Game settings: Vassels

[Norton I]

I've given this some thought and I think that the relevant things of vassalship can be used in a game with human players without the vassal option on. Basically, being a vassal state just means that you are protected by a more powerful state and in return you do what they say. In a democracy game, teams can work such agreements out in much detail and don't need a standard game mechanic for it. I'd say turn it off to avoid exploits and encourage teams to come up with their own diplomatic structures.

 

[remake20]

This one could go either way, but if it's on it's not going to hurt anything or put an advantage on a team (like a hut or RE), why not put it on and leave options open. I don't think they will be used, but as long as it doesn't hurt anything why not just leave them on.

 

[SilentConfusion]

This one could go either way, but if it's on it's not going to hurt anything or put an advantage on a team (like a hut or RE), why not put it on and leave options open. I don't think they will be used, but as long as it doesn't hurt anything why not just leave them on.

My problem with the keeping the options open, is that it leaves some negative options open that I'd rather not come about. A good example of the kinds of things having vassals on allows was posted by TheMeInTeam.

Off. There's a few abuses available to teams with vassals:

1. If it IS an AI, it gets a 50% discount to upgrades on all levels, allowing potential feeding of units + gold for discount power unit spam.
2. If diplo is on, this can allow a team that would otherwise not get the votes in time win.
3. Just leaving the option for peacevassal (one of the singular worst features in civ) open can allow a team that has given up to essentially permanent ally with someone OTHER than the invader (or potential invader). There's no mistake...peacevassal works very much like a PA.

These are options I'd rather not leave open.

 

[Tinkerbell]

Yep, no AI at the start. I'm not sure what will happen in the rare case a team quits...

 

[Calis]

Yep, no AI at the start. I'm not sure what will happen in the rare case a team quits...

I might be too negative, but I think if one team leaves, the game is doomed. I think all teams will be part of an alliance, which way ever. And if one of the teams get's lost it's rather likely that the rest loses interest, cause their strategy lapsed.

 

[damnrunner]

teams can work out agreements in the game but becoming a vassal really puts you in a bind that you cant get out of easily. That is why it is unpopular option in MP. And for that reason I would include it. It allows a losing team to stay in the game and it gives the winning team a real and binding degree of control over that teams actions. Otherwise losing teams may just quit - which sucks.

 

[SilentConfusion]

teams can work out agreements in the game but becoming a vassal really puts you in a bind that you cant get out of easily. That is why it is unpopular option in MP. And for that reason I would include it. It allows a losing team to stay in the game and it gives the winning team a real and binding degree of control over that teams actions. Otherwise losing teams may just quit - which sucks.

I like the argument here as it is not something I'd thought of, but I have a question. Would teams become someone else's vassal and still play the game?

I can imagine teams quitting before they got to the point where they thought they had to sign a vassal agreement. Anything that keeps teams from quitting is good in my book, but I'm not sure what you can do about it.

 

[Gingi]

I've given this some thought and I think that the relevant things of vassalship can be used in a game with human players without the vassal option on. Basically, being a vassal state just means that you are protected by a more powerful state and in return you do what they say. In a democracy game, teams can work such agreements out in much detail and don't need a standard game mechanic for it. I'd say turn it off to avoid exploits and encourage teams to come up with their own diplomatic structures.

Very true! If a team wants to become a vassal of another team's, then work out a deal by yourself!

 

[Gingi]

Yep, no AI at the start. I'm not sure what will happen in the rare case a team quits...

Didn't one or two teams quit last time?

teams can work out agreements in the game but becoming a vassal really puts you in a bind that you cant get out of easily. That is why it is unpopular option in MP. And for that reason I would include it. It allows a losing team to stay in the game and it gives the winning team a real and binding degree of control over that teams actions. Otherwise losing teams may just quit - which sucks.

Good point. Except I already abstained. =(

Can you change your vote?

 

[SilentConfusion]

Good point. Except I already abstained. =(
Can you change your vote?

In my opinion you should always be allowed to change your vote, but it is always harder to count the votes if you do.

So my advice is that if you're not sure wait and listen to what others have to say before voting, but if you really have to change your vote please post clearly what you are changing your vote from and to.

 

[Norton I]

I like the argument here as it is not something I'd thought of, but I have a question. Would teams become someone else's vassal and still play the game?

I can imagine teams quitting before they got to the point where they thought they had to sign a vassal agreement. Anything that keeps teams from quitting is good in my book, but I'm not sure what you can do about it.

I think as long as people are creative you can do a lot with good diplomacy in a weak position. Look at it this way: if we have 4 strong teams and 1 weak one. The weak country desperately needs protection, so it offers to be someones vassal. All strong teams would love to have a vassal because it could tip the scale in their advantage. If 4 teams are fighting for your favours... I wouldnt call that a bad position to be in! There might be a very good deal to make...

 

[damnrunner]

Didn't one or two teams quit last time?



Good point. Except I already abstained. =(

Can you change your vote?

Polling is not the end all to a discussion point and I don;t think we should consider them binding. If members later want to change votes I don't think many people would argue with it. It is harder to keep track of things - but if people care enough about the issue it will not be a problem. It can also make sense to re-poll after the issue has been vetted and discussed.

 

[SilentConfusion]

This poll is closed. It seems like Gingi expressed the desire to change their vote. If this is true Gingi should post here exactly what to change their vote to.

Good point. Except I already abstained. =(

Can you change your vote?

EDIT: This looks very much like Gingi would vote for Yes, but Gingi didn't actually say that. So it looks like that would make it 10-10, I just wanted Gingi to say for sure.

 

[remake20]

So we have a tie. The tie break is the capn' right, or is it the poll master?

 

[Gingi]

So we have a tie. The tie break is the capn' right, or is it the poll master?

I was changing from abstain to No, making it 8 - 10.

Yeah, it would've looked like I was changing to yes, but I was changing to no for the same reasons stated by damnrunner. Cause his argument, while a good one, works both ways. (It doesn't matter how strong your point is, make sure it supports your position! )

 

[remake20]

I was changing from abstain to No, making it 8 - 10.

Yeah, it would've looked like I was changing to yes, but I was changing to no for the same reasons stated by damnrunner. Cause his argument, while a good one, works both ways. (It doesn't matter how strong your point is, make sure it supports your position! )

Is that "No" a typo that should say on or is it saying off? If you were switching from abstain to on then it would be 10-10 if you were switching to no then it would be 9-11 there is no way for it to be 8-10. As 20 people have voted.

 

[Gingi]

Is that "No" a typo that should say on or is it saying off? If you were switching from abstain to on then it would be 10-10 if you were switching to no then it would be 9-11 there is no way for it to be 8-10. As 20 people have voted.

Oops, yeah that's "No" as in "Off" as in "No vassals" as OPPOSED TO "Yes vassals". Making it 11-9. In "No vassals"'s favor.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Well that was easy, wasn't it? Now that this poll is closed I will let the UN know our decision.

Thanks everyone for voting AMAZON truly has a powerful, powerful electorate