Independent powers are awful and it actually makes me mad

[Bricicles]

I like civ 7, I really do, but what I HATE is how independent powers/city states are handled. You dump a valuable resource into them just for your damn allies to snuff them out a few turns later. There is almost nothing you can do to protect them from getting dispersed, there are no serious diplomatic repercussions to your allies basically betraying you (hello? +1 war score or something? jfc), you cannot compete for influence over them after the race is over, and even if the 4 that managed to survive make it to the end of the age they vanish. Why not have the ones that made it to CS status survive? It actually makes me angry about how bad they are. I loved being the city state collector and defender in previous games. I would have hoped with how many mods made CS interaction so fun in previous games that firaxis would have learned something and made them super interesting but they made them complete trash.

With the ages, they had an opportunity to make a really cool function like if they survived what if they became a new major power in the next age? Sure they'd be at a disadvantage but theyre an AI. Whos to say they couldn't add a NEW type of non-playable civ, like minor powers? Its like they tried to make CSs as bad as possible.

Seriously, how cool would it be if independent powers could actually grow if you had a major power feeding and protecting them? Like they start out as villages, then grow to towns, then city-states, then minor powers. Or maybe you could raise them up to be a thorn in your competitors side, while not technically being allied to them? What if they had their own rivals and motivations and fought skirmishes with other indys, creating a situation where you could have a proxy war?

Anyway, the point is the framework for an awesome system is there and i REALLY hope firaxis does SOMETHING to improve them, even if it takes a DLC.

[wcbarney]

I dunno; I agree that it pizzes me off when one of my competitors disperses one or more of the Independent Powers that I've invested 170 of my rare influence in befriending. But as Forrest Gump famously said in the 1994 movie: Shux happens! I've always found enough other independents to befriend eventually. I have however, on occasion, gone to war over one of the independents that I was befriending, located in close proximity to my territory, when the independent was attacked by some azzhole like Xerxes or Machiavelli.

[Bricicles]

Originally posted by wcbarney:

I dunno; I agree that it pizzes me off when one of my competitors disperses one or more of the Independent Powers that I've invested 170 of my rare influence in befriending. But as Forrest Gump famously said in the 1994 movie: Shux happens! I've always found enough other independents to befriend eventually. I have however, on occasion, gone to war over one of the independents that I was befriending, located in close proximity to my territory, when the independent was attacked by some azzhole like Xerxes or Machiavelli.

Yeah I mean I dont exactly have a problem with them getting dispersed as it is but what is annoying is that there are not a lot of mechanisms to prevent it or to punish those who basically attack your interests. I mean, yeah, I can declare a war but I feel like as far as the AI is 'aware' it is a surprise war. It is also insane that civs you are literally allied to will disperse powers you are working on. If I can see who is working on a power, so can the AI so they 'know' what they are doing.

[Bandit17]

I agree there should be a diplomatic way of protecting our interests but at the end of the day everyone, even our "friends", are trying to win. What I do, when it's possible, is put in a military blockade for the Independent Powers I want to invest in. Surrounding an entire IP almost always prevents others from knocking it out.

[Rhapsody]

Literally the best implementation of barbarians and city-states, combining the aspects of both into one.

Try spending a thousand years boosting your influence in a city-state, only to have Austria buy it off. Or anyone conquer it. At least here you get a portion of your influence spent back. Same ♥♥♥♥ in Civ VI.

[Bricicles]

Originally posted by Rhapsody:

Literally the best implementation of barbarians and city-states, combining the aspects of both into one.

Try spending a thousand years boosting your influence in a city-state, only to have Austria buy it off. Or anyone conquer it. At least here you get a portion of your influence spent back. Same ♥♥♥♥ in Civ VI.

Well generally in Civ 5 you can start a war over that and release them, it didnt feel like you were pouncing on the AI for no reason. There was also a little more interaction and (non military) competition over them. I really want to like this implementation of cs/barbs but it feels like it could be so much more. And if they get overtaken in a war they are gone, even if you fight to take them back. Like i said, I like the framework of what they have but the final product of it is massively disappointing with your options reduced to camping in a circle around the IP. I really think it would help if you got like, x turns of +1 war support against a civ that dispersed an IP you were working on. The only punishment against the AI is THEY get mad at YOU when THEY disperse your IP which is just silly.

[Hovarda26]

boooo ne ola

[Rhapsody]

Originally posted by Bricicles:

I like the framework of what they have but the final product of it is massively disappointing with your options reduced to camping in a circle around the IP.

Well, I'd perhaps extend the ability to boost their military with influence before the village is upgraded to city-state.

[Aluminum Elite Master]

Originally posted by Rhapsody:

Try spending a thousand years boosting your influence in a city-state, only to have Austria buy it off.

While I don't think the Civ 7 CS system is perfect yet, I kind of agree with the quote. In previous games, if you played a civ that depended on city-states, it could go a bit sideways when that one vital city-state got bought up, or otherwise removed through unique abilities or other stuff.

The system here is not perfect in how you can spend influence and not immediately get a bit of a claim to defend the IP if it's attacked... but the system is a little more organic, too, in that a locked-in city-state is actually locked-in, and not still up for grabs if someone can spend one more delegate there than you.

The IP/city-state system for Civ 7 is flawed, but still a bit of an improvement over Civ 6's system.

[Bandit17]

Originally posted by Aluminum Elite Master:

The IP/city-state system for Civ 7 is flawed, but still a bit of an improvement over Civ 6's system.

I concur. I do really like Influence and how difficult it can be to acquire for most civ/momento builds. Especially early on in an Age. It adds a lot of tension and weight to the decision making process.

There is a lot to like with the current system but there are missing bits that I miss/would like fixed:

1. The option to Liberate an IP
2. To bribe/warn other civs off from attacking via diplomacy to force peace.
3. The handful of bugs around IP's that causes me to use foul language

If anyone wants to add to the list go for it even though I am sure the devs already have their own list.

[hannibal_pjv]

Independent powers in this game are actually big improvement from civ6…
You have to think where to put you influence. Do you compete with another power or… do you leave it to AI and consentrate to something else.
It has enough variance to make it meaningfull desion making task in the game… and making hard desision is what makes game a game!

[wcbarney]

Originally posted by hannibal_pjv:

Independent powers in this game are actually big improvement from civ6…
You have to think where to put you influence. Do you compete with another power or… do you leave it to AI and consentrate to something else.
It has enough variance to make it meaningfull desion making task in the game… and making hard desision is what makes game a game!

100% correct. I befriend independents this order: Scientific, Cultural, Economic, Militaristic; I'm lucky to get half of them befriended enough to become city-states, but it is always worth the effort: Free tech or culture each time a new independent becomes a city-state, or other useful results.

[Rhapsody]

I'm on the fence with liberation. On one hand it'd be good for several reasons, but on the other... it'd be kinda weird to "liberate" a people that were systematically subjugated for possibly hundreds of years and thoroughly integrated to another civilization. That's something of a problem in previous games too, when you could bring back some defeated player and then they'd get wiped out again (and you'd repeat their liberation) or they'd just hang in the background, incapable of contributing anything to the game. Things would be different with independent powers, especially with the age system, but overall I don't feel like liberation campaigns would add much to the game. It'd also make razing the city-state much more appealing, especially if the position was less than favorable, and I don't think we need any more incentives nor penalties for razing.

[Goof]

civ 5 had the best options for protecting city states. not sure why they were stripped out of 6 and 7

[Bandit17]

Originally posted by Rhapsody:

I'm on the fence with liberation. On one hand it'd be good for several reasons, but on the other... it'd be kinda weird to "liberate" a people that were systematically subjugated for possibly hundreds of years and thoroughly integrated to another civilization. That's something of a problem in previous games too, when you could bring back some defeated player and then they'd get wiped out again (and you'd repeat their liberation) or they'd just hang in the background, incapable of contributing anything to the game. Things would be different with independent powers, especially with the age system, but overall I don't feel like liberation campaigns would add much to the game. It'd also make razing the city-state much more appealing, especially if the position was less than favorable, and I don't think we need any more incentives nor penalties for razing.

I see where you are coming from and I think it would need to be Age restricted which shouldn't be too hard to address since we have Holy Cities that react differently.

I have just had specific experiences where I was a day late and a dollar short from rescuing an IP during a war and I was like "I don't want this settlement. I want my IP back. Why can't I free these people that were just flipped within a few turns?"

Since razing settlements is rather slow I don't see that as an issue. In SP or MP the player would have plenty of time to react if they wanted to.

[tilarium]

I've had 5 games that have lasted and in those 5 games, I've just not (in my current one) seen my 4th city-state get wipes out. So I'd say just bad luck on your part. ANd of those 4, none of them were ones I was working on befriending or had already become the suzerain of.