I want to cancel the vassal states, damn it!

[Bluetooth]

I noted it after I published the message. Latest post 2006? Well, on the bright side; a slumbering thread suddenly come to life again after almost four years. Not bad.

 

[none]

That much is true!

I just turn off the option, vassal states just imbalance the game IMO and I like when civs get crushed down in game.

 

[TheDS]

There are conditions under which a vassal can leave or DoW you, there should be conditions under which you can do the same to a vassal. Spying on you, culture-attacking you, and stuff like that should be grounds for dismissal. Simply being weak, though... you shouldn't take on a weak vassal if you don't want one.

Other civs shouldn't be able to DoW vassals either. If they don't share your diplomacy, it's a crock. If you are responsible for what your vassal does (being forced to get into his wars) you should have the power to keep him out of war.

Hey, try gifting cities to your vassal, get them above their freedom threshold, and see if that helps.

 

[Zatorak]

Use worldbuilder. Press Esc then click on world builder go to diplomacy mode and you'll figure out the rest. If you're not talking about Civ IV well then i'm stupid sry.


P.S. To me worldbuilder is known as cheating

 

[TheWilltoAct]

To whom might you be speaking Zatorak, with your words across the gulf of time...?

 

[Ramesses-Rules]

I turned off vassal states about a year ago. I think it ruins the game.

 

[Cadde]

This thread is very old but relevant to my situation. I was burned by the Vassal system in the past where i accepted a capitulation and vassal from a civ that had one city.
His city was on the other side of a HUGE continent and even worse, there where two friggin powerblocks between his city and mine.

I had no coastal cities at the time and had to kill off another civ to get to the coast so i could make ships to kill his last city. I thought, well you surrender for now but i will deal with you later when i have a coastal city.
Imagine the frustration when i realized that the vassalage couldn't be broken...

I don't give a F about balance here. The mechanic is broken!
If i want to murder (or cancel) a vassal of mine it should be in my power to do so. The same way the soviet union (should they have decided to do so) could just go into any of their subordinate states and rape, pillage and murder at any time.

Well, i started a new game a few days ago and i didn't disable vassal states. I am now starting to think i should have... Everybody on my continent hates me except the two civilizations that i have worked long and hard to make my friends. I actually planned this, i wanted to have my neighboring civs as my best friends and kill all other civs off.
Well... My two best friends aren't as powerful as me and they kept bugging me for vassalage but i refused because they where so weak and where also hated by all other civs on the continent. I didn't want to have another war on my hands in the middle of a campaign against another civ.

Well, it turned out to bite me in the ass as my two best friends became vassals of my worst enemy! (Which also is the most powerful civ on the continent)
So now, if i declare war on him i will be forced to fight a war i don't even (emotionally) want against my two best friends that i have given indirect help in war time when they where wardecced.
But not only that, i am surrounded by my two best friends and if their vassal state declares war on me i would have to not only protect my front from this civ that has equal armies with mine but also both my flanks against my friends who has 1/3 of my might each (a lot of it from units i have given them in the past)

Point is, not only should you be able to break a vassal agreement with any civ and if they refuse then... well... They can't refuse!
But you should also be able to influence civs that you have great relations with to abandon their vassal agreements with your worst enemies.

The only solution i have left now is either declare war on my worst enemy or make him declare war on me, protect my borders from my friends and kill off this worst enemy thus breaking the vassal agreement that way.
But considering i will never accept vassals myself it will only be a matter of time before my two best friends will vassal to another of my enemies.

Conclusion, with the vassal system in place it's you against the entire world in every game unless you take on vassals yourself.
And if you do then it's you against the entire world and your inferior vassals but the difference is now you get even more wars against you than before.

I might as well wardec all civs i meet when i meet them to rid myself of the middleman, also known as the vassal system.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Dude, this issue is so old. The vassal system isn't the best but it works pretty well if you know the basics. For example, if you had learned that you cannot cancel vassal states or capitulation deals, you may not have accepted it.

But, honestly, who cares? Just leave his city there and continue your game. The "We wish to join our motherland!" in his other cities may be annoying, but just whip whip whip.

When it comes to the other superpower taking your friends as vassals, remember that you were probably going to backstab them sometime in the future, anyway. So just declare on him and, if it makes you feel better roleplaying-wise, don't take any aggressive actions against them, just attack the master. Then, once you've rocked his world and they break free from him, keep on being friends with them.

Really, the vassal system might not be ideal, but what is? It works well enough as long as you understand the basic concepts on how it is implemented. Why you refuse to take vassals, I won't understand, but you can always turn them off in custom game settings. They can actually be a huge help. I won a domination game on earth-18 map as England and I never had more than 6 cities (well, for a small time I did before granting independence). They can actually be a huge help especially if you can't get open borders with a civ (like Tokugawa or anyone who's furious or annoyed) and they're blocking other trade routes. Sometimes, it is economically infeasible to conquer any more than a few cities, but you don't want your rival to continue his mad dash to victory. Taking a few cities and annihilating his stack and taking him as a vassal is always a choice. Try turning off vassals and winning a conquest victory on a huge 18 civ map... might take you a while. Even domination victories can be sped up drastically by taking vassals.

Try reading some strategy articles on the vassal system and give them another try. You might grow to like them.

 

[Archon_Wing]

I'm of the opposite opinion regarding arbitrarily cancelling vassalage -- gameplay balance > realism. It works the same way you have unbreakable 10 turn treaties. There's really no reason why that piece of paper would form such a restriction on your mighty army.

The capitulation system is broken. However, it's such a time saver that I couldn't imagine playing without it; how else do I get conquest? Peaceful vassal should be thrown out though.

Oh... and you CAN cause a peacevassal to break. I've done it before by asking one or the other to change religions and civics, and what do you know-- they jump ship eventually.

And hey-- if someone else offers to protect them, and you don't, then why should they side with you anyways? They don't care about you, only what they have to gain from you. And if they're conspiring with the enemy, they are not your friends. Kill them.

Feel free to disable the feature though. It wasn't very well thought out.

 

[yturk39]

What do you expect, exactly, from your vassals? Is it some kind of permanent slave that will ALWAYS do your bidding, work in your best interests, and harmonize their economy, research and military might with yours so perfectly that you can just kick your feet up on the arms of your throne, take a nap, and wake up to a huge pile of gold and technology they've lovingly gift-wrapped for you in the corpses of your enemies??

"Oh, thank you, your Lordship, for taking away ALMOST everything that was once ours and letting us few humble survivors exists to be your eternal slaves! Your kindness and magnanimity towards us will be an example to all!"

And, indeed, it is. You should know how the system works before you accept a vassal. Accepting a vassal and then afterwards complaining that it isn't working out for you the way you'd hoped (although it's functioning exactly the way the game design allows it to) shows poor planning on your part.

 

[Cadde]

Well, in reply to all three previous posters. Game balance is good when there's no way to have an "I win button". Vassals are merely a static annoