I was just wondering if anybody has had any games where City-States have taken more than one city from another person and kept them? If not, I think it would be cool if Firaxis gave them the ability to grow that way and adjust their gameplay accordingly. I think it would add another dynamic to the game that's currently missing on the CS front.
City-states definitely can capture other cities. They raze them if possible, but if the city can't be razed it's kept -- I've seen one city-state owned by another. Theoretically a city-state could capture a real civ's capitol, though I've never witnessed this myself.
Empires are unlikely because the CS AI likes to burn stuff. However, in the rare instance it gets a capital, it must keep it, and all resources in the new city go to its ally, as well. I've seen several cases where the CS captures a city, though I've never had it keep one. Bottom line, CS empires don't happen because they don't go to war unless called upon, and they will usually burn any city they can.
Well if that is the case, I feel that the AI of the CSes should be tweaked to burn less based on what I stated in my OP. I think it would add a whole new dynamic knowing that the lowly CS to your side can become a significant threat it left unfettered.
CSes, by rule, are not allowed to have more than one city, so any city they capture is automatically razed. Capitals and other CSes cannot be razed, however, so they get annexed instead. I believe that this is governed by a setting in the .xml files, so it should be fairly easy to mod CSes to be allowed more than one city. However, whether or not it would be wise to do so is another matter.Originally Posted by chris41336
CSes are meant to be minor nations that seek out alliances with the big powers, and as such, allowing them to become empires in their own right would be counter to their design. I do agree, though, that it's something of a waste to have a perfectly good city burned to the ground.
I have had in games where a City-State has gain control of two additional Cities.
City-States are kind of like Vassal-States in a way. And since they do not have Vassal States in Civilization V it might be interesting to turn City-States into sort of a Vassal-State if they capture more than one additional City. That would mean they would not compete to win, but become an ally or protectorate of a Nation-State.
I have seen City States keep cities that could have been razed and have seen more than one game where a City State has grown to four or more cities. This is particularly the case if you give the City State a large army so that it can do your bidding in a war without you needing to move your units into position.
I think there must be an argument that when a City State grows to be larger than one of the main players in the game it should mutate into a main player (with lots of positive relationship modifiers to former allies and friends) because it is a little odd to have supposedly minor players who have grown to be the second or third most powerful civ in the game.
Not sure what would happen with the domination victory conditions here though - after all, if the City State has grown to be a major power because you gave it units to help attack an enemy as part of your domination strategy it would be a bit of a pain in the neck if it then stopped you winning the game because you needed to conquer the newly formed main player that you had heavily armed. Or does that sound a bit like the western world arming Iraq to fight Iran and then deciding that the time had come to conquer Iraq ....
http://www.youtube.com/SBFMadDjinn#p/u/0/s9yR55ZgTEU I didn't watch all parts, but in the end there are some CS with additional cities.
I don't think they should raze cities they take. For one thing, it's uncommon for them to even take a city in the first place. If they manage to get one, I think they should keep it. They don't tend to be very aggressive anyways, so I don't think this would run counter to Civ V's city-state design policy. Anyways, they can't always raze cities (example: other city-states), which means that they're programmed to be potentially able to hold more than one city. I don't really see any problem with them doing so.
A lot of people seem shocked when a city-state takes another city. To me it's not really something unusual. A city-state doesn't necessarily mean a polity narrowly confined to a single city and its immediate environs. City-states throughout history can and have occasionally expanded their boundaries broader than that.
I've had games where a CS has taken a city (and ones I've wanted for myself)
No problem with this, but would be nice if there was some way to get that city short of going to war.
I agree that it would be excellent for a city-state which you've given a big army to and has captured several cities to turn into a major power - and that CSs should be willing to take this path if it is opened to them.
Blowback is an interesting part of diplomacy.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote