What if the intricate dance of diplomacy in Civilization VI had a sudden, sharp turn? Imagine a world where a simple misstep, a single failed quest, didn’t just mean a missed opportunity for an envoy but instead triggered irreversible animosity. In the current state of the game, failing a city-state quest is a minor setback. You miss out on an envoy, perhaps delaying your suzerainty by a few turns. But what if the consequences were dire? This analysis explores a hypothetical scenario where failing a city-state quest makes that city-state permanently hostile. This single change would fundamentally reshape strategic decision-making from the first turn to the last, forcing a complete re-evaluation of exploration, expansion, and diplomacy.
The Early Game: A High-Stakes Gamble
From the moment you encounter your first city-state, the game would transform. No longer a passive bonus provider, each city-state would represent a potential permanent enemy. This dramatically raises the stakes of early-game exploration and interaction.
The Peril of Early Quests
Many professional gamers suggest that the first 50 turns are critical for establishing a strong foundation. In this hypothetical scenario, this period becomes even more fraught with danger. Early city-state quests are often simple: “Recruit a Great General,” “Train an Archer,” or “Clear a nearby barbarian camp.” However, their simplicity is deceptive. A player might receive a quest to train a unit they hadn’t planned on, forcing a deviation from their optimal build order. Or, more perilously, they might be tasked with clearing a barbarian camp that is heavily defended or inconveniently located.
According to the player community, the risk of failing these early quests would be immense. A newly founded civilization is vulnerable. A permanently hostile city-state on your border in the Ancient Era is a far greater threat than a marauding barbarian tribe. It would be a constant drain on resources, forcing you to maintain a larger standing army than you might otherwise need. This, in turn, would slow your economic development, delay the construction of crucial districts, and potentially put you behind your rivals in science and culture.
A New Calculus for Exploration
Analysis on forums shows that players would have to adopt a much more cautious approach to exploration. The standard strategy of sending out scouts in all directions to meet as many city-states as possible would become a high-risk gamble. Each new city-state met is another potential permanent enemy. A popular strategy would likely emerge where players deliberately avoid meeting city-states until they are confident they can complete any quest that might be thrown their way. This would have a cascading effect on the game. The world would feel smaller, more dangerous. The race for suzerainty would be delayed, and the early game would become a more insular and defensive affair.
Mid-Game Mayhem: The Shifting Sands of Alliances
As the game progresses into the Classical, Medieval, and Renaissance eras, the strategic implications of this rule change would become even more complex. The web of alliances and rivalries that defines the mid-game would be thrown into chaos.
The Diplomatic Domino Effect
A popular strategy in the current game is to cultivate relationships with multiple city-states to gain a variety of bonuses. In our hypothetical scenario, this would be a dangerous game. A single failed quest could turn a valuable ally into a permanent foe. This would have a ripple effect on your relationships with other civilizations. An alliance with a civilization that is the suzerain of a city-state you have angered could be jeopardized. The intricate dance of diplomacy would become a minefield.
Many professional gamers suggest that the key to a successful mid-game is flexibility. This rule change would force a new level of adaptability. Players would have to be constantly assessing the risks and rewards of their interactions with city-states. A quest that seems simple on the surface could have unforeseen consequences. For example, a quest to build a specific wonder might be achievable, but it could also put you in direct competition with another civilization that is also trying to build that wonder. The resulting diplomatic fallout could be disastrous.
The Rise of the City-State Slayer
Analysis on forums shows that this rule change would likely give rise to a new type of player: the city-state slayer. These players would adopt a hyper-aggressive strategy, viewing city-states not as potential allies but as obstacles to be removed. Instead of trying to complete their quests, they would simply conquer them. This would be a high-risk, high-reward strategy. Conquering a city-state incurs significant warmonger penalties, but it also removes a potential permanent enemy from the board.
A popular strategy for these players would be to use a powerful unique unit in the early or mid-game to quickly overwhelm a city-state before it can become a major threat. The Aztec Eagle Warrior, the Roman Legion, or the Scythian Horse Archer would all be excellent choices for this strategy. This would create a more volatile and unpredictable game world, where the balance of power could shift dramatically in a few short turns.
Late-Game Consequences: A World at War
By the time the game reaches the Modern, Atomic, and Information eras, the consequences of this rule change would be fully realized. The world would be a much more dangerous and unstable place.
The End of the Diplomatic Victory?
According to the player community, the Diplomatic Victory would become almost impossible to achieve. The current path to a Diplomatic Victory involves accumulating Diplomatic Favor and winning votes in the World Congress. A key source of Diplomatic Favor is suzerainty over city-states. In a world where a single failed quest can lead to permanent hostility, maintaining a large number of suzerainties would be incredibly difficult.
Many professional gamers suggest that players would have to find alternative sources of Diplomatic Favor. The Mahabodhi Temple, the Potala Palace, and the Statue of Liberty would all become even more valuable than they already are. But even with these wonders, it would be a struggle to keep up with the Diplomatic Favor generated by civilizations that have not angered as many city-states.
A New Era of Perpetual War
Analysis on forums shows that this rule change would likely lead to a new era of perpetual war. With so many potential permanent enemies on the board, conflict would be almost inevitable. The late game would become a brutal slugfest, where only the strongest military powers can survive.
A popular strategy would be to focus on a Domination Victory. The late-game unique units, such as the American P-51 Mustang, the Russian Cossack, and the German U-Boat, would all be incredibly powerful in this environment. The game would become a race to unlock these units and use them to crush your enemies before they can do the same to you.
A More Brutal and Unforgiving World
The introduction of permanent hostility for failed city-state quests would transform Civilization VI into a much more brutal and unforgiving game. The early game would be a high-stakes gamble, the mid-game a chaotic dance of shifting alliances, and the late game a brutal struggle for survival. This single rule change would force players to re-evaluate every aspect of their strategy, from exploration and expansion to diplomacy and warfare. While this would undoubtedly make the game more challenging, it would also make it more exciting and unpredictable. It would be a world where every decision matters, and a single mistake can have devastating consequences.