Huts, barbs vassal states?

[James009]

I have to agree with much of what Joshua368 said:

Huts are fun, usually not too gamebreaking, and add aditional value to early exploration. Barbs are good as well, otherwise the outside world is too safe, personally I think they add strategy and depth... but is it dangerous enough to send unescorted settlers with opponents who can declare war on you on a whim?

I'd like to keep as many options open as possible. There should most certainly be huts due to the exploration value and as an added gameplay element to keep things interesting.

To reiterate Joshua, barbarians are fun simply because they do make the outside world more dangerous, cautions against early and unprepared expansion, and adds a sort of balancing element we can have fun with.

As for Vassal states, my opinion lies similar to Mr. General_W who says:

I'm not aware of the exploits with the Vassal State system... but I also can't think of any situation where I'd use one, except perhaps as a fun way to keep a nearly conquered team that wants to keep playing alive in the game. In my experiance the "fight to the death" mentality is pretty much universal in these games

So I'm completely indifferent, unless someone can explain the potential trouble from having them turned on?

I don't really care but after reading some of the concerns and after a recent LAN game I can understand why one would argue they be turned off.

I think vassal states should definitely be out. They have no real place in a game like this. If we want vassalship, we can negotiate that ourselves, there's no need for the ingame version which only complicates things.

I think Niklas is right, if we want Vassal States we can manage them ourselves. That is, unless we set some game rules in which to prevent exploits... then I'd be ok with it.

Lastly, as for Random Events I think they are a must simply to make the game more interesting. Remember, we are playing Civilization here, not chess. We're going to be running a civilization in which we are in control of. Random events will keep people on their toes and make it just that much more interesting in the long run. That concept, to me, is worth maintaining.

 

[oyzar]

Huts are no fun as they have the ability to severly unbalance the game by giving a team a very unfair random advantage. As an example in another pitboss game of mine. One player popped, ah, hbr and wheel from huts, that sounds fair right? By comparison i got barbs, map and experience...

Barbarians make the world unsafe sure, but they are so little fun. There is enough unsafeness in the world from humans. Don't need barbs as an extra source of randomness. In sp an opponent will not attack your unescorted settler, a human will...

 

[Calis]

I would also go with an option that is missing in the poll: only barbs

I agree that vassal states do not make too much sense here.

And I also find huts too much a luck matter

 

[oyzar]

Biggest problem with barbs is that it allows for the barb events which are so gamechanging(even if they did get nerfed a bit with 3.17).

 

[Niklas]

Indeed, I agree completely with what oyzar says. I don't mind running with random events on - assuming we skip the barbs. No one would be happy if one team got overrun by a Horse Archer uprising in the ancient age.

 

[Calis]

To be honest I am thinking more in Civ3 terms, where barbs are not that dangerous as they are in Civ4. After reading your arguments I also tend to think they might not be a good idea...

 

[Renata]

Stupid computer ate my reply. Anyway, I'm with my teammates on no huts or vassal states, and I'm indifferent about barbs and random events. What's the difference between tech trading and tech brokering?

 

[Niklas]

No Tech Brokering means you can only trade away a tech if you researched it yourself. No Tech Trading is what it says.

 

[Viva_Chingon]

Huts: no - early tier2 techs make very powerful advantages
Events: no - similar to above, is a gamble to enable for all teams.
Vassal States: no - we can handle this through actual diplomacy, right?
Barbarians: yes - early upgrades for your military. Who here is going to let some horse archers ruin the show?
Tech Trading: normal (incl. brokering) - powerful diplomatic tool.

 

[General_W]

I think allowing all tech-trading is a must. It would severely limit diplomacy if we turned it off - and would destroy the ability of teams that get behind to make a comeback.

I agree with the building consensus that Huts should be turned off. They're just too potentially game unbalancing, imo.

If we play with Barbarians on - they should be at a low level. Having them on high introduces too much random risk, I think. If one team happens to get mobbed, they'll be at a profound disadvantage through no fault of their own.

