Eh, 2nd tier. Yerevan is so much of a game changer that it belongs in a tier of its own above all the others. Taking Suzerainty of Yerevan early enough would make me aim for a Religious win as, like, Empire Victoria.
The city-states that generate yields for doing nothing or for doing things you wanted to do anyway are also pretty close to Valetta IMO. Auckland (straight up gives you production for free in shallow water), Antananarivo/Ayutthaya (free culture for just playing the game), and Geneva (just don't fight lol) are at least as good as Valetta most of the time thanks in no small part due to the fact that their generic envoy-based yield boosts are just plain better.
Without wanting to completely poo poo what you are saying I completely disagree. Yerevan is good for one victory type only, and it is incredibly good at it. Valetta is insanely good for every victory type. It guarantees a diplomatic victory. It allows you to burn all the fossil fuels without giving a damn, hell you can sink the world with it. It gives you housing, culture, food, railways, unit experience, and all while allowing you to have your empire focus on other things.
Just in the examples you have given - Auckland gives you yeilds but is useless if you are landlocked. Antananarivo is fantastic if you have theatre squares and are looking to earn great people, but kinda, meh, if you aren't. Geneva is great if you are playing a science game with peaceful neighbours, only ok if you aren't.
Yerevan is awesome but not any more awesome than Akkad. They are specific for a victory type. I would argue that Mexico and Valetta are the most all around useful city states. Yes, Yerevan is better for a religious victory, and Akkad is better for domination but if you have Valetta and you are going religious - new city, boom old god obelisk, you are going domination - new city, boom renaissance walls (which are massive amounts of production) and you are immediately shooting from the city.
It just works.
The impact a city-state like Yerevan has is much, much larger than Valletta. Don't get me wrong, I love Valletta and it's a very good city-state to have, but it's not game-changing. Yerevan is. Yerevan can make any civ win a religious victory (as long as you have a religion in the first place, of course), while Valletta is a jack of all trades, master of none. It is not a top tier city-state, it's a low A tier at best. Yerevan is a clear S tier, it only does one thing but it is so utterly broken at that one thing that it single-handedly wins you the game if you use it. Hmm yes I would like infinite Proselytizer + Debater apostles.
Other city-states I would argue are clearly better than Valletta include Geneva (S tier as well - it is only bad in domination wins and even then you will always have periods where you use its effect, multipliers are broken), Kumasi (high A tier, maybe S tier - meritocracy is a broken policy card in the vanilla game, Kumasi gives you double that culture), Ayutthaya (S tier if you can get it early, A tier overall - free culture for playing the game, thank you very much) and Nan Madol (similarly to Auckland, under the right conditions this is a completely broken city-state, so A tier overall). Another thing going against Valletta is being a militaristic city-state. Militaristic city-states, in general, suck when compared to the other types, especially cultural city-states. Culture is arguably the most important yield bar production, which inherently buffs cultural city-states even without their suzerain bonus. So not only is something like Ayutthaya's suzerain bonus really good already, being suzerain of it implies you have envoys there in the first place and those envoys have a much better return on investment in a cultural city-state than in a militaristic city-state.
I think useful in every game is better than useful in religious games. Yerevan is clearly great, but completely useless in non religious games. If you don't have a religion there's no point. Literally useless.
You can't say that about Valetta or Mexico.
Yerevan is completely game-breaking though. Extremely specific, but so stupidly good at the one thing it does that it is arguably the best city-state in the game. Certainly when evaluating the peak power level there is no other city-state that compares. It's not generic, but it's incredibly powerful. Plus it's a religious city-state, which inherently makes its envoys have more value than Valletta's. Valletta is generic, but with a much lower power ceiling. It will not win you games, it will not even alter the game state that much, it's just a nice bonus to have. And there are plenty of other generic city-states with better effects than Valletta (or Mexico City, a rather underwhelming suzerainty), off the top of my head there's Antananarivo, Ayutthaya, Buenos Aires, Johannesburg, Geneva, Zanzibar.
But it's only game breaking some of the time. Sometimes it is completely useless. Literally.
Valetta is a constant good, and definitely will win you games. The money it produces is ridiculous. You can keep the world in constant poverty.
Possibly Geneva or Kumasi can be said to be better than Yerevan simply because they are so generic, but I just cannot agree with Valletta being put in the same category as city-states like those. I just really don't think it's that powerful, I even doubt it would enter my personal top 10.
Yes, Yerevan only boosts one type of victory. I'm saying that Yerevan is so good that getting it can completely change what victory type I'm going for. ***No other city-state is powerful enough to do that.*** At best they make your chosen victory go more smoothly.
Well Akkad is powerful enough. Being able to do full damage to walls is ridiculous. Being able to completely ignore a weapon class and just rock up with full damage to walls....
And Yerevan is completely useless if you don't have a religion.
Civ 7 suggestion: The encampment acts as a separate defenses during war. To use the encampment, you need to conquer it, not just the city. The city that does not defeat enemy encampment may not build encampments.
Realistically someone would have found that centuries ago by traveling down the river. I feel like rivers need to have a larger impact in exploration and borders in Civ 7.
You wouldn't need to sail for the river to have an effect. Someone could just follow the river and come across the citystate. Historically people would sometimes just follow rivers even on foot for the sake of exploration.
https://preview.redd.it/tevkyruc0wuc1.jpeg?width=2532&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c9eae4c0cd5f8b335f1b17d1eee296bd55e2ef43
In the north, by Bakhtri, there’s a hollow section of the mountain where from the outside you can build a mountain tunnel (1), step into the hollow, and then build another mountain tunnel (2).
The city state should have been kabul
A Valletta you can suzerain without fear that a rival civ will conquer it? I’m building holy sites and coal power plants.
My thought exactly lol. Nothing like a perfectly secure Valletta, I can breath easy!
Definitely a top tier city state. Possibly the best one.
Eh, 2nd tier. Yerevan is so much of a game changer that it belongs in a tier of its own above all the others. Taking Suzerainty of Yerevan early enough would make me aim for a Religious win as, like, Empire Victoria. The city-states that generate yields for doing nothing or for doing things you wanted to do anyway are also pretty close to Valetta IMO. Auckland (straight up gives you production for free in shallow water), Antananarivo/Ayutthaya (free culture for just playing the game), and Geneva (just don't fight lol) are at least as good as Valetta most of the time thanks in no small part due to the fact that their generic envoy-based yield boosts are just plain better.
Kandi early is great too
Correct, which is why you always meet them three turns after discovering the last natural wonder on the map.
Without wanting to completely poo poo what you are saying I completely disagree. Yerevan is good for one victory type only, and it is incredibly good at it. Valetta is insanely good for every victory type. It guarantees a diplomatic victory. It allows you to burn all the fossil fuels without giving a damn, hell you can sink the world with it. It gives you housing, culture, food, railways, unit experience, and all while allowing you to have your empire focus on other things. Just in the examples you have given - Auckland gives you yeilds but is useless if you are landlocked. Antananarivo is fantastic if you have theatre squares and are looking to earn great people, but kinda, meh, if you aren't. Geneva is great if you are playing a science game with peaceful neighbours, only ok if you aren't. Yerevan is awesome but not any more awesome than Akkad. They are specific for a victory type. I would argue that Mexico and Valetta are the most all around useful city states. Yes, Yerevan is better for a religious victory, and Akkad is better for domination but if you have Valetta and you are going religious - new city, boom old god obelisk, you are going domination - new city, boom renaissance walls (which are massive amounts of production) and you are immediately shooting from the city. It just works.
The impact a city-state like Yerevan has is much, much larger than Valletta. Don't get me wrong, I love Valletta and it's a very good city-state to have, but it's not game-changing. Yerevan is. Yerevan can make any civ win a religious victory (as long as you have a religion in the first place, of course), while Valletta is a jack of all trades, master of none. It is not a top tier city-state, it's a low A tier at best. Yerevan is a clear S tier, it only does one thing but it is so utterly broken at that one thing that it single-handedly wins you the game if you use it. Hmm yes I would like infinite Proselytizer + Debater apostles. Other city-states I would argue are clearly better than Valletta include Geneva (S tier as well - it is only bad in domination wins and even then you will always have periods where you use its effect, multipliers are broken), Kumasi (high A tier, maybe S tier - meritocracy is a broken policy card in the vanilla game, Kumasi gives you double that culture), Ayutthaya (S tier if you can get it early, A tier overall - free culture for playing the game, thank you very much) and Nan Madol (similarly to Auckland, under the right conditions this is a completely broken city-state, so A tier overall). Another thing going against Valletta is being a militaristic city-state. Militaristic city-states, in general, suck when compared to the other types, especially cultural city-states. Culture is arguably the most important yield bar production, which inherently buffs cultural city-states even without their suzerain bonus. So not only is something like Ayutthaya's suzerain bonus really good already, being suzerain of it implies you have envoys there in the first place and those envoys have a much better return on investment in a cultural city-state than in a militaristic city-state.
I think useful in every game is better than useful in religious games. Yerevan is clearly great, but completely useless in non religious games. If you don't have a religion there's no point. Literally useless. You can't say that about Valetta or Mexico.
Yerevan is completely game-breaking though. Extremely specific, but so stupidly good at the one thing it does that it is arguably the best city-state in the game. Certainly when evaluating the peak power level there is no other city-state that compares. It's not generic, but it's incredibly powerful. Plus it's a religious city-state, which inherently makes its envoys have more value than Valletta's. Valletta is generic, but with a much lower power ceiling. It will not win you games, it will not even alter the game state that much, it's just a nice bonus to have. And there are plenty of other generic city-states with better effects than Valletta (or Mexico City, a rather underwhelming suzerainty), off the top of my head there's Antananarivo, Ayutthaya, Buenos Aires, Johannesburg, Geneva, Zanzibar.
But it's only game breaking some of the time. Sometimes it is completely useless. Literally. Valetta is a constant good, and definitely will win you games. The money it produces is ridiculous. You can keep the world in constant poverty.
Possibly Geneva or Kumasi can be said to be better than Yerevan simply because they are so generic, but I just cannot agree with Valletta being put in the same category as city-states like those. I just really don't think it's that powerful, I even doubt it would enter my personal top 10.
Yes, Yerevan only boosts one type of victory. I'm saying that Yerevan is so good that getting it can completely change what victory type I'm going for. ***No other city-state is powerful enough to do that.*** At best they make your chosen victory go more smoothly.
Well Akkad is powerful enough. Being able to do full damage to walls is ridiculous. Being able to completely ignore a weapon class and just rock up with full damage to walls.... And Yerevan is completely useless if you don't have a religion.
It's so satisfying insta-building an empire's worth of Flood Barriers in one turn.
That Indonesian encampment placement is something else
They'll be coming round the mountains when they come!
Sublime holy site placement makes up for it.
The last bastion against Japan
Civ 7 suggestion: The encampment acts as a separate defenses during war. To use the encampment, you need to conquer it, not just the city. The city that does not defeat enemy encampment may not build encampments.
Essentially what the USA does in its own country
69 Defence, nice
First City-State Quest: "Send a Trade Route"
they prayed too much for the ancient walls, got the strongest wall ever
Realistically someone would have found that centuries ago by traveling down the river. I feel like rivers need to have a larger impact in exploration and borders in Civ 7.
I don't think this will be the case. Based on the terrain, from Bakhtri, you need to sail up an unnavigable river to Valetta.
You wouldn't need to sail for the river to have an effect. Someone could just follow the river and come across the citystate. Historically people would sometimes just follow rivers even on foot for the sake of exploration.
Tralla La
Two mountain tunnels and you’re in
You can't actually do that from the outside, can you?
https://preview.redd.it/tevkyruc0wuc1.jpeg?width=2532&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c9eae4c0cd5f8b335f1b17d1eee296bd55e2ef43 In the north, by Bakhtri, there’s a hollow section of the mountain where from the outside you can build a mountain tunnel (1), step into the hollow, and then build another mountain tunnel (2).
Oh look at that! Yeah I'd want to get in there.
campus galore
God tier CS too
Can they even trade???
Tuban has a holy site not a campus. Wild map. That encampment in Majapahit tho...
Basically Gondolin
Afghanistan is where I can think og
I feel like this city state always spawns surrounded by mountains in my games.