Hope they bring back vassal states and capitulation...

[pokeravi]

I think that's the only major feature missing from Civ IV. It really added a new depth of strategy to Civ IV and let you keep enemy civs in check without completely destroying them.

 

[AriochIV]

I would like to see a return of that feature as well, but it's such a substantial feature that I don't see any way they would have not mentioned it if it was included in BNW.

 

[Matthew.]

Arioch beat me to it. A feature like this would have been mentioned already along with the others. It seems unlikely at this point.

 

[Harald B]

It's been a while since I played Civ IV, so could you remind me how capitulation works? From a gamist point of view why would a player choose it rather than fight to the death? Would it be used only by AIs that have lost any hope of winning the game anyway?

 

[Gucumatz]

It was only ever used by the AI. It was basically a way to say "game over" without the player having to conquer all of the civ

 

[aluelkdf]

I feel like we already have capitulation. When a civ surrenders all their gold resources and most of their cities, that is basically capitulation. But I would like to see the return of vassal states and colonies.

 

[AriochIV]

An important element of the Vassal system was that friendly civilizations could volunteer to become your vassals, and that way you wouldn't have to conquer your own allies to win the game. It was both realistic and satisfying.

I don't think that colonies were very useful.

The current military victory that requires you to conquer every capital is lame. If they actually make a compelling diplomacy system this time around (which I'm not convinced of), the requirement to conquer everybody you've painstakingly made friends with will be even more lame. Even the most ruthless conquerors had allies; they need to either implement some kind of alliance system or go back to the military victory based on percentages of land and/or population.

 

[Sonereal]

The capitulation system of Civilization IV was the worst system of that game, which says a lot because it was competing for espionage for that title.

Because the most annoying thing in CivIV was declaring war as a group against a civilization and the war ending because someone capped the civilization. Voluntary capitulation is fine, and liberation capitulation is fine. Though, personally, liberation capitulation should liberate the territory as a gigantic city-state as opposed to a return of the civilization.

I don't like perma "you-smack-them-once-at-the-border-and-they-cap" capitulation.

 

[Buccaneer]

Absolutely not. There were many bad mechanics of civ4 that should never come back, including these two.

 

[apocalypse105]

As long as they implent it better then civ 4. So the AI only capitulate to the agressor...

So you don't get dragged into a war with bismarck who is the number 1 soldiers and when you're target he only has 1 city left great

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

Vassals? Yes. Capitulation? No thank you.

 

[Biologist]

Absolutely not. There were many bad mechanics of civ4 that should never come back, including these two.

Remember Permanent Alliances? If you could convince a powerful AI to perma-ally you, you could leech all of their inexhaustible resources and basically become invincible.

 

[Legionarius]

Wasn't the best feature, but it at least added a layer of depth to the diplomatic front.