Huts, barbs vassal states?
- Thread starter oyzar
- Start date
Joshua368
Warmongering builder
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2008
- Messages
- 3,072
I like the idea of having all three. 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?
Vassal states, I'm not as sure of. I have no idea how annoying they may be, but then again I think they'll add strategic value. Plus humans don't get the chance to become vassals in SP, so that could be interesting.
One thing I don't want that isn't on a poll are random events. I play with them on in single player, but there are simply too many overpowered helpful and hurtful events that I'd rather not worry about.
Vassal states, I'm not as sure of. I have no idea how annoying they may be, but then again I think they'll add strategic value. Plus humans don't get the chance to become vassals in SP, so that could be interesting.
One thing I don't want that isn't on a poll are random events. I play with them on in single player, but there are simply too many overpowered helpful and hurtful events that I'd rather not worry about.
We can make another poll about that of course, permanent alliances doesn't fit into a diplo game with just 5 participants imo as it'll make the game too loopsided.
As for events, they aren't too bad with barbs off, they can destroy stuff sure, but a bit added randomness is nice and getting the positive events is so fun.
As for events, they aren't too bad with barbs off, they can destroy stuff sure, but a bit added randomness is nice and getting the positive events is so fun.
General_W
Councilor & Merlot Noble
I like barbarians - but I think they should be at a low level.
Randomness is fun - but getting severely handicapped in a months long game thanks to nothing but the RNG... that kinda stinks.
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?
Randomness is fun - but getting severely handicapped in a months long game thanks to nothing but the RNG... that kinda stinks.
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?
When you take a vassal you can cause peace and bump people out of war hence preventing them from taking cities.
While this is probably the main reason to take vassal it can still be abused as vassals let you get free airlift to their cities and can store planes in their cities. By going back and forth voulentary vassals between equal parts you get to do things that normally wouldn't be allowed within the game rules. As an example, in a pitboss game of mine we are in a lategame war, a guy with like 9 cities on my continent vassalies a guy on the other continent with 40 cities, just so the guy with 40 cities can airlift in units to help fight against me, and store planes in his cities.
While this is probably the main reason to take vassal it can still be abused as vassals let you get free airlift to their cities and can store planes in their cities. By going back and forth voulentary vassals between equal parts you get to do things that normally wouldn't be allowed within the game rules. As an example, in a pitboss game of mine we are in a lategame war, a guy with like 9 cities on my continent vassalies a guy on the other continent with 40 cities, just so the guy with 40 cities can airlift in units to help fight against me, and store planes in his cities.
Viva_Chingon
Condition 1
I don't like the idea of using Vassal. In reality a Vassal State is a state which has submitted to the leadership/will of a Sovereign State. As such, if you wanted to play with Vassal States, couldn't you turn it off in-game and do it via real diplomacy?
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. EDIT: long x-post with Viva Chingon, but yes I agree completely.
Huts are a totally unnecessary source of randomness. I would strongly discourage against them. They are a worse form of advanced start.
Barbarians - personally I hate them, but if people want them on then I won't really mind.
Huts are a totally unnecessary source of randomness. I would strongly discourage against them. They are a worse form of advanced start.
Barbarians - personally I hate them, but if people want them on then I won't really mind.
Sullla
Patrician Roman Dictator
Far be it from me to tell you how to run your game, but isn't this something that should be decided on a team-by-team basis, and not a poll of individuals?
Ideally, I'd like to hear the opinions (yes/no) from each of the five teams on the following settings:
- Huts
- Events
- Vassal States
- Barbarians: None, Normal, or Raging
- Tech Trading: Normal, No Tech Trading, No Tech Brokering
Those are the five key settings to decide upon. The best solution, IMO, would be to have each team cast their vote on each one. Majority rules, 3/5 teams or more.
But again, I'm just the map maker and not the game's organizer.
Ideally, I'd like to hear the opinions (yes/no) from each of the five teams on the following settings:
- Huts
- Events
- Vassal States
- Barbarians: None, Normal, or Raging
- Tech Trading: Normal, No Tech Trading, No Tech Brokering
Those are the five key settings to decide upon. The best solution, IMO, would be to have each team cast their vote on each one. Majority rules, 3/5 teams or more.
But again, I'm just the map maker and not the game's organizer.
Far be it from me to tell you how to run your game, but isn't this something that should be decided on a team-by-team basis, and not a poll of individuals?
Ideally, I'd like to hear the opinions (yes/no) from each of the five teams on the following settings:
- Huts
- Events
- Vassal States
- Barbarians: None, Normal, or Raging
- Tech Trading: Normal, No Tech Trading, No Tech Brokering
Those are the five key settings to decide upon. The best solution, IMO, would be to have each team cast their vote on each one. Majority rules, 3/5 teams or more.
But again, I'm just the map maker and not the game's organizer.
Afaik, not sure if we have an administrator for the game, maybe you could voulenteer to be that?
Viva_Chingon
Condition 1
Sulla, that's a some really good advice. I'm for that.
Sullla, I agree with you for the decision making, but I still think we need to discuss it openly. Consider this poll to be testing the waters, we'll have a formal one later. 
Would some proponent of goody huts say why they think they should be in the game? I've already given my mind, that they add an element of randomness that I feel is unbecoming for a game like this.
Would some proponent of goody huts say why they think they should be in the game? I've already given my mind, that they add an element of randomness that I feel is unbecoming for a game like this.
They add more exitement to the early game. There is already plenty of randomness in the starting position generation(though the map maker might remove some of that 
), meaning that some huts won't unbalance things badly.
), meaning that some huts won't unbalance things badly.
IamJohn
(was)?
I'm pretty sure that role is fulfilled by Ginger Ale, he's the general admin and game keeper as far as I know.
I like huts on, barbs normal, vassals on if we have rules against exploits, off otherwise, tech trading on, and tech brokering on.
mostly-harmless
Prince
It seems everybody likes huts on, hoping they will get something good out of it. But imagine the frustration if other teams pop the important early techs from huts and your team gets a map and some gold.
I am very much in favor of no huts and no events for the same reason.
They are nice for Single Player games but take the "competitive" out of competitive multiplayer.
mh
EDIT: There two options missing from the vote anyway.
I am very much in favor of no huts and no events for the same reason.
They are nice for Single Player games but take the "competitive" out of competitive multiplayer.
mh
EDIT: There two options missing from the vote anyway.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