I think we should play with random events. None of the random events are nearly as game changing as popping a free tech (for example). Mainly, they just add a layer of fun, and either a little extra help or else a minor extra obstacle to overcome.

In my experience, random events introduce less randomness to the game than the combat system. Losing one 95% odd-to-win battle (or vice-a-versa) can often have more far-reaching consequences than discovering black-pearls in the clams off your coast
Same goes for barbarians. Having a barbarian axeman show up (randomly) at just the wrong place and time is usually a bigger deal than 90% of the random events in the game.

Bottom line: I think we should keep Random Events on, because they do add significantly to the fun factor without adding significantly to the amount of exposure to the RNG.


EDIT: I understand that each team will be discussing this internally and casting their vote as a team. I just wanted to put my thoughts out for general discussion also

 

[oyzar]

What conceus that huts should be off? While i agree with you, the poll certanly don't . It is just the ones who post most, not the most people who think that...

While tech trading makes it easier to catch up, it also means that your actions will have way less impact and instead what matters is who you work together with... I think this game should be decided by who plays the best, not who manage to band together...

 

[Calis]

Maybe this poll was open a little bit hasty, before discussing the pro and cons of each option. And actually some options are missing. This poll should be revoked and revived properly...just a thought!

 

[General_W]

I wouldn't trust the poll here too much. I haven't voted, for example, because my preferred option isn't listed (No huts, Yes Barbs, No Vassal) - and many people voted before discussion got started.

The Team votes will decide this anyway - and that will be more controlled by active members... not just lurkers who vote [not that there's anything wrong with lurking!]

Anyway - the main reason for my post is just to address this comment: "I think this game should be decided by who plays the best, not who manage to band together..."

To me - single player mode is for testing your Civ skills.
Multiplayer is for testing you CIV+people skills.
Multi-Team-Democracy-Games are for testing your civ+PEOPLE skills.

It's not like it's cheating to win based on a superior diplomatic effort. That's part of the thrill of the MTDG. If it were just like a LAN party - where a lot of diplomacy depends on who brought the gaucamole and who's best friends in Real Life, then a win based on diplomacy seems a little cheap. But that's not the case here. If you're going to make diplomacy work, you'll have to win over a whole team of various personalities that are all trying with 100% effort to win themselves.

There's nothing cheap about that.

 

[oyzar]

Don't think this poll will count for anything in the actual game, will be a vote between the teams instead. However it is nice to see what people think about the issue...

 

[azzaman333]

Vassals should be on, primarily to keep intercontinental maintainance.

 

[Niklas]

In my experience, random events introduce less randomness to the game than the combat system. Losing one 95% odd-to-win battle (or vice-a-versa) can often have more far-reaching consequences than discovering black-pearls in the clams off your coast
Same goes for barbarians. Having a barbarian axeman show up (randomly) at just the wrong place and time is usually a bigger deal than 90% of the random events in the game.

How about having 10 barbarian horse archers show up a few turns after you've researched Hunting? I don't mind most random events, and none if we play with barbs off. But some events, specifically those relating to barbarian uprisings, are gamebreaking.

 

[Niklas]

Vassals should be on, primarily to keep intercontinental maintainance.

I didn't follow you there. Care to explain?

 

[azzaman333]

I didn't follow you there. Care to explain?

I don't like how turning off vassals also makes maintanance easier to manage.

 

[oyzar]

I don't like how turning off vassals also makes maintanance easier to manage.

So you think people should be penalized if the only land around they have to settle is on several different continents, in adition to the fact that they need to get boats and protect against barb galleys which are already disadvantages intercontinental settling have compared to traditional on land settling? Colony maintance is there to make people more likely to liberate a colony. I assume this should not be done given that this is a mp game and we don't want AI in the game, making that rather stupid...

 

[Niklas]

If we turn on vassal states solely to increase colonial maintenance, then I want a rule saying we cannot use vassal states as a diplomatic option. The ingame version of them that is, negotiating something like vassalship using human-to-human diplomacy is of course fine.

That said - of course I agree with oyzar here too.