Civilization 5 vassal states

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by ArmorPierce, Jan 29, 2011.

  1. ArmorPierce

    ArmorPierce Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2005
    Messages:
    102
    I'm thinking about getting the game. I remember in civilization 4 you could get vassal states and colonies. Is this feature in civilization 5 or something like it? If not, I'm probably not going to get the game since I really liked that feature in civ 4. Thanks.
     
  2. esemjay

    esemjay Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    386
    Location:
    USA
    The replacement for this functionality is "Puppet State." Don't be confused by the name, as it really means "City that contributes money and gold- but you cannot control." You directly own the cities, but you can't control them. You also cannot turn an annexed city into a puppet state without invading them. It was very disappointing.
     
  3. joyous_gard

    joyous_gard Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2010
    Messages:
    476
    There's nothing close to vassal states in Civ V
     
  4. ArmorPierce

    ArmorPierce Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2005
    Messages:
    102
    I'm getting two conflicting answers here. Is puppert state like a vassal state?
     
  5. lschnarch

    lschnarch Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,296
    In short words: don't do it.

    Especially if you did like Civ4.
    The current iteration lacks a lot of features (colonies, for instance) in comparison, others are implemented in such a weak way that it is hard to describe (combat, diplomacy).

    Even supporters of the game mostly claim it would "have potential". In other words, at the current state it doesn't deliver.
     
  6. ArmorPierce

    ArmorPierce Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2005
    Messages:
    102
    Thank you guys I think I'll stick with civ 4. I never got the colonies expansion (only had warlords) so I think I'll just get that.
     
  7. bryanw1995

    bryanw1995 Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,459
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    good job, way to continue your mission of killing off civ5 one potential player at a time.

    @OP: many of us enjoy civ5 a lot. Overall I probably have liked civ4 more over the years, but civ5 is still one of my favorite games of all time. Regarding your vassal states question, civ 5 doesn't let you "vassalize" an entire civ or the remnants of it, however you can do something similar (puppet) to each city as you conquer it (or have it gifted to you in a peace negotiation). A puppet city is not under your direct control, but you get any gold/science that the city produces. Also, any luxuries or strategic minerals within the city's radius are part of your empire as well. If you puppet a city and later decide to annex it into your empire (so that you can control production choices and which tiles you want the city to work) then you can also do that. If anything, puppet cities are better than vassal states in civ4 b/c vassals could just do stupid/crazy/etc things that you didn't approve of but you couldn't later conquer them if you had earlier vassalized them.

    edit: the expansion for civ4 was bts, colonies are just a small part of that. if you like warlords then you should love bts, pretty much everything released in the mods section is bts now.
     
  8. joyous_gard

    joyous_gard Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2010
    Messages:
    476
    The truth is puppet states is nothing like IV's vassal states. There's no real gray area.

    I don't know if puppet states were meant to mimic IV's vassal states, but I never put that together. Completely different mechanics and outcomes.

    EDIT:
    A puppet city is a captured city on autopilot.

    A vassal state is an entirely different civilization.
     
  9. Txurce

    Txurce Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    8,280
    Location:
    Venice, California
    @OP: In my opinion this is a balanced, comprehensive reply. If this description doesn't sound good to you, then don't play. If it does, you'll probably enjoy a game that doesn't need comparing to Civ 4. It's a lot of fun on its own terms.
     
  10. lschnarch

    lschnarch Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,296
    The said truth is, Civ5 cannot be recommended at the current state. And that is taking into account that we have already had four major "patches" and are more than 4 months after release.

    It is fun to those who like to play a sub-par wargame with an uncapable AI. Most probably they like it just because the AI doesn't constitute any competition.

    For anybody being interested in a good builder's game, Civ5 is clearly the wrong game.
    It is general consensus that the AI is stupid in terms of managing war, insane in terms of conducting diplomacy and playing by different rules in terms of city placement.
    Not to mention that the bugs forum is full of confirmed bug reports, of which quite some were introduced by "patches".
    Not to mention that many players report problems in late game, especially on larger maps.
    Not to mention that the game lacks in terms of design in almost each and every aspect.
    Not to mention that 90% of all advertising before release now has been found to have been untrue.
    Not to mention that the game in total sucks up quite some computing power for almost nothing in return.

    This game is NOT good on its own terms, and fun it is only to a very special minority of players.
     
  11. Txurce

    Txurce Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    8,280
    Location:
    Venice, California
    Not to mention that you only know how to play one tune, no matter what the occasion.
     
  12. lschnarch

    lschnarch Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,296
    Not to mention that you obviously cannot argue against what I've said.

    And yes, when people are asking whether Civ5 would be worth their money, there is only one answer to be given: no, it is not.
     
  13. Txurce

    Txurce Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    8,280
    Location:
    Venice, California
    It's not worth "arguing" with you, your language difficulties aside. Identifying you to a relatively new poster as a Civ 5 hater on auto pilot will do.
     
  14. lschnarch

    lschnarch Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,296
    Thanks for confirming that you lack arguments.

    Next, please.
     
  15. kosak

    kosak Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2010
    Messages:
    19
    I came to civ5 as a casual civ4 players. I was never very good at civ4 on higher difficulties because I never really mastered the basic mechanics which were numerous and complex although I did enjoy the game.

    Civ5 IMO dumbs down and changes those mechanics to make civ more accessible to people like me. However I have found that in fact the game is now too easy and really makes beating the computer formulaic and uninteresting. I just come back here to see if any new patches are on the horizon that would draw me back into it.
     
  16. Zdarg

    Zdarg Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    515
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    But the OP haven't asked if it worth his money. He asked if there are vassal states.
     
