A fundamental shift in the early game of Civilization VI is proposed: what if every city-state, from the moment they are discovered, began with Ancient Walls and a garrisoned ranged unit? This single change, seemingly minor, would send ripples across the entire strategic landscape, fundamentally altering the rhythm of expansion, the nature of early warfare, and the very value of city-state relationships. Analysis on forums shows that such a modification would dramatically elevate the strategic complexity of the game, forcing players to reconsider long-established opening strategies.
This guide delves into the profound strategic implications of this hypothetical scenario. We will dissect how this enhanced defensive posture for city-states would reshape every facet of the early to mid-game, from the initial rush for territory to the intricate dance of diplomacy. Many professional gamers suggest that the early game would become a much more calculated and deliberate affair, a far cry from the often-frantic land grabs that characterize many matches.
The End of the Early Game Rush
The most immediate and obvious consequence of universally walled city-states is the effective neutralization of the early game rush. In the current state of the game, a small, well-timed force of Warriors and Slingers can often be enough to seize a nearby city-state, providing a significant early-game boost. This popular strategy is a cornerstone of many aggressive opening builds.
However, with Ancient Walls and a ranged unit as a baseline, this strategy becomes almost entirely non-viable. Ancient Walls provide a significant defensive bonus to the city center, and the garrisoned ranged unit can pick off attacking units with impunity. According to the player community, a force of three or four Warriors would be decimated before they could make a significant dent in the city’s defenses.
This forces a fundamental shift in military strategy. Instead of a small, agile force, players would need to invest in a much more substantial and technologically advanced army to even consider an early conquest. This means a greater emphasis on producing Archers, Battering Rams, and Siege Towers, all of which require a significant investment in production and technology.
The Rise of Siege Warfare
With the early rush off the table, siege warfare would become the dominant paradigm for early-game conquest. A popular strategy is to utilize a combination of ranged units and siege equipment to break down the city’s defenses before sending in melee units to capture it.
- Archers: A critical component of any early-game siege, Archers can attack the city from a distance, slowly chipping away at its health without taking damage in return. A force of at least three to four Archers would be necessary to apply meaningful pressure.
- Battering Rams: Essential for overcoming Ancient Walls, the Battering Ram allows adjacent melee units to deal full damage to the walls. This is a crucial piece of equipment for any civilization looking to engage in early conquest.
- Siege Towers: An alternative to the Battering Ram, the Siege Tower allows melee units to bypass the walls entirely and attack the city’s health directly. This can be a more efficient way to capture a city, but it requires a different technological path.
The necessity of these units would slow down the pace of early expansion. Players would need to make a conscious decision to invest in military technology and production, potentially at the expense of economic or cultural development.
The Shifting Value of Diplomacy and Suzerainty
With the military conquest of city-states becoming a much more challenging and resource-intensive endeavor, the value of diplomacy and suzerainty would skyrocket. Analysis on forums shows that players would be much more inclined to engage with city-states through peaceful means, rather than simply viewing them as early-game expansion targets.
The Envoy Economy
The envoy economy would become a much more critical aspect of the game. Players would need to carefully manage their envoy generation and deployment to secure the allegiance of key city-states. This would place a greater emphasis on civics that grant envoys, as well as on wonders and city-state quests that provide additional envoys.
A popular strategy is to focus on becoming the suzerain of city-states that offer powerful unique bonuses. With the enhanced defensive capabilities of city-states, these bonuses would be much more secure and reliable.
Protectorate Wars and Defensive Alliances
The enhanced defensive capabilities of city-states would also make them much more resilient to aggression from other civilizations. This would make Protectorate Wars a much more viable and attractive option. A player who is the suzerain of a city-state that is attacked by another civilization could declare a Protectorate War, safe in the knowledge that the city-state can hold its own for a significant period of time.
This would also lead to the formation of more defensive alliances. Civilizations that are focused on peaceful or economic strategies would be more likely to form alliances with each other to deter aggression from more militaristic civilizations.
The Ripple Effects on Civilization and Leader Choices
The hypothetical scenario of universally walled city-states would also have a significant impact on the relative power of different civilizations and leaders.
Rise of the “Peaceful” Civilizations
Civilizations that are geared towards peaceful strategies, such as those with bonuses to culture, science, or economy, would find themselves in a much stronger position. The reduced threat of early-game rushes would give them the breathing room they need to develop their unique strengths.
Many professional gamers suggest that leaders like Pericles, who excels at generating culture and envoys, and Seondeok, who can rapidly accelerate scientific progress, would become even more powerful in this scenario.
The Challenge for “Aggressive” Civilizations
Conversely, civilizations that are designed for early-game aggression would face a significant challenge. Leaders like Montezuma, who relies on the early acquisition of luxury resources to fuel his military, and Gilgamesh, who excels at early-game warfare, would need to adapt their strategies to remain competitive.
A popular strategy for these civilizations would be to focus on developing their unique units and abilities to overcome the enhanced defenses of city-states. For example, Montezuma’s Eagle Warriors, which have a chance to capture enemy units, would be even more valuable in this scenario.
New Strategic Considerations
Beyond the immediate impact on early-game warfare and diplomacy, the hypothetical scenario of universally walled city-states would introduce a number of new strategic considerations.
The Importance of Scouting
Scouting would become even more critical in this scenario. Players would need to identify the locations of city-states early on to begin the process of currying favor with them. They would also need to scout out the military preparations of other civilizations to anticipate potential threats.
The Value of Ranged Units
The value of ranged units would be significantly amplified. Not only would they be essential for siege warfare, but they would also be crucial for defending against the ranged attacks of city-states. A popular strategy is to use a combination of melee and ranged units to create a balanced and versatile military force.
The Strategic Importance of Terrain
The strategic importance of terrain would also be magnified. Hills and forests, which provide defensive bonuses, would be even more valuable in this scenario. Players would need to carefully consider the terrain when settling new cities and when engaging in military conflict.
A More Deliberate and Strategic Game
In conclusion, the seemingly minor change of granting all city-states Ancient Walls and a ranged unit from the start of the game would have a profound and far-reaching impact on the strategic landscape of Civilization VI. The early game would be transformed from a frantic rush for territory into a more deliberate and calculated affair. Siege warfare would become the dominant paradigm for early-game conquest, and the value of diplomacy and suzerainty would be significantly enhanced.
This hypothetical scenario would force players to reconsider their opening strategies and to adapt to a new set of challenges and opportunities. The relative power of different civilizations and leaders would be shifted, and new strategic considerations would emerge. Ultimately, the game would become a more complex, nuanced, and rewarding experience for all players. Analysis on forums shows that such a change would be welcomed by a significant portion of the player base, who are always looking for new ways to challenge themselves and to explore the strategic depths of this already-complex game.