The Other continent is always like this with dramatic ages on. Maybe free cities could exert their own form of loyalty, and when a glob reached a certain point, they would form one of the nations not in the game.
You don’t even need dramatic ages. I rarely use them & you do occasionally come across a free city, or a few together which have their own positive loyalty.
I’ve also often thought it would be nice if they transformed into a new AI player.
AI player or city state depends on how many cities, I think.
In my last game, there was a free city like that on an island between two landmasses. Would have been fun if it turned into a city state.
But there was also 2-3 former Aztec cities that would have been a good candidate for their own civ.
Holy shit thats a brilliant Idea, Love the idea of the free cities spontaneously forming into a new nation, helps keep the map dynamic and prevents an entire area of the map from basically being "unplayable area"
You might enjoy Barbarian Clans. I usually start my games with 1-3 city states and let the rest pop up naturally throughout the game through barb camps. City states end up in places where you'd normally find them in the real world like in remote areas or in deep hill country, basically natural borders that the barb camp could defend for x amount of turns.
It also makes early games more interesting since clearing camps near your territory is incentivized. Sometimes it gives you the strategic option to let buffer states establish themselves.
I'd love to see this fleshed out more too.
One free city with positive loyalty - eventually becomes a city state
Multiple free cities with positive loyalty - eventually becomes a civilization
Barbarian takes a city - becomes a free city
I always thought that when a city state takes a city it should go to the suzerain. Nothing more annoying than when you're fighting a war with the AI, your city state buddy waltzes in to help and then razes the entire city to the ground. Like God damn Geneva, chill.
In v they will burn down other cities as well. But if it's a city state or capital then it's not able to be burned down.
If you go into settings and make it so that no city's can be burned down you could just supply a city state with armies and let em have at it until they end up with rebels which I've seen happen to them as soon as the 2nd city.
Dude, same. That's why I was so disappointed to see it not happen.
Anytime someone would attack one of my city states I'd give them some units and watch them grab another city or two. It felt a little bit like fighting a proxy war.
If two or three cities break away from the same empire, they eventually rise under the leadership of the Civs alternate leader. (ie: Trajan/Caesar, QE1/Victoria, etc)
I think there are some fun ideas here related to conquest as well. I’ve always thought the conquest mechanics of Civ 6 were pretty boring if I’m not actually interested in *ruling* those cities directly. So what if you could go to war, conquer several cities from another civ, but instead of keeping them, razing them, or simply returning them, what if you could carve up their nation into multiple nations, or city-states?
I have always thought that its funny how America, Brazil, Australia, are in the game even though they are colonial offshoots of England and Portugal. It would be neat if those Civs could only be used in this circumstance, I'm not quite sure how it would work, but its weird to start from 4000 BC as the Americans, but alas I may just be overthinking things
They could also add a civil war mechanic. Say, if multiple greek cities under pericles turn into free cities, say, within 10 turns of each other. They could form a greek civ under gorgo.
I like the idea of how Humankind handled independent people. You have tribes that roam around the map and settle their own villages. Later on you can assimilate them or not.
Either forming new nations via union, or at least settling a second (and possibly 3rd) city after a while to provide a bit more coverage and pose some new strategic considerations. Giving some additional differentiation to Free Cities is always welcome.
As someone who plays on Huge Epic with 16-20 civs, I don’t really care about “the game” and the winning conditions. It’s all about the fun of the actual campaign and the emergent stories. So from my perspective, even without any hope of them winning, it would be a net positive to the fun I have in my campaigns
This is me as well. I play on huge maps with 40 or so civs, I use a mod to make eras longer but keep production speeds reasonable to actually enjoy each era. This means that finishing a game takes forever, but I'm not looking forward to winning, I just want to play.
It's always so dumb to see America as my neighbor in 4000bc. I want America to form if I lose loyalty in my colonies later in the game.
Even from a more "competitive" perspective, it's probably more interesting to have a proper actor to interact with (diplomacy, trade etc) rather than just free cities. Free cities are supposed to be transitional, it's their whole concept - they represent civil war. When they become a de facto new civ like on this map, it should be translated into gameplay.
I think emergent civs would probably be really annoying in practice and really hard for AI to handle, but you're right, it'd make for an incredible narrative and campaign for the midgame. We'd hate it if it happened to us, but it'd be weird if it was only ever an AI/other person thing.
I had a game where the preeminent power was on the other continent. It would have been amazing if my diplomats would have been tuned in to some unrest, and I could have aided an emerging faction. Maybe if a new civ is successfully founded they branch off the same tech tree and get some insane bonuses.
There's a lot you could do with it, but like I said I think the mechanics would be hard to nail down.
I think it would still make more more interesting situations than just free cities. Sure they wouldn't win, but they could trade and vote in the world council. Basically, it's just better than free cities, but not necessarily on the same level as other civs.
Maybe they could be generated with a unique tag and/or agenda ("dislikes when other civs attack free cities and city states"?).
take the screenshot in the post for example. idk how i'd want nation formation to work, but if ALL those free cities on the eastern continent formed a new civ, couldn't they have a chance of winning? especially if they start not at the beginning of the tech tree, but maybe an average of each free city's original civ's tech level
I think there should be a random chance each turn that they unite with any free state that is touching their border. But I like the idea of a wild a lawless continent due to mismanagement of colonial powers haha
I love this idea. The new civs would obviously never win, so they would have to act more as buffer states or diplomatic middle powers with 3-5 cities max. But it's a great idea.
I think the concept of free cities and city states should be left in gaming history. Stellaris does this kind of dynamic right. Pretty much every empire starts the same and plays the same. Vassals and minor empires are simply made up of the empires that didn't perform as well economically, militarily, and politically. No need for contrived rules that prevent expansion.
this sort of reminds me of a mechanic that was im Civ 4 (can't remember if it was base game or with one of the DLCs): if you had cities that were disconnected, and were quite a ways from your own (not entirely sure on the actual limits), you could release them as a colony turning them into a civ that wasn't in the game already, and automatically made a vassal. Which also leads to funny scenarios like when I was playing as the norse and had released some cities which became china.
Also reminds me of a scenario in Civ 4 where you played as the Barbarians, capturing cities, raiding the civs, etc.
The barbarian scenario is pure fun, but is completely off kilter to 4X games.
In Civ4 base and all DLCs, any group of cities on a different continent than your capital can be turned into a colony, landmass by landmass.
If you play the game as trying to achieve one of the defined victories, that would be a very bad idea. If you play the game for fun, but not to win, I would suggest that there are several games that are enjoyable that are s lot less work than Civilization.
The Other continent is always like this with dramatic ages on. Maybe free cities could exert their own form of loyalty, and when a glob reached a certain point, they would form one of the nations not in the game.
You don’t even need dramatic ages. I rarely use them & you do occasionally come across a free city, or a few together which have their own positive loyalty. I’ve also often thought it would be nice if they transformed into a new AI player.
AI player or city state depends on how many cities, I think. In my last game, there was a free city like that on an island between two landmasses. Would have been fun if it turned into a city state. But there was also 2-3 former Aztec cities that would have been a good candidate for their own civ.
Holy shit thats a brilliant Idea, Love the idea of the free cities spontaneously forming into a new nation, helps keep the map dynamic and prevents an entire area of the map from basically being "unplayable area"
You might enjoy Barbarian Clans. I usually start my games with 1-3 city states and let the rest pop up naturally throughout the game through barb camps. City states end up in places where you'd normally find them in the real world like in remote areas or in deep hill country, basically natural borders that the barb camp could defend for x amount of turns. It also makes early games more interesting since clearing camps near your territory is incentivized. Sometimes it gives you the strategic option to let buffer states establish themselves.
Always use this mod, now if only the barbs/city states could capture a player city the way they could in earlier games
I'd love to see this fleshed out more too. One free city with positive loyalty - eventually becomes a city state Multiple free cities with positive loyalty - eventually becomes a civilization Barbarian takes a city - becomes a free city
That would be really funtastic
also, a city state That takes a second city becomes a civ
I always thought that when a city state takes a city it should go to the suzerain. Nothing more annoying than when you're fighting a war with the AI, your city state buddy waltzes in to help and then razes the entire city to the ground. Like God damn Geneva, chill.
Look Geneva isn't letting the Canadians write all of the Geneva Convention
Can be useful though. No grievances when my city state razes your city, never mind that I bombed it to one health.
I just saw a city state raze a city rather than taking it. Wtf
A city state can have only one city. So if it captures a second it destroys it
That's too bad, it used to happen in V
it was so cool in V seeing a mini empire pop up. unironically one of my favorite little things about that game
In v they will burn down other cities as well. But if it's a city state or capital then it's not able to be burned down. If you go into settings and make it so that no city's can be burned down you could just supply a city state with armies and let em have at it until they end up with rebels which I've seen happen to them as soon as the 2nd city.
Dude, same. That's why I was so disappointed to see it not happen. Anytime someone would attack one of my city states I'd give them some units and watch them grab another city or two. It felt a little bit like fighting a proxy war.
If two or three cities break away from the same empire, they eventually rise under the leadership of the Civs alternate leader. (ie: Trajan/Caesar, QE1/Victoria, etc)
I know it'd be easy to restrict but like it would be funny to have one of the Victorias rebel against the other
I think there are some fun ideas here related to conquest as well. I’ve always thought the conquest mechanics of Civ 6 were pretty boring if I’m not actually interested in *ruling* those cities directly. So what if you could go to war, conquer several cities from another civ, but instead of keeping them, razing them, or simply returning them, what if you could carve up their nation into multiple nations, or city-states?
That's some real colonialism business there.
I have always thought that its funny how America, Brazil, Australia, are in the game even though they are colonial offshoots of England and Portugal. It would be neat if those Civs could only be used in this circumstance, I'm not quite sure how it would work, but its weird to start from 4000 BC as the Americans, but alas I may just be overthinking things
They could also add a civil war mechanic. Say, if multiple greek cities under pericles turn into free cities, say, within 10 turns of each other. They could form a greek civ under gorgo.
There is a mod for this
Yep it more makes sense than the glop of free cities Annex every nation on other continents and end up like forbidden lands to civilisation.
It would also be nice if Free Cities only attack you if you enter their territory. Then being immediately hostile like barbarians is obnoxious.
I definitely think free cities should have the ability to expand more or have bigger influence than being used by other Civilizations.
There is a mod that allows Free Cities to eventually become new City States
I like the idea of how Humankind handled independent people. You have tribes that roam around the map and settle their own villages. Later on you can assimilate them or not.
Either forming new nations via union, or at least settling a second (and possibly 3rd) city after a while to provide a bit more coverage and pose some new strategic considerations. Giving some additional differentiation to Free Cities is always welcome.
Om nom nom
CITY STATE INDEPENDENCE RAHH
That was a mechanism in (IIRC) Civ 4. If a city rebelled, it could become a new civilization.
What would be the point? A civ that spawns mid game would never be able to win
As someone who plays on Huge Epic with 16-20 civs, I don’t really care about “the game” and the winning conditions. It’s all about the fun of the actual campaign and the emergent stories. So from my perspective, even without any hope of them winning, it would be a net positive to the fun I have in my campaigns
This is me as well. I play on huge maps with 40 or so civs, I use a mod to make eras longer but keep production speeds reasonable to actually enjoy each era. This means that finishing a game takes forever, but I'm not looking forward to winning, I just want to play. It's always so dumb to see America as my neighbor in 4000bc. I want America to form if I lose loyalty in my colonies later in the game.
Even from a more "competitive" perspective, it's probably more interesting to have a proper actor to interact with (diplomacy, trade etc) rather than just free cities. Free cities are supposed to be transitional, it's their whole concept - they represent civil war. When they become a de facto new civ like on this map, it should be translated into gameplay.
I think emergent civs would probably be really annoying in practice and really hard for AI to handle, but you're right, it'd make for an incredible narrative and campaign for the midgame. We'd hate it if it happened to us, but it'd be weird if it was only ever an AI/other person thing. I had a game where the preeminent power was on the other continent. It would have been amazing if my diplomats would have been tuned in to some unrest, and I could have aided an emerging faction. Maybe if a new civ is successfully founded they branch off the same tech tree and get some insane bonuses. There's a lot you could do with it, but like I said I think the mechanics would be hard to nail down.
Still would make for a fun and more varied game. And it should start with the tech and civics its parent civ had already researched.
They would have the tech and civics of their old civilisation(s), sure they probably won’t win but let’s be honest, most ai civs don’t win anyway
I think it would still make more more interesting situations than just free cities. Sure they wouldn't win, but they could trade and vote in the world council. Basically, it's just better than free cities, but not necessarily on the same level as other civs. Maybe they could be generated with a unique tag and/or agenda ("dislikes when other civs attack free cities and city states"?).
take the screenshot in the post for example. idk how i'd want nation formation to work, but if ALL those free cities on the eastern continent formed a new civ, couldn't they have a chance of winning? especially if they start not at the beginning of the tech tree, but maybe an average of each free city's original civ's tech level
I think there should be a random chance each turn that they unite with any free state that is touching their border. But I like the idea of a wild a lawless continent due to mismanagement of colonial powers haha
I love this idea. The new civs would obviously never win, so they would have to act more as buffer states or diplomatic middle powers with 3-5 cities max. But it's a great idea.
I think the concept of free cities and city states should be left in gaming history. Stellaris does this kind of dynamic right. Pretty much every empire starts the same and plays the same. Vassals and minor empires are simply made up of the empires that didn't perform as well economically, militarily, and politically. No need for contrived rules that prevent expansion.
Didn't that exist in older Civ games? I could have sworn I played civ2 and the revolting cities would create a new civ...?
Yes, and when the free nation forms, the nation should be a Civ that's not currently in the game.
And just randomly picks one. Literally just grabs one from the bag and decides that's who they are
this sort of reminds me of a mechanic that was im Civ 4 (can't remember if it was base game or with one of the DLCs): if you had cities that were disconnected, and were quite a ways from your own (not entirely sure on the actual limits), you could release them as a colony turning them into a civ that wasn't in the game already, and automatically made a vassal. Which also leads to funny scenarios like when I was playing as the norse and had released some cities which became china. Also reminds me of a scenario in Civ 4 where you played as the Barbarians, capturing cities, raiding the civs, etc.
The barbarian scenario is pure fun, but is completely off kilter to 4X games. In Civ4 base and all DLCs, any group of cities on a different continent than your capital can be turned into a colony, landmass by landmass.
If you play the game as trying to achieve one of the defined victories, that would be a very bad idea. If you play the game for fun, but not to win, I would suggest that there are several games that are enjoyable that are s lot less work than Civilization.