Why conquer city states?

[mintcandy]

Never needed more than Rationalism in my domination games, to be honest. Culture has never been a concern.

While it is true that culture for culture's sake is a non issue in domination victories, I find myself purchasing social policies that stave off the inevitable unhappiness associated with a domination victory.

I've never pursued wars of aggression once my happiness dips below -20, so who knows? Maybe happiness really is a non issue in domination victories.

I don't know if it is programmed or luck, but later in the game city-states tend to have a longer leash when attacking. I've had a number of games where a surprise DoW ended up by having a city capped by an enemy city-state. In higher difficulties, city-states tend to have impressive armies.

I have the most miserable luck trying to get anti aircraft defenses to work for me in my games. Thus, I'm not a big fan of Civ V in the Atomic and Modern Ages.

Taken too literally. If your focus is pumping out military units, whatever city-states give you is likely not going to be of much use. Whenever I play a domination game I don't think "Gee, if I grab an alliance with that city-state, that should really give me an advantage! That extra pikeman alongside my riflemen popping every 4-5 turns will really boost my military might"

Actually, my thinking is "Gee, if I ally with that city-state, I will get free land units every 20 turns (or whatever), so I can concentrate on building the units that they can't provide! Ships, for example."

Again, taken too literally. If you are not purposely trying to game the system and sack each capital by T100, then you will eventually reach later techs. A domination victory is a domination victory; not really fair to say it isn't valid if you've reached bombers/battleships.

Like I said before, I am trying to sack each capital before air attacks become prevalent, but that isn't exactly "gaming" the system.

1. Civs will likely be pissed at you regardless, so sacking a city-state and taking the negative diplo hit isn't as big of a deal.

Well, perhaps we are going to have to distinguish between declaring war on a civilization and seizing one of their allied city states, and declaring war on a specific city state and seizing that city state.

Most of your arguments make sense for the former, but they don't make much sense for the latter.

Are we at least agreed that the latter situation is typically a foolish one, even when pursuing domination victories?

 

[Donaskme]

Last night's game found me on a nice peninsula much like a small continent, attached to the mainland via a two-tile isthmus upon which a "hostile" Mombasa perched. Ten tiles beyond was New York.

My peninsula was very rich, but unsuitable for more than three cities. So I built three, and puppeted Mombasa. It was the only way to be sure...

 

[Hammer Rabbi]

Are we at least agreed that the latter situation is typically a foolish one, even when pursuing domination victories?

Im not particularly agreed on it. Regardless of whether they are allied with the AI youre gunning for they are on the path to that cap. Taking the CS gives a safe haven to heal to move on to the civs cap. If you declare on the CS but not on the AI they will likely denounce you and eventually declare on you saving you the extra diplo hit of declaring on them. You will take one for 'picking on weaker cultures' from other civs and from CSs. And you dont really need to maintain full price trade partners. 109g or even 59g for one of your metric-ton of luxuries you got on you conquering spree is still better than nothing. Happiness can be an issue but after you heal you can sell one of your cities to get out of negative combat modifiers if you need to.

I only take them if they are on the path to a capital but it doesnt require them to be allied with that civ or declaring on the civ to save the CS modifiers. and the healing saves a few extra turns which for me is generally the goal. its less turns for the AI to prepare with extra units as well.

You did suggest 'need' and 'necessary' in your argument against taking CSs, and they arent necessary for the victory, but it can/does shave some turns off the victory which is generally a dom players goal. if that isnt your goal then yeah, it isnt necessary.

 

[mintcandy]

Im not particularly agreed on it. Regardless of whether they are allied with the AI youre gunning for they are on the path to that cap. Taking the CS gives a safe haven to heal to move on to the civs cap. If you declare on the CS but not on the AI they will likely denounce you and eventually declare on you saving you the extra diplo hit of declaring on them. You will take one for 'picking on weaker cultures' from other civs and from CSs. And you dont really need to maintain full price trade partners. 109g or even 59g for one of your metric-ton of luxuries you got on you conquering spree is still better than nothing. Happiness can be an issue but after you heal you can sell one of your cities to get out of negative combat modifiers if you need to.

I only take them if they are on the path to a capital but it doesnt require them to be allied with that civ or declaring on the civ to save the CS modifiers. and the healing saves a few extra turns which for me is generally the goal. its less turns for the AI to prepare with extra units as well.

Just to clarify, we are talking about preemptively declaring war on a City State that isn't allied with anyone because they happen to occupy some strategic position advantageous against a civilization we want to get rid of, right?

All right. I can accept that it might be quicker to seize the unaligned City State than to ally with it via bribes or quests.

However, if one of the motivations for seizing the unaligned City State is because of the potential of that City State opening up a second front, doesn't preemptively declaring war on unaligned City States work against prevention of a second front opening?

I mean, preemptively declaring on individual City States increases the chances of random City States declaring Permanent War on you, yes? How is Permanent War any different than the second front you wished to avoid?

