First off, thank you for sharing this with us. It obviously took some time to come up with the ideas and set them in writing, like many of your others in this overhaul. I also appreciate you as the modder have to be cognizant of much more of the mechanics than we the player have ever have to care about. With that said, here we go!
Thanks, Saxo Grammaticus! I appreciate it that you took your Time to read the entire Doc to provide this Feedback from it!
This is exactly what I was hoping to get as Feedback. I've been working on this Concept for quite some Time, and now I got to the Point where my Brain can't deliver any more meaningful ideas for this mechanism. So, your Questions and Ideas are exactly what I was looking for, bc when working on Client-States, I mainly focused on preventing the Issues the Civ IV Vasalage had to happen again with this one, while also making the Mechanic more deeper and integrated with the other Game Mechanics (to add more layers to it, like how you can achieve Culture Victory in multiple Ways). I tried to achieve many things with it (like preventing snowballing, reducing micromanagement...etc) and maybe that's why certain things come across too bloated.
Fear
This is a handy idea. I might suggest it be renamed "influence" along the modern meaning of unseen, exponential power, in the manner of gravity. Economic strength could be factored in earlier, say, the Industrial Era (Opium Wars) or earlier to represent conflict over key regions.
That's a good Idea, but I'm afraid that would interfere with the other diplomatic mechanics that are planned, bc technecally they can be also called "Influence". Perhaps I should, from now on, provide more details on certain things that are part of something else or interwoven with them. In this case, "Fear" is part of a 3 pillared diplomatic Mechanic; since there is no direct way to code the AI behaviour, I decided to use a mechanic that would help to emitate the AI behaviour and influence it to a certain degree. And the result is a Diplomatic Mechanic with 3 Components:
- Fear: mostly based on (military/economic/perhaps later also diplomatic) Strength.
- Respect (Pack 3): based on the Authority of the Leader and how well he/she is governing its Empire, treas his Vassals and also based on his/her relationship with other Players. This would affect when the AI is more likely to ally with a Player or to declare war on them (unrespected Players), but mainly, this will affect 3rd Party Relationships (like respected Players shouln't be attacked, or else harsh diplo penalties will be given to the aggressor).
- Envy (Pack 6): based on things Player A has that Player B also desires to have or wants the complete control over (such as: Resources, Vassals, Territory, Monopolies...etc). Apart as an Incentive to going to War with someone, this will be key to influence independent Players and asking for Favors (not the Points but Actions and Possessions), Ex: If Player A has a Resource that Player B desires, then Player A might offer the resource to Player B and ask him for a Favor in return, like allowing Player A to establish Corporations (reworked in Pack 4) in X Cities of Player B, or loosen the diplo restriction on a Vassal, or convince them to not settle in X Radius of Player A's Cities (or it's Player B who offers these deals to Player A). But this can also be used to keep certain Players under Control, like offering a City/Resources to Player B in exchange this latter stopping attacking a City-State. And in the late-Game, if Player A has interest in a specific Territory (like expanding on the hole continent) and Player B hates Player D (who might have cities in that territory), then Player C might offer to Player A and B to be part of a Coalition and go to war with Player D and whoever else they agree to declare War on; so Player A gets enough strength and justification to expand, Player B has the chance to conquer Player D's Cities, while Player A also gets to pursue its interests (perhaps Player D was very powerful and had Monopolies and Colonies that Player A couldn't touch until now).
I haven't made a propper design for Respect an Envy yet, but I hope I can use them to make deplomacy more interesting/engaging and a fun mechanic.
Perhaps the sum of these 3 diplo components would be called "Influence Power" (?).
Tributary-States
[...]It is unclear to me how in practice fear of Player A would impact Player C's decision to attack Player B. Does this represent the fear of Player A intervening even if they are not obligated to do so?
Yes. Sorry I left some things out. The chance for that to happen (Player A defending the Tributary) is based on the benefits they get from them and the Military Strength between A and C (hence players that fear A won't attack its Tributaries). So there is no guarantee, just a chance based on 2 Things. If Player C declares war on Player B then that would be an act of provocation towards Player A, because this latter gets benefits from PlayerB, and that would cease to be if PlayerB gets exterminated by Player C, but if it's not in the best interest of Player A to defend the Tributary (like a costly War for just the few Benefits received) then they won't do it.
Additionally, I would worry about balance for a player in the early game who had more than two tributary-states. Depending on map size, this could easily represent something like the majority of the map.
Yep, that's only fair. I thought of using the Map Size and Number of Players in the Game to balance that, but I haven't decided for anything yet, maybe either through a hardlock or in form of Penalties (like Amenity and Loyalty loss in own Cities)?
