's a lot of agreement that it's a pain in the neck.

So let's play devil's advocate. Let's say DOW on an ally's "vassal" was not allowed. It's not as if it's permanently that civ's property. If another civ sends more envoys, the suzerainty switches. Can Saladin now go to war with the CS? And if next turn Curtin sends more envoys to regain control. Is Saladin's war off now?

 

[Bibor]

city states should be able to ask us join an ongoing war. Proxy wars for the win!

 

[Tech Osen]

It baffles me that this was never addressed.

 

[Vargas1]

Well, I'm not certain what is desired in the way of addressing it here. I think there's a lot of agreement that it's a pain in the neck.

So let's play devil's advocate. Let's say DOW on an ally's "vassal" was not allowed. It's not as if it's permanently that civ's property. If another civ sends more envoys, the suzerainty switches. Can Saladin now go to war with the CS? And if next turn Curtin sends more envoys to regain control. Is Saladin's war off now?

Easy fix is that if you are suzerain over a city-state that at any point is at war with a friend/ally (whether war declared before or after you become suzerain), you have an option to request your friend/ally cease the war (can make it cost diplomatic favor like other requests). If they agree, then peace is declared immediately (not waiting 10 turns after declaration). If they refuse, then they get grievances, and you have the option of declaring a protectorate war. If you declare, it ends the friendship/alliance. If you elect not to - you prefer your alliance to your CS - then they are free to proceed as they wish and take it over.

 

[steveg700]

Easy fix is that if you are suzerain over a city-state that at any point is at war with a friend/ally (whether war declared before or after you become suzerain), you have an option to request your friend/ally cease the war (can make it cost diplomatic favor like other requests). If they agree, then peace is declared immediately (not waiting 10 turns after declaration). If they refuse, then they get grievances, and you have the option of declaring a protectorate war. If you declare, it ends the friendship/alliance. If you elect not to - you prefer your alliance to your CS - then they are free to proceed as they wish and take it over.

Whenever the fix is forcing the AI to make a choice based on situational factors, it's not an easy fix...or at least not a fix that feels all that "fixed" for long. The reason we have tis thread in the first place is that the AI is lacking the logical capability to weigh the gain from taking a CS against the worth of preserving its existing friendship,

OTOH, offering the player the choice to abandon the friendship, that's a lot more doable.

 

[Bibor]

Yes, even city states not aligned to a player (or AI) could and should ask for help in case of attack. As it is now, city states are just future free city placeholders for AI to gobble up.

 

[steveg700]

It'd certainly be nice if Civ 7 offered more proactive negotiations. Is there a 4X game that achieves this effectively? "Effectively" meaning the AI makes the promises that best serve its own interest as well as the player's, not simply promising not to do something that annoys the player.

IIRC, Civ 6 didn't even offer the "Ask for A Promise" option. That was a later addition, and it's totally reactive. The AI has to commit an act like forward settling or converting a city, and then the player gets to ask for them not to do it anymore. The first forward settle is free. An AI can send missionaries to convert another player's holy city with no possibility for generating grievances (the affected player'd have to let it happen, ask for the promise, then be able to convert the holy city back).

The reason for this reactive approach is pretty simple Id say: the AI can't really make fine-grain choices. It can look at how well it likes the player's civ, and make that concession. It can decide it's victory condition overrides considering likability. It can decide to stop converting if the other civ has more than X temples. Broad conditions like that. There's not a lot of point in asking the AI to make promises it can't keep, and if its logic tells it to expand by knocking over CS's or to win RV by converting nearby holy cities, then there's no real negotiation. Mining for grievances to go to war is the best we get.

 

[Bibor]

Is there a 4X game that achieves this effectively?

EU4 has the “proclaim guarantee” diplomacy mechanic. If anyone DOWs the target nation, you get the option to join the defensive war.