Entered the exploration age and all the city states disappeared

[cavalier]

I entered the exploration age and all the city states that I was suzerain of disappeared. Is this a glitch of game? or is this expected. Seems a waste of resources if they all disappear after each age change. Why have city states at all if they don't stay with you throughout the whole play through of the game.

[Totalled]

I am amazed you managed to even get that far without getting sick of the game. I am a long time Civ fanatic and this iteration may have broken it for me.

[Arbelox]

Pretty sure the tooltip for that one says that they all will disappear, and if you want to keep them around you will need to incorporate them into your civilization

[Exbeer]

new city states comes along. if you already had one in progress i think that followed over " unless it is a bug " i had one 50 % in progress when my age turned.

[Aluminum Elite Master]

Originally posted by cavalier:

I entered the exploration age and all the city states that I was suzerain of disappeared. Is this a glitch of game? or is this expected. Seems a waste of resources if they all disappear after each age change. Why have city states at all if they don't stay with you throughout the whole play through of the game.

This is something I saw, too, and it is actually one of the bigger reasons I haven't bought the game yet (might give it a go at $70... probably will wait for a sale even then though).

For all the complaints about UI (and yes, it's terrible), there are other big issues. The civ-switching at age transition is bad, but right, city-states also vanish. Meaning that unless you are getting a lot out of city-states right away at the beginning of an age, it becomes more and more likely that you shouldn't even bother with them as more turns go by.

City-states disappearing with age transition create a cost-benefit problem: unless you know you are going to benefit from them for a good number of turns by starting on one right at the beginning of an age, you eventually get to a point where if there's just X turns left, you won't benefit long enough to justify investing anything.

It's a mind-bogglingly bad design choice.

[Wish Bear]

i think the developers decided they way you play

i think you play as if each age was a separate minigame. So nothing carries over and you start over again with one capitol....all cities become towns again also....i can't decide if that makes it dumb or is a cover for bad AI that stops a human steamroller....but civ has many playstyles you don't have to be a military powerhouse....its kinda silly.

its like they took memoriapolis, humankind, civ5, and ara........mashed them together into something and had a 12 year old me from the 80s make the UI in hypercard on my Mac.

[Judicant]

Originally posted by Aluminum Elite Master:

a cost-benefit problem

Is thing something that's not expected of a strategy game?

[(Rúna)]

The end of the first age is to emulate the collapse of the bronze age. I guess by the time the exploration age starts, their absence is part of the rationale; lesser nations disappearing, crumbling to dust. It can be a bit annoying, but it makes sense, and does leave some opportunity for their lands to be claimed.

You will find new independent people as you explore new lands, in the 2nd era.

And again in the third.

I believe they might offer a different set of potential bonuses too, though I haven't tested this enough playing to say confidently

[Efour]

Yep the whole map got rewritten on my 1 and only game.... Suddenly Spain capital lived next to me and 3 city states were gone... I took their city for basically free with all the Norman cavalry units i had suddenly acquired. Weird game..... Stupid... Unfinished.

[(Rúna)]

Originally posted by Aluminum Elite Master:

City-states disappearing with age transition create a cost-benefit problem: unless you know you are going to benefit from them for a good number of turns by starting on one right at the beginning of an age, you eventually get to a point where if there's just X turns left, you won't benefit long enough to justify investing anything.

It's a mind-bogglingly bad design choice.

Not really true. In the Antiquity age it can be worth it for being able to set up trade routes - essential if you want to get a economic victory.

In the Exploration age, they can be essential for getting a cultural victory.

In my playtime I've had it a few occasions now that I was just able to get those victories in the final dozen turns or so because I invested in them.

I understand how it can be annoying to lose everything you invested or gained from those city states when you start new age, but on the other hand, now you have new priorities to meet, and new things to build, new resources to claim, etc. Their disappearance from your starting vicinity gives you much useful land to settle

[Aluminum Elite Master]

Originally posted by (Rúna):

I understand how it can be annoying to lose everything you invested or gained from those city states when you start new age, but on the other hand, now you have new priorities to meet, and new things to build, new resources to claim, etc. Their disappearance from your starting vicinity gives you much useful land to settle

But it isn't just annoying... it renders them kind of moot sometimes, doesn't it?

If it takes a long time to encounter a particular CS, you end up having not enough time to lock it in or benefit from it prior to the next age. The larger benefits from a CS are not going to be reached if you only have a handful of turns before it's gone. That was even a problem in Civ 6 somewhat, because you could levy units only to have a new player become suzerain and then you lose them, IIRC. But here, there's a predictable reset point now, so it's even worse because *you know* its coming (and can't be gamed) and are now in a bind.

Civ 6 was sometimes not great because a CS could be sniped or you could lose levied units in a flash. But there, you could store points and spend them in a big sum at once to try and ensure you didn't have that happen (though they could still be conquered, at least).

But in Civ 7, time itself is against you, and nothing you do can change that if you meet the CS too late and can't get far enough along with it prior to the age-change.

[Molybdane]

Acquiring a city state is pretty easy to begin with, and I haven't seen them been taken away by another major civ; I don't even know if that's a thing. And you can get a pretty solid one-time benefit from them like a free technology. And if they're in an inconvenient location, you only have to wait before you can settle the are later.

[😒]

I don't understand why you'd play anything other than whatever age you like. What's the point of having your progress reset and all previous work erased?

Does it even matter int he modern era what you did as a different leader and civilization 2 ages previous?

This seems like an absolute gamebreaker.

[(Rúna)]

Originally posted by Aluminum Elite Master:

But it isn't just annoying... it renders them kind of moot sometimes, doesn't it?

If it takes a long time to encounter a particular CS, you end up having not enough time to lock it in or benefit from it prior to the next age. The larger benefits from a CS are not going to be reached if you only have a handful of turns before it's gone. That was even a problem in Civ 6 somewhat, because you could levy units only to have a new player become suzerain and then you lose them, IIRC. But here, there's a predictable reset point now, so it's even worse because *you know* its coming (and can't be gamed) and are now in a bind.

Civ 6 was sometimes not great because a CS could be sniped or you could lose levied units in a flash. But there, you could store points and spend them in a big sum at once to try and ensure you didn't have that happen (though they could still be conquered, at least).

But in Civ 7, time itself is against you, and nothing you do can change that if you meet the CS too late and can't get far enough along with it prior to the age-change.

My playtime so far is teaching me to look at them different than in previous civ games. And I kind of like it. So, with Civ6, I never had that happen (an AI civ taking your levied troops because sent a delegate to the city state, making them Suzerain). I nearly always use city states in that game for gaining influence and buffs to my districts etc. But yeah, I fully appreciate how that would piss you the hell off!

With civ7 - first let me say, I dont know if youve played the game or how much you know of how the systems are working in, so apologies if I come across as condescending at any point. I'm not trying to be, but I do disagree with how you're looking at it and think it may be because you havent experienced their place in the game.

So, bear with me as this is all important to understand. With Civ7, you have diplomacy points as a resource. You need that to befriend the independent people, who can be both hostile and friendly. It takes a whole bunch of turns to get it to where they become a city state, and then more turns until you become their suzerain. You can compete with enemy AI at this juncture to become their suzerain - if you have extra influence points you can invest that to get the lead if need be. Once they have a suzerain, thats it for the age. It doesnt change as far as I know currently.

Your diplomacy points/influence starts small (10 points per turn for normal player). And it costs something like 170 to start befriending independent people.

You can increase your rate per turn with different leaders, and with buildings or social policy cards from civic/tech research. Or spec'ing your leader - there are attribute points you can gain, to stick into 5 different skill trees for the leader, and in diplomatic tree you can decrease the cost of using the diplomatic influence points (an aside: my favourite leader so far is Ibn Battuta, who gets 2 free attribute points every age).

So it takes a long time to get Suzerain status anyway, you wont be gain from them very early.

Once you become Suzerain, there is a limited pool of options you can choose from for what you want your Suzerain bonus to be. Some are definitely worth getting early as possible, some can make a difference whenever you get them. I think the pool of options reduces as they get taken by you and other civs, and in each age they are different options, suited to the priorities of that age (I'm not 100% sure of how much they differ yet in age.

One might allow you to train a special troop, or give you a resource for one of your settlements, or an improvement to use on a tile. They're great when you get them, but you dont need them subsequent ages as theyre outdated, and you have different priorities.

Theres other ones like '5% productions towards wonders for each city state you're suzerain off' that are useful no matter where in the stage you get them. They can be crucial to get near the end of the age as they just allow you to make a trade route or research a codex or finish a wonder, which are ways to win the first age. Or to gain relics through conversion, specialists through growth, happiness to manage the debuffs, etc.

Many of these are more important than every near the end of an age, especially if you have crisis stuff happening. They can carry you over the line.

Anyway, the point of all that is to show their actual use in the gameplay. You talk of their larger benefits but thats not how they work. Their benefits are much more short term. Like individual troops are too, or a building that boost production or growth etc. You use them for what you need to achieve the goals of that age you have, and then in the next age, you adjust your strategy and evolve your playstyle to suit the technology and opportunities of that age.

That seems to be the philosophy underpinning the design, and for the most part it works. Its good to have a changing evolving world which open up new challanges and ways to play, IMO

[Skull]

Originally posted by Totalled:

I am amazed you managed to even get that far without getting sick of the game. I am a long time Civ fanatic and this iteration may have broken it for me.

aS a lOnG TiMe cIV fAnAtiC. God these kinds of posts are getting old. We get it, you played the franchise a long time and don’t like change.

[Martin]

Originally posted by cavalier:

I entered the exploration age and all the city states that I was suzerain of disappeared. Is this a glitch of game? or is this expected. Seems a waste of resources if they all disappear after each age change. Why have city states at all if they don't stay with you throughout the whole play through of the game.

Yep most do.