Additionally, would there be a way for Player A to influence stability in their tributary-states?
I actually didn't include that on purpose, so that there is a clear gameplay difference between a Tributary-State and a Vassal-State, with this latter internally more influencable. And you can also see it in the bigger Military control Player A has on a Tributary compared to a Vassal. But I can imagine unlocking more control Abilities (including what you suggested here) with Civics and Time spent under Player A's Sovereignty. This would perhaps add more dynamism to the mechanic I think.
Finally, I am curious whether you see a tributary agreement lasting through to Cultural Heritage or if it would be expected to morph into vassalage, for instance.
When I first read that, I don't know why but, I thought of Cultural Diffusion and ways of Tributaries and Vassals inhereting the Culture of the Sovereign/Liege. But that's for another topic for another Mechanic in another Pack.
Tbh, the sole reason I kept Tributaries till Cultural Heritage and didn't make them obsolete earlier, is for historical accuracy, since we have many Tributary and Vassal States that were under control of the Ottoman Empire up untill their dissolution in the early 20th Century. So I wanted to keep that Option, so Players who have more interest in the Military and resources of a Player could still make them a Tributary rather than a Vassal (and also bc they don't sign a defensive pact with them). But I see that most of the Players would go this latter road instead, because diplomatic and internal influence is more powerful in the late Game. So in most cases the Tributary agreement will instead of being renewed, turn into a Vassalage agreement.
Vassal-States
Right away, I am asking myself how much the vassal-liege model extends beyond European feudal homage. This may be a matter of your design or wider cultural consideration.
Fair
. It looks too Eurocentric, doesn't it? that wasn't my intention, honestly, but I just found those gameplay Ideas could really be fun, especially with the integration of Religion, which is mostly irrelevant when not going for a Religion Victory. But if you have any Ideas on how I can de-eurocentralize that, then I would welcome that.
One question is just how much sovereignty/autonomy the vassal has. It looks like the liege has many options to interfere diplomatically, but I like the idea of a vassal retaining autonomy.
I'm yet to found out myself, as only Gameplay tests can give a clear answer to that. I hope the Vassal will have enough room to be able to break free at some point, either dircetly through growth or indirectly through 3rd party involvement (hence the many options to break free).
I am a little unclear as to why the liege would suffer a loyalty/amenity penalty for having vassals, given this may be viewed internally as a sign of prestige or dominance.
Yeah, you got me there
. I wanted the Liege to have some limits on how many Vassal he/she can have, but I see this Idea of Liege internal Penalties (demonstrating Citizens unhappy about the Leader having more duties in form of also governing other Civs, so they fear the Leader at the end just losing control over everything and plunge its empire into chaos) isn't as good as I initially thought.
Still, I am confused as to how in practice Player C would help Player B break free. For instance, they can ally after 45 turns, but how would the two reach a point where they would consider an alliance? Perhaps Player C would have a variable modifier that peaked with denouncing Player A.
That's a good Idea! I haven't thought of making it visual to the Player on how Player C does that, since its only the AI's behaviour and the human Player isn't restricted to that.
The Points listed there help Player B to meet a requirement to break free from the Liege, which can be in favor of both, Player B and C. Player B (if not a voluntary vassal) actively strives for Independance, some Players even at any cost (like even if it means war), and if Player C hates Player A (like because they restrict PlayerB to trade with Player C or fears they will be next to become a Vassal) then they might help Player B to break free from Player A. Thanks for bringing this up, as I left that unclear in the doc. I will later add the things that affect Player C's decision to help Player B to break free from the liege, and how exactly that gets achieved. And a visible modifier (only to a Vassal) that shows willingness of Player C to help/ally with Player B sounds good to me.
Another idea for breaking free could include double or triple war weariness on the part of the vassal to represent unmet obligations on the part of the liege. Also, this could perhaps be controversial, but Germany and Ottomans could even negate religious penalties.
I like this Idea a lot. A war weariness specific to Vassal/Liege relationship would indeed add more depth to Vassalage. And I can see it extended to Tributaries as well.
And negated religious penalties for Germany and Ottomans also sound like a nice minor trait.
Puppet-States
I am in favor of a strong diplomatic favor penalty for the creation of any puppet-state, to represent the intrinsic issue of sovereignty.
Totally Entitled. I feel like it went up with the Ideas from Tributaries to Vassals, but from there to Puppets it kind of went downhill. I will revise the Puppet System here and there I think.
Reading through, it is unclear why a human player would ever accept becoming a puppet-state (unlike a vassal-state)
Given that Puppet-States come so late into the Game, I didn't consider the human Player ever getting in a situation where they could become a Puppet to someone. But Yes, even the normal (AI) benefits aren't that great. This calls for a revision.
I suspect a flat boost to trade routes (as with tourism) may have more effect than a percentage boost.
Unfortunately, there is no way to make (mod) changes to Trade-Routes/Tourism (or even Loyalty) between 2 specific Players, if they aren't allied, which Tributaries and Puppets aren't (but Vassals are).
Again, I am curious how a puppet-state would ally Play C, given even more stringent deprivation of sovereignty. One idea could be creating a Casus Belli or a spy mission to foment a proxy/liberation campaign.
The Idea was allowing for the Alliance Option only in 2 Situations:
- When the Master didn't restrict the Puppet to develop a diplomatic relationship with Player C.
- An Alliance with other Puppets of the Master (which can be harder to achive than the first option, since other Puppets may fear the Master too much).
Though, the Idea of a Casus-Belli to foment a proxy/liberation campaign is really neat. However, we can't mod new spy missions into the Game or change existing ones, unfortunately.
Also, I am curious how colonies would fit in either here or elsewhere in your overhaul.
Semi-brief Discription:
Colonies would not be considered typical Client-States, but they would function similar while still giving the fealing and benefits of what we would expect from a Colony.
A Colony is any new settlement far away from the Capital or any other, near Capital, City of the Player (not necessarilly on a foreign continent - bc some Continenets in the Game can be really big and other Players' Cities can get between yours).
The Loyalty Mechanic makes it hard for Players to settle Colonial Cities anywhere near other Players' Cities, so Colonies will start as an Improvement that claim adjacent tiles instead of becoming a City right away. And other Players can't settle new City/Colony in X radius of the established Colony. The Colony will have a Population Bar that grows based on the food Yields of the claimed tiles, and there are multiple ways to claim additional tiles, like when the Pupulation grows, tiles get claimed. The Player can't produce anything in the Colony, but you can use Builders to improve tiles to get access to the resources there, more food for the colony to grow or housing. When the Colony reaches +5 Pop the Colony will turn into a normal City with same Pop Number, and the Player will have a choice to either:
- make the Colony autonomous (except in foreign affairs, military/defense and international trade), in which case the Colony will become similar to a Suzerained City-State (with much more benefits), but without other Player being able to influence it, and the Player can choose what the Colony should be focusing on (Gold, Science, Military, Production, Faith...etc), (this can be done anytime, even after keeping the City)
- or keep the City under direct control while still getting the usual benefits of a Colony (like Trade Route benefits).
But Colonial rules will take effect for either of the 2 Options: less Culture, posibility to declare Independence...etc
If the Player has many Colonies near each other, then they may declare Independance, in which case the Mother Empire either accep or refuce the demand; 2 Outcomes:
- Accept: The Colonies will become one random Civ, and from now on shall be known as a Dominion having a favorable trade and diplomatic relationship with the Mother Empire (like with higher likeliness for an Alliance or even a Coalition if we ever reach Pack 6). And if the mother Empire happens to have other Colonies on other Continents or even Protectorates, then if the former accepts these latters independency then they all might form a [mother Empire Name] Commonwealth (I think it would be fun to have this option in the Game) and share more diplo/trade benefits with each other.
- Reject: A Revolutionary War starts between the Colonies and the mother Empire. and if the Revolutionaries defend themselves long enough, then they will be united and turned into a new random Civ.
There are also some other nice features attached to the Mechanic, like events popping up where indigenous People are attacking the invaders, in which case you either need to defeat them to gain more tiles or try to cooperate with them and perhaps even convince them to join you. Resources on tiles of the Colony and that the Player isn't familar with can only be worked by trading with the indigenous People or when they join you.
*On a side note, the disproportionate size of the Vassal-State annotations right now make the document somewhat less user-friendly.
Sorry for that. The Document is mainly the reference doc that I use for modding this Mechanism, so I actually just removed some lines that are useful for modding and revised some to be more user friendly, so I can share it with you while I'm working on the modding part. When the Mod comes out I'll make sure the Document is clear and clean, and only lists the important things to know (and more details in the Civilopedia) while providing all the necessary infos.
Thanks again,
@Saxo Grammaticus for this valuable Feedback! I really appreciate this. Your Questions, Ideas and Suggestions are really useful for this Mechanic, and exactly what I wanted to get. Especially since I stopped to think more on this Mechanic (and hence left some flaws in the concept) to focus more on the other Parts of the pack and coding everything.
! I haven't completed the Concept for it yet, but I'm open for any discussion about Colonisation (my Favorite Strategy to play the Game, even though it's not the best currently).