  17. weenarz1176

    weenarz1176 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2010
    Messages:
    3
    OP - I'd like to offer a rebuttal to some of these comments, which I don't feel eattempt to present a balanced view point of the game. The originator of these comments appears to have an personal agenda to bash the game at every opportunity, based on the frequency with which he/she posts similar drivel to hijack other threads.

    It is fun to those who like to play a sub-par wargame with an uncapable AI. Most probably they like it just because the AI doesn't constitute any competition. Other posts on this message board clearly indicate that some folks enjoy the increased emphasis on combat mechanics. Your assumption that those who like it do so because of substandard AI isn't backed up by any hard evidence.

    For anybody being interested in a good builder's game, Civ5 is clearly the wrong game. I ALWAYS play as a builder, and enjoy the development of cities and my empire as much, if not more, than Civ IV, and definitely more than the previous games in the series. I appreciate the changes made to the interface, the reduction in per-city micromanagement, and abstraction of certain game concepts. I fully recognize that others wish the game would have maintained or increased this type of complexity over Civ IV, and accept that is a completely valid preference. IMO, the game is simplified and streamlined, but I don't automatically attribute negative qualities to those characteristics.

    It is general consensus that the AI is stupid in terms of managing war, insane in terms of conducting diplomacy and playing by different rules in terms of city placement. I agree that the military AI is not as robust as it should be. This is perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the game IMO. Civ 5's diplomacy model is quite different than Civ 4's. It seems the design was to create less predictable opponents who were driven to find ways to "win the game" rather than base their relations with the player primarily around how the player employs certain game concepts (i.e., religion, civics). Some posters on this board have dug into the XML files to help shed some light on some of the background mechanics that drive diplomacy, which I found helpful. To me, Civ 5 diplomacy has some strengths and weaknesses, and any comparison against Civ 4 comes down to personal preference.

    Not to mention that the bugs forum is full of confirmed bug reports, of which quite some were introduced by "patches". With the nature of some of the glitches, it does feel like the game was rushed to release. However, my experience has been that the game is actually less buggy and crash-prone than Civ 4 upon its release in 2005.

    Not to mention that many players report problems in late game, especially on larger maps. Again, I recall have the same, if not worse issue, with long turn times with Civ 4 upon its initial release. This issue appears to be a hallmark of all new Civ games dating back to at least Civ 3 - the complexity of the code algoriths/graphics appears to outstrip most folks' computing power at the time of release. You can certainly make an argument that this is a sign of poor coding or design, but it must be said that it isn't unique to Civ 5's release.

    Not to mention that the game lacks in terms of design in almost each and every aspect. I can't really respond to this statement, considering how vague and non-objective it is. However, I will say that I appreciate many of the design decisions implemented in Civ 5 (new interface, city management changes, 1UPT, limited strategic resources, embarkation), and are less impressed with others (removal of espionage, I prefer the civic model over social policies.

    Not to mention that 90% of all advertising before release now has been found to have been untrue. Seems to me that many fault the game because it doesn't directly build on the features and general design of Civ 4. I can't really recall any of the pre-release advertising, so I don't have much to say on this point. Clearly, many (but perhaps not most, or a majority, or even a large majority of all Civ players) passionate Civ players are disappointed with the direction of Civ 5 and the current state of the game. It's easy to understand their viewpoints, even if you don't personally agree.
    Not to mention that the game in total sucks up quite some computing power for almost nothing in return. I agree that the game can feel like it sucks up more computing and graphics power than it should. But like I said before, I felt the same way with Civ 4 upon its release. That said, I still enjoy playing the game on the largest maps with the graphics settings maxed out. I have a medium-end computer from mid-2008.

    This game is NOT good on its own terms, and fun it is only to a very special minority of players. I'd challenge the poster to objectively prove these statements, as it's clear he/she would like the OP to accept these conclusions as gospel.
     
  18. TheDanish

    TheDanish Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2008
    Messages:
    362
    Location:
    USA East Coast
    Most of your rebuttals simply boil down to, "It's personal preference," which isn't a very solid rebuttal itself.
     
  19. esemjay

    esemjay Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    386
    Location:
    USA
    While not a rebuttal, it's also not ineffective. I think weenarz1176 set out with the goal to counter some of the arguments that Ischnarch had presented.

    While a lot of Ischnarch's points were valid- the majority of them weren't related to what the OP was asking, and almost none of them were presented objectively.

    In particular, the point "It is fun to those who like to play a sub-par wargame with an uncapable AI." is a weak position, supported behind a strongly worded argument. It's genuinely how Ilschnarch feels about the game, but it's also worded in such a way as to suggest that "If you buy it and like it, it's because you enjoy sub-par war-games with incompetent AI." It's so strongly worded, as if to suggest that you should be embarrassed if you purchase and like the game.

    It's fine if Ilschnarch feels this way. However, the points presented were in no way relevant to the question, "Do vassal states still exist?" This is why, in my opinion, it could come across as a hate-post. I understand that some people try to provide additional information that the potential buyer may have overlooked- but the zeal with which it can be expressed can, at times, be a bit much.

    So, in regards to his choice of words: weenarz1176 didn't write an actual rebuttal, but he did write in such a way as to soften Ilschnarch's post and convey that the game received a mixed reception. Some people like it, some people hate it. A lot of people like it, but think that it has a lot of room for improvement.

    @Ilschnarch- Not taking a jab at you, and not trying to call you out in any way. I wouldn't be able to reply to this post without mentioning you or your stance on the subject.
     
  20. masonryan

    masonryan Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    82
    puppets are nothing like vassle states prehaps you should stop spending so much time on powerpoint presentations and animating spreadsheets about your game of civ 5 and play civ 4 so you know what your talking about.
    Moderator Action: Don't troll other people.
     

Share This Page