 

[Hammer Rabbi]

yeah, i was talking about a CS being the target's ally isnt necessary. it helps but sometimes i dont want to forecast my war officially with an ai declaration to get things going on the CS.

And Ive never had a CS declare Permanent War on me for doing so. They did perma-declare on me back when i was taking more than 1 worker but otherwise it's never happened to me. It isnt worth going on a CS spree either. 1-2 is fine for conquering. 3 or more will likely get a perma war but the 3rd one had better be the last and next to the last cap you are taking.

To clarify a few other things: timing is largely the entire game for dom vics so taking a CS pre-turn 120 is a bad idea for long term reasons (unless you routinely get sub-200 dom vics) but taking one post-t180-200 is fine with me because i should be within 25-50 turns of winning, maybe only 2 caps left to victory. I also try to bring along 1 worker in case the CS doesnt give me one for conquering. it repairs the luxes i mightve pillaged (and happ if i didnt have that lux yet) and builds roads thru rough terrain.

 

[mintcandy]

yeah, i was talking about a CS being the target's ally isnt necessary. it helps but sometimes i dont want to forecast my war officially with an ai declaration to get things going on the CS.

And Ive never had a CS declare Permanent War on me for doing so. They did perma-declare on me back when i was taking more than 1 worker but otherwise it's never happened to me. It isnt worth going on a CS spree either. 1-2 is fine for conquering. 3 or more will likely get a perma war but the 3rd one had better be the last and next to the last cap you are taking.

Hmmm...

When I was playing the Mongolian scenario, there were instances where two preemptive DOW on unaligned City States initiated PermaWar from some random City States.

I assumed that the threshold for PermaWar outside of scenarios was at least that low, if not lower.

Is my assumption off?

 

[Hammer Rabbi]

i cant say. ive only played the mongol scenario once and not to completion. im not really a scenario player.

 

[Matthew.]

Like I said before, I am trying to sack each capital before air attacks become prevalent, but that isn't exactly "gaming" the system.

Depends on the difficulty, strategy, etc. IMO, playing on a low difficulty and sacking each capital, turning around and selling it for cash and open borders, sacking another capital, etc., all with composite bows... Yeah, sure, it is valid. But I suppose so is starting up a duel Deity game, setting my base right next to my opponent, and starve him out, sniping any settlers that try and leave.

Point being that with so many ways to play the game, I have no interest in starting an argument of what is a legitimate strategy or not. But if you are playing AI at your skill level on standard settings, hitting later tier units isn't uncommon.

Anyway, it isn't relevant to the actual topic.

Are we at least agreed that the latter situation is typically a foolish one, even when pursuing domination victories?

If you feel conquering city-states is never advantageous, then don't do it. I'm not trying to convince anyone it is needed or always beneficial, only that in certain situations, at least for me, it was a "Why not? This city-state is in my way, either geographically or due to alliances". If you had zero intention to pick up that city-state as an alliance, you are not losing anything. Due to the small borders, you can have the city-state surrounded, trash all the units on the first turn, take the city on the second or third. Unhappiness? Global will likely take care of it. Not getting the city-state bonuses? Wasn't out to get them anyway. Diplo hit? Either the civs pissed off are already trashed, or I am shortly on my way to their capital.

 

[mintcandy]

If you feel conquering city-states is never advantageous, then don't do it. I'm not trying to convince anyone it is needed or always beneficial, only that in certain situations, at least for me, it was a "Why not? This city-state is in my way, either geographically or due to alliances". If you had zero intention to pick up that city-state as an alliance, you are not losing anything. Due to the small borders, you can have the city-state surrounded, trash all the units on the first turn, take the city on the second or third. Unhappiness? Global will likely take care of it. Not getting the city-state bonuses? Wasn't out to get them anyway. Diplo hit? Either the civs pissed off are already trashed, or I am shortly on my way to their capital.

What about the whole fear of other city states opening up a second front? Isn't that a concern when one declares war on City States?

Yeah, I mean, I get the whole argument of conquering a City State because of its location.

I mean, if I see a City State that grabbed the Fountain of Youth, there's a decent chance I might try and conquer that City State. Well, I'd probably try stealing the tile with the appropriate Great Person first, but still, the risk of PermaWar with other City States is well worth the reward of the FoY.

However, I don't see the risk of opening up secondary PermaWar fronts from other City States being worth the benefit of declaring war on an unaffiliated City State, for the sole purpose of strategic location.

I mean, if one has the money to rush build Bombers and Battleships, surely one also has the money to rush bribe the City State in question for free passage, right?

There's just something about initiating war with an unaffiliated City State for strategic position that doesn't jive with conquering an unaffiliated City State because you don't want the City State to open up a second front.

But again...maybe I'm overestimating the likelihood of PermaWar declaration from City States?

 

[Hammer Rabbi]

it's rare, but ive had allies with a CS, then allies change hands to someone im not at war with. but that now lets the one i am war with come in and snipe it from them and then become at war with me and i cant do anything other than conquer it. and because it is usually a surprise i either take a small beating since CS take turns at the end or that 'safe' passage just got closed off. it's rare but it has happened.

and i generally dont keep a huge surplus of gold (like more than 1k) unless im building to a diplo buy out or late game factories/labs/btowers. in any of those cases (except factorories) im usually not warmongering. holding that much money for no reason is poor investment opportunities.

 

[mintcandy]

and i generally dont keep a huge surplus of gold (like more than 1k) unless im building to a diplo buy out or late game factories/labs/btowers.

I agree, I generally don't keep gold in excess of that amount unless there are no improvements to buy AND I've got more than enough units to win the game.

 

[Matthew.]

What about the whole fear of other city states opening up a second front? Isn't that a concern when one declares war on City States?

I haven't run into that issue yet. Consider that typically if I am systematically clearing the map, my two nearest neighbors are down near the beginning. I can usually count on another AI to either eliminate or severely weaken another Civ or two. Thus come that longswords/trebs into rifles/cannons push, there are only two or three actual threats left. Unless every city-state on the map is in between, there isn't very many scenarios where I'd need to kill enough city-states to make them all flip out.

And yeah, I've dropped a couple thousand gold before declaring war too. It isn't an all or nothing situation. Sometimes it is just easier to kill everything in your path. Sometimes you can flip a city-state right before you attack and semi-borrow the units there to aid you.

BTW the maps that usually end up in battleships and bombers are continents. The time between frigates and battleships isn't that long, especially considering Rationalism is about completed at that time and I start popping great scientists.

Sometimes I try to take over a city-state right at the start, since they often have unique luxuries, you typically won't be holding an alliance right away, and the diplo hit seems to wear off by the time it matters. The problem with that scenario though is that if the difficulty is easy enough to drop a city-state right from the get-go, you may as well conquer your nearest neighbor instead. Not to mention it sometimes results in a three front war with other Civs at like T60 I still like to try it out once and a while... get into Ghengis's role and what not.

 

[hawkokas]

1-You're Mongolia
2-Location
3-The AI is going to have a diplomatic victory soon, and you have next to no money

 

[Dentalfury]

1-You're Mongolia

I lol'ed.

 

[terveurn]

After reading the post on CS, my only comment is I wish we could take-over the CS and raze the city - most of the time, it is just a hassle to beat-up a city, then go thru the period of unhappiness etc... then worry that 30 round later, your enemy is going to come along and retake-over this city and give it back to the CS.

Just burn it city to the ground is the best option.....

The best option I found with a CS that has something the I want is wait for a either a general to show-up (or entertainer) and since most CS are itty-bitty land areas, just park the general on the other side of the border and have it build a citadel on the resource that you want (and if you are lucky, you can take a big chunk of the CS land) - no fuss, no muss no wasted troops or time baby sitting on a CS causing unhappiness ...

 

[Jerman]

Eh... I've found allying up with them is alot more beneficial than the alternative in most situations.
I said most...
1. The city state of London was half the world away and their leader Elizabeth Dowed me and sent ships of the line after me (she was half the world away) and I destroyed her
(okay 1 way just for lols.)
2. If they have 5 sources of uranium and I cant ally it.
3. If Im bored
4. If I playing multiplayer and I'm NOT Austria (If I am I just use Diplo Marriage(Duh!))

 

[Argive]

In my current game, Russia made a coup in a militaristic state under my nose. It used to be my ally. Now I have zero influence there. I'm now prepping for an attack because I just don't want to spend so much money on that city and/or to use one of my spies there. Also, I don't want Russia getting free units. So there, that's one way of thinking about it.

 

[TrentL]

When I'm short Aluminum late gate, and a City state is sitting on 2 piles totaling 10... and its surrounded by my empire, but I can't keep it loyal because people constantly have spies there, and spend money.

That bad boyis being conquered

Honestly since G&K (i.e. Religion) I don't find Happiness much issue.

 

[Heretiv]

If I playing multiplayer and I'm NOT Austria (If I am I just use Diplo Marriage(Duh!))

Just checking here - the benefit of Diplomatic Marriage is mainly that you deny enveryone else the potential benefit of the CS for a one-time expenditure of money? Surely even if you are Austria, a CS can be of much more benefit as a separate entitiy rather than as a puppet or even annexed city?

 

[Aaron90495]

Just checking here - the benefit of Diplomatic Marriage is mainly that you deny enveryone else the potential benefit of the CS for a one-time expenditure of money? Surely even if you are Austria, a CS can be of much more benefit as a separate entitiy rather than as a puppet or even annexed city?

Not only that, but you get a ton of units and all the buildings when you marry them. Plus, you don't get the unhappiness penalties you would if you had taken them over.