Thoughts on improvements

[Ming]

As far as giving you resources, any city-state will do that, so there's nothing special about MCS's in that regard.

They're special if they have the resourse you need

I'll admit that for one thing I'm typically a peaceful player, and also that I haven't used a city-state in the late game. Why? Because after shelling out thousands of gold and getting a warrior every 20 turns as a reward (and a warrior quite a ways from my borders no less), I wasn't very interested in pursuing the deal any further.

I've gotten modern armour and gunships from MCS's... now that's worth the investment. Also, If you've gone down the right policy paths, you get free great people from them as well. They can be very rewarding.

I cannot, therefore, attest to the usefulness of an MCS for myself in wartime, but I do know that the MCS's of my rivals have never accomplished anything to speak of. I walked right by them, and it appears that their units rarely venture beyond their borders.

I've had MCS's roll through my enemy with me... razing cities so I didn't have to. I've seen them take enemy capitals, AND KEEP THEM, making them even better allies.

So I will allow two uses for MCS's. First, if they are near your borders they can secure and defend that part of your border. Secondly, having the loyalty of an MCS probably increases other civs' opinion of your military might, which means they're less likely to go to war with you.

Having one across the world is good too. They will build you a remote army over time that can be very useful. And while it might not stop somebody from going to war with you, they sure can make peace come quicker sometimes

But is that even remotely comparable to MCS's, which give you tons of food in the late-game, allowing you to concentrate on production/science/money and actually pump out quality units, in your own borders, of your own choosing? Or CCS's which enable you to take advantage of more social policies, which besides granting bonuses will directly help you win a cultural victory?

While I think NOBODY disagrees that food and cultural bonuses aren't better. But you make the military CS's sound worthless, and in that, you are mistaken. I've had the chance to be playing civ V for a long time now, playing all the different civs, maps, levels, and in some games, the Military CS's have been the ones to make the difference. They can be very powerful if you understand how to use them properly, just like any CS

See, that's my point. An MCS or CCS, anywhere on the globe, and at any time in the game, is very useful. Even from what you've said, CCS's are useful only in certain circumstances. I.e., if you don't have resources you need, or if they are nearby.

Again... I don't need to have them nearby to make them usefull. PLUS, I see FAR more circumstances while playing the game where they are useful. When I'm playing the cultural game, I'll have ALL the CS's allied with me, and the military ones provide a lot to the empire. Again, it's how you use them.

Again, if they gave me XP bonuses in my cities it would be an entirely different story.

Again, don't consider them worthless if you don't know how to use them

[Ariovistus Maximus]

brb

[rah]

And if they gave XP points, I'm sure more people would start whining that it was over-powered
Yeah when it takes of my cities XX turns to crank out a gunship and a CS just gives me one. That was money or action well spent. If you don't like the unit or don't want to trek it home, just gift it, It may help you later and you aren't paying excessive maint for it.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Well, you are right; I was incorrect to say that they are worthless. But here's just my basic thinking on it without taking up pages and pages.

The other city state types by nature are useful at all times. MCS's are useful, and even vital, but only in special circumstances. That is, in the late game and if you have particularly militaristic plans. As I said, free late-game units are good. Increased power is good to cow your enemies. And I guess if my objections to their helpfulness on the offensive are only due to lack of experience, that's great.

Their other benefits (resources etc) are not anything that other CS's don't yield as well. So in short, if they are only useful in special circumstances, then my money is better spent on the other city types.

So in conclusion, I would assert that city-states are not useless so much because I don't know how to use them, but simply because I rarely find myself in situations that they are useful. I think they would be a more equal, universally-useful factor if they gave experience or production bonuses.

As far as being overpowered in that regard, all you'd have to do is find just the right amount of XP/production to give each turn, same as that balance is found in the other city-states.

[Ming]

Getting cats and swordsman in the early middle game is quite good too. The fact that you don't see them is useful just means that you aren't looking hard enough

They can be of great use to non military styles of playing. Not having to build an army early, and concentrating on infrastructure is a god send to builders. You just pick and choose which units you need to keep and you have an army that you didn't have to build.

I'll usually pick a military CS third in my list. Sure, I will take a maritime or two first, but then I want a military one early. Then I'll start looking at the culture and other maritime CS. It great to have one early, providing you an army for the entire game.

They don't need anything else... because they already offer a lot.

[Krill]

Food bonus from CSs' needs to get ditched...

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Well on that subject, Ming, we shall simply have to agree to disagree. You find them useful, I find my money better spent elsewhere. The beauty of Civ is that it accommodates many playstyles.

[MxM]

Well, you are right; I was incorrect to say that they are worthless. But here's just my basic thinking on it without taking up pages and pages.

The other city state types by nature are useful at all times. MCS's are useful, and even vital, but only in special circumstances.

But what would be the point of having them identically useful. Where would be strategy? Where would be fun. Yes, some of them are more useful than others, but how come this is bad?

On top of this, it may be not so useful for you, but it will be useful for other civ player (or AI).

[Ariovistus Maximus]

But what would be the point of having them identically useful. Where would be strategy? Where would be fun. Yes, some of them are more useful than others, but how come this is bad?

You've missed the concept in game design. You are confusing "balanced" with "identical."

A good game design has many potential playstyles that are different, but equal. They are not identical, but no one way is more powerful than the others, even though they're different. That is the concept of balance, where you can win many different ways, but no one way is the way.

MCS's are different, yes, but inferior.

Although one could also make the argument that MCS's are just overpowered, which to be honest is probably true. At any rate, unless you thoroughly enjoy role-playing and make that extra effort to undergo a handicap in order to play a certain way, there's not much point to playing that way.

Providing players with a wide range of handicaps is not how to support different playstyles. Yes, you can make it work if you try harder. But it could just as easily be made equal with a little tweaking.

On top of this, it may be not so useful for you, but it will be useful for other civ player (or AI).

Yes. In fact you will notice that I said that already. But I still say it's not unreasonable to suggest that MCS's are somewhat underpowered, and it wouldn't take much effort nor be much of a change to fix that.

I am not alone in my opinion on this. Sulla said just as much in his walkthrough, and I think you must acknowledge his expertise in a wide variety of playstyles. What he did, was instead of using MCS's to beat his enemies, he actually found MCS's to be the best, even for a militaristic player. Because he used them (properly ) to build huge cities and overwhelm his enemies with superior production and technology capabilities.

[Ming]

You've missed the concept in game design. You are confusing "balanced" with "identical."

A good game design has many potential playstyles that are different, but equal. They are not identical, but no one way is more powerful than the others, even though they're different. That is the concept of balance, where you can win many different ways, but no one way is the way.

MCS's are different, yes, but inferior.

Sure... they are "inferior"... but you are discounting their real value.

Although one could also make the argument that MCS's are just overpowered, which to be honest is probably true. At any rate, unless you thoroughly enjoy role-playing and make that extra effort to undergo a handicap in order to play a certain way, there's not much point to playing that way.

HUH???????

Providing players with a wide range of handicaps is not how to support different playstyles. Yes, you can make it work if you try harder. But it could just as easily be made equal with a little tweaking.

Equal is in the eye of the beholder... People who don't know how to use them properly probably need tweaking... but people that do, no tweaking is needed.

Yes. In fact you will notice that I said that already. But I still say it's not unreasonable to suggest that MCS's are somewhat underpowered, and it wouldn't take much effort nor be much of a change to fix that.

In your "OPINION"... maybe if you actually used them right, you would understand

I am not alone in my opinion on this. Sulla said just as much in his walkthrough, and I think you must acknowledge his expertise in a wide variety of playstyles. What he did, was instead of using MCS's to beat his enemies, he actually found MCS's to be the best, even for a militaristic player. Because he used them (properly ) to build huge cities and overwhelm his enemies with superior production and technology capabilities.

Nobody is saying to ignore the maritime CS's... they are easy to use properly anybody can do that. No expertise needed. The trick is to use them all... and use them right. It's easy to look at the obvious... it takes skill to look beyond that.

[Krill]

Ming, the most retarded game mechanic for a strategy game is one where you don't have a choice, and that is maritime states down to a T. That food bonus needs to be replaced by something else.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

I merely suggested that they are less useful than the others; you've said as much yourself. Whether that suggests a need to beef up MCS's or nerf MCS's I don't know. Some tweaking for all 3 types is probably in order. And yes, it is abundantly obvious to me that anything used "rightly" is effective. My point is that the circumstances in which an MCS can be used properly are quite narrow and not applicable to all playstyles.

Now frankly, I have better things to spend time on and I've already made my point several times too many. And since it appears that you have linked your dignity to the value of MCS's, I won't assault your pride any further.

[MxM]

You've missed the concept in game design. You are confusing "balanced" with "identical."

A good game design has many potential playstyles that are different, but equal. They are not identical, but no one way is more powerful than the others, even though they're different. That is the concept of balance, where you can win many different ways, but no one way is the way.

Play styles, yes, SC, no.

Militaristic SC should be more valuable if it is closer to your home. That's should be true for all other SCs as well if anything for easiness of protecting them. Otherwise there would be no difference for you to chose which SC you want to convert. Plus, if all of them become equally useful, then imagine how overpowered will be a play style of somebody who plays as Greece and uses patronage to get ALL SC as allies. That would trigger nerfing of SC, but then, they really become useless for those who would ally with only couple SC. So, if you want to have equal playsityles, you have to have non-equal SCs.

I think it is the most natural way when you ally yourself with more useful SC and then, if you still have excess money to less useful SC. This is like when you build cities, first you build it on the most promising land, then, if you still have enough happiness, on less promising land. Or are you going to suggest that all land also should be equal? And again, you missed my point that even if particular SC is not very useful to you, it may be useful for other civ.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

^ Okay, I see what your saying. In one way that makes sense, but in another way it seems strange to introduce a whole new feature and then making it underpowered.

But that does make better sense when you explain it that way. And yes again, I did say that others might find them more useful than I do.

[Louis XXIV]

Brilliant! That would make them useful. Or they could grant a bonus to unit production. See, that would make me want city-states. I find them only remotely useful, and in the mid-late game only, and then like you said only if they're nearby.

And if you consider that an city-state in medieval times gives you as much food as a granary does, you could actually justify militaristic CS's giving you more than 5XP/city.

Two options. One, it could scale based on era like everything else. Or (what I was originally thinking) it could be something like 5 for friends, 15 (maybe 10) for allied. This is in every city and stacks with building improvements, so I think it would be worthwhile, but it would have to be tested to make sure. You could also keep the unit spawn (at a slower rate), depending on balance.

BTW, there are two reasons I proposed this suggestion. One, they're extremely hit or miss. I had one game where I got modern units just in the nick of time to save me. I've also had games where I'm using Mech Infs and they gift me a Lancer. In that game, I actually started gifting the city units because they were in a permanent war with the largest civ in the game.

The second thing that made me feel a change was a good idea was Sulla's walkthrough of the game. He saw a militaristic City-State and immediately decided to steal their warrior, since they were the least valuable of any. The goal is to make them equally valuable so, unless you are swimming in gold or are Greece, you have to make the tough decision of which City-State you want to be friends with. Now, it seems maritime or cultural are clearly better. Hell, there's an option to turn off their ability. No one would consider that for any of the others.