Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Additionally, NOT being the suzerain should carry more weight too. I just finished a game as Barbarossa and it seems like the new warmonger rules didn't take into account City States. I decided to play the civ as designed, and took two important CSs on my continent to deny their bonuses to the other civs, while I focused my Envoys elsewhere. The warmonger penalties were just as bad as prior to the patch, taking 2 CSs meant something like -80+ with all the other civs, and took over 2 centuries to work off. Whereas later I declared a post-victory 'fun war' to make use of my tech advantage, and wiped Phillip II off the map (capped his 4 cities) and took 5 cities from China before my Warmonger penalty got to the same point.
My point being, I think unless a civ has a specific carebear agenda where they love all CSs, the only folks who should care about your attack should be the ones with envoys there. At least for the early game, when the world was more violent.
Seems like a very strange thing for an ally to do. I feel like this is an oversight on the game designer's part.
You can even upgrade the City State units which will make the City State a lot harder to attack after the 30 turns hire period are up.