City States in Civ7 - the good, the bad

[m_mus]

So I do not belong in the camp of nay-sayers in regard to Civ7. In fact, I do love its core-mechanics, even though they need fine tuning and the UI has still a long way to go.
In that spirit, I'd like to discuss with you the mechanics surrounding City States in Civ7, as I feel they offer considerably more than City States did in Civ6 ... and less as well, as paradoxical as this may sound. And just speaking for me, I think the latter part has to be adressed and I'd like to know if you feel the same.
In what sense do City States offer "more"? Well, as currently is, the transition from IEs to CSs appears to be are much more elaborate variant of the "Barbarian Camp ---> CS"-mechanism of Civ6, which you could toggle on and off (had it been introduced in the "Last Frontier"-DLC cycle as one of its gamemodes? Not sure anymore). As I did like it in Civ6 already, I welcome the greater scope by which it has been transferred to Civ7. I think it adds to our gameplay to be able to invest the new curreny influence to befriend them and eventually become their suzerain ... and even be able to incorporate suzerained CSs into your empire at some point. I also think it allows for greater strategic flexibility that we are actually able to choose the bonus a CS will grant us.
But how do I perceive the CS-mechanism to offer "less" at the same time? Well, I really, really miss the competition with AI (and human players in MP) for CS after they have been formed. If I didn't miss some obvious buttons, it is not possible to snatch away a CS's suzerainty, once it has declared allegiance to a certain player. Which is a shame, considering that suzerainty is secured by the means of diplomacy (= i.e. spending the corresponding currency), whereas the suzerainty cannot be questioned by the very same means afterwards. Maybe I was playing too much MP in Civ6, but the competition for certain CSs, whose suzerainty-bonus were considered powerful, was an engaging minigame that instilled tension and had strategic implications (two naval powers competing for the suzerainty of Auckland for example ...). Now, the only option to take a CS and its associated bonus away from a player, is to conquer and/or raze the CS. Which feels unfittingly crude, after Civ7's diplomacy system has been advertised as a relevant expansion compared to Civ6.
Maybe I do not want to conquer the city in question? Maybe I just want the CS to live but be the suzerain instead? Maybe I don't even want the suzerain bonus, but I'd like the CSs military potential be mine or neutralized in case of conflict with the associated player. Maybe I'd like to return it to 'neutral' status to keep the CS as a buffer zone between me and the formerly associated player? If I am not overlooking things, all these possibly strategically relevant moves are not possible as is. And that's a pity in my opinion.
How do you feel about that? Really interested in your opinions.

 

[user746383]

I also like them quite a bit, and also have similar wishes for future improvements as you. They are sort of just done and don't serve much purpose after you suzerain them, except to keep up the numbers for your "multiplied by the number of vassals you have" choices. I agree that unique bonuses were cool and I miss them, and I also miss someone taking them over through spending their influence.

It's also a bit weird how they pop in and out of existence in the turns around the era changes, it would be nice if that was a little smoother.

I imagine there will be an expansion where they flesh out independent powers because it has so much potential.

 

[McSpank01]

Absolutely they are a mixed bag, I think there are some really good ideas in there, and some really bad ones. The execution as well is not where it needs to be and the reality is I think the current CS system is a bit of a downgrade from what we had before.

The Good

• City States now feel like something more independent that you can interact with. Being able to build them up, levy their troops etc is a positive step. It does need to be built upon a lot more than it has been
• Getting suze status is definitely something you want to aim for when it comes to certain types of CS, and that at least makes them relevant
• I like the visuals of the inhabitants, makes it more real
• Spending more influence to race to attract them is a good idea in theory.

The Bad

• The reality is that City States feel totally passive and uninteractive. Outside of initially finding them and throwing a load of influence their way, I rarely do anything with them. I love the idea that I can build them up, use their troops etc. I just never do it because there are much better things for me to be doing.
• The inability to do anything to a CS once another civ has Suze'd it is a massive issue. My only option from that point is to invade. When I realised that in one of my first games, I thought it must be a bug or I was missing something, but no, you are locked out. It doesn't make any sense and pretty much means CS lose their interesting value midway through an age. Battling for CS's love in Civ 6 was definitely more interactive than what you do now.
• The bonuses are incredibly boring, I really don't like that there are a limited set based on type and you might end up with a crappy one. I'd rather each CS had it's own bonus type like in Civ 6, which made it much better.
• CS should stick around after an age ends. The reset is just dumb. Maybe new ones can crop up if there is space, but I hate things changing in that way.

 

[UWHabs]

Generally agree with the above. I would say the top priorities:
1. Need the ability to liberate a CS. My last game, I had an AI neighbour capture one of my suzes, and when I captured the city back, my only options were to keep or raze. Given my other civ bonuses, it was worth more liberated.
2. Some competition after it has been suzed, to flip its loyalty, would be nice. It shouldn't be easy, but there should be some level of influence to flip.
3. CS should have a basic passive benefit, like in 6, to go along with the suze bonus. Even if it was just +1 of its yield in every city/town hall for each CS, would at least make sure you get something out if all the good suze bonuses are gone, and you're not really interested in the UI. Or even just like a standing bonus for being suze - so like the bonus you get when you friend them, if you were given that every 20-40 turns, so each military CS gave you a couple free units over the course of an age.
4. Agreed it would be nice if they popped back up immediately on age transition, not just after turn 1. I do think they could be more dynamic too - any large enough territory without a settlement should pop a new independent tribe. Make me clear them out to settle in a region if I delayed.
5. I wouldn't necessarily hate if there was a negative option for influence. It's not common, but there's some times where maybe I know I want to disband an IP because I want to settle nearby, but I don't have units available yet, but someone else has started the suze process. I wouldn't mind paying to give them a -1 per turn towards the suzerain, to stop the process, and give me a little more time to get my military in order.

 

[GeneralZift]

I think most of the CS options will come with expansion or update.
The same was true of Civ5 CS iirc

 

[Krikkit1]

I would say
1. Make IPs defend themselves better
2. Allow liberating a CS to become the Suzerein
3. Allow more “runner up” benefits for non Suzereins that reach 60 (Trade routes, yield boost, etc.)…. partially depends on your relationship with the Suzerein
4. Allow Contesting the Suzerainty with extra influence.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Lack of competition for CS after relationship was formed was designed for Civ7 ages. The pacing needed to be designed in a way so independent powers mostly disappear by the end of the age - either through becoming city states or dying. The next age - repeat. This reset generally makes any late-age city-state mechanics not as needed as in continuous games like 5 or 6. I believe that's why CS liberation is not a priority as well.

 

[UWHabs]

Lack of competition for CS after relationship was formed was designed for Civ7 ages. The pacing needed to be designed in a way so independent powers mostly disappear by the end of the age - wither through becoming city states or dying. The next age - repeat. This reset generally makes any late-age city-state mechanics not as needed as in continuous games like 5 or 6. I believe that's why CS liberation is not a priority as well.

Yeah, I'd agree it's not as desperately needed, but even within the span of an age, there's still a little back and forth that you could add in that I don't think would hurt the game.

 

[Krikkit1]

Lack of competition for CS after relationship was formed was designed for Civ7 ages. The pacing needed to be designed in a way so independent powers mostly disappear by the end of the age - wither through becoming city states or dying. The next age - repeat. This reset generally makes any late-age city-state mechanics not as needed as in continuous games like 5 or 6. I believe that's why CS liberation is not a priority as well.

It might also help if say the IP that spawned in a CS location in the next age was 35 or 40 relationship with every civ that got to 60 relationship with it.

 

[Berrern]

Let me chip in with my two cents!

I agree with most of what has been said, especially the point about not being able to lure them away from a rival.
I focus a lot on suzeraining as many of them as possible (I almost always do neutral greetings with the AI, and refuse the majority of their endeavours, to save up the influence points for befriending CS), and in every game I play, the AI declares war on me only because one of my city states is their neighbour and they want to conquer them.

I also think the suzerain bonuses can be way too powerful, especially if you use the relevant memento (+100 influence every time you suzerain a CS) and get the diplomatic attribute point for decreasing the cost of befriending them by 50%. In a recent game on a pangaea map, I got 12 (!) city states in antiquity, and as I was quick to befriend them, I got to choose the best bonuses. That meant I got:

• + 12 combat points for my ranged units
• + 12 combat points for my infantry units
• 12 free technologies
• 12 free civics
• An absolutely ridiculous amount of gold per turn

I got an even bigger number of city states in Exploration, and the tech boost was wild, I was researching future tech before the age progress had reached 50% !!! And this was on Deity...
Fighting tier 1 units with my tier 3 really ruined the challenge and fun in that game. Since then I don't use that memento, it's way too overpowered IMO.

As well, I don't know if it's a bug or feature, but even if one of your city states is taken out, you keep getting their bonus for the rest of the age (at least the free tech / civics).

There's so much potential with them, I really hope they release a major update for them sooner rather than later. The 24 new bonuses coming in the new patch isn't a solution...

 

[Krikkit1]

There's so much potential with them, I really hope they release a major update for them sooner rather than later. The 24 new bonuses coming in the new patch isn't a solution...

the 24 bonuses is a solution to having an increased number of players and number of CS on big maps so the options don't run out.

 

[Berrern]

the 24 bonuses is a solution to having an increased number of players and number of CS on big maps so the options don't run out.

Yeah I'm aware of that, but if people play like I do, it just means more bonuses for the player - which makes them even more overpowered!

I'm actually looking forward to trying that on the new patch, and play with an influence-rich civilization, and see how many CS I can get on a huge map

My point was, it doesn't solve any of the "pain points" we currently have with the CS feature.

 

[Krikkit1]

Yeah I'm aware of that, but if people play like I do, it just means more bonuses for the player - which makes them even more overpowered!

I'm actually looking forward to trying that on the new patch, and play with an influence-rich civilization, and see how many CS I can get on a huge map

My point was, it doesn't solve any of the "pain points" we currently have with the CS feature.

Some of that could also be the AI…if it seriously contested IP/CS then it might be more balanced.

 

[evonannoredars]

I think a relatively simple alteration which'd make them more fun might be to keep the option to incite a raid once you've suzerained them. Would be extra cool if you could do it even if at peace with another civ, but the other civ gets war support if they declare war because of it.

 

[bengalryan9]

I think a relatively simple alteration which'd make them more fun might be to keep the option to incite a raid once you've suzerained them. Would be extra cool if you could do it even if at peace with another civ, but the other civ gets war support if they declare war because of it.

City State privateers would be pretty cool!

 

[UWHabs]

Some of that could also be the AI…if it seriously contested IP/CS then it might be more balanced.

The AI will eventually get around to them. I've had games where I get distracted, and I would need like 3-4 boosts to beat them.

 

[m_mus]

I think a relatively simple alteration which'd make them more fun might be to keep the option to incite a raid once you've suzerained them. Would be extra cool if you could do it even if at peace with another civ, but the other civ gets war support if they declare war because of it.

Yeah, that would be a great addition. We really need ways to interact with CSs after they have become part of another player's sphere of influence below a direct declaration of full blown war against the suzerain in question.
I do not wish for direct re-implementation, but the ability to station envoys in a CS and be granted some bonuses without questioning the suzerainty directly, was also a meaningful way to interact with CS. And staying just 1 envoy shy of flipping the CS back to neutrality, was also a very strategic move to enable further action. As I've said, I mainly played Civ6 from a multiplayer-perspective, but the competition for CSs was a wonderful way of engaging in a strategically relevant struggle as part of an ongoing "Cold War" before actual hostilities broke out.
Thank you all for your contributions. Several points of note, which I hadn't considered up until now. Keep them coming

 

[Suicidekills]

I got 12 (!) city states in antiquity, and as I was quick to befriend them, I got to choose the best bonuses. That meant I got:

• + 12 combat points for my ranged units
• + 12 combat points for my infantry units
• 12 free technologies
• 12 free civics
• An absolutely ridiculous amount of gold per turn

What were your settings? 12 CS feels like a lot to me. My last pangea game I didn't even feel like 12 city-states spawned on the map. I didn't even find all the other Civs on the map. I was too busy dealing with Augustus. Your momento must have come in really handy here. Like what was the AI doing? You said you only did neutral greetings, so did you stay peaceful? Any wars would require you to invest at least some diplo into war support. Your scouting must have been bonkers cus any dead end would require more diplo for open borders. Did you have any resistance during this game? You didn't even mention using Greece or any leader with diplo bonuses. I know if Tecumseh was in your game, he would do his best not to allow any of that. Also, they capped the combat strength on resources....maybe they should do it in this case as well (if they haven't already).

I think a relatively simple alteration which'd make them more fun might be to keep the option to incite a raid once you've suzerained them. Would be extra cool if you could do it even if at peace with another civ, but the other civ gets war support if they declare war because of it.

Mechanically, this doesn't make sense to me. Suzerainship is basically an alliance with an independent power. If they go to war, the civ-associated should go to war as well. Especially since incite raid exists when they're not suzerains, which makes sense. Berrern portrays how overpowered the city-states are already, and this would just make it worse.

The one thing they should 100% change is allowing city-states to be liberated. It's a minor detail so I can see how it was overlooked, but it should definitely exist in the game.

I feel like the combination of city-states acting as barbarians and the age feature makes the Civ 6 way of city-states not very fitting in this version. Like GeneralZift mentions, they'll most likely rework the feature in an expansion. Until then I'll definitely be trying out Tecumseh once the new update comes out.

 

[Kwami]

The one thing they should 100% change is allowing city-states to be liberated. It's a minor detail so I can see how it was overlooked, but it should definitely exist in the game.

I don't see this as a minor detail. It's very frustrating to lose a CS to the AI during a war and then have absolutely no way to ever get it back. I noticed it right away!

That's my biggest request for city states. Let us liberate city states in war! And whoever is the current suzerain should get the bonus. Currently, it seems like bonuses stick around when city states are destroyed, which is not good.

 

[m_mus]

To warm this thread up myself:
A small detail, which I also like, is, that you are levying individual units within CSs, so that even you wouldn't be able to hire its whole force, you can maybe hire half of it (thought it would be a neat QoA-improvement to add the "Levy all units" button). Here again one sees a more refined feature that allows a more granular approach than it had been in Civ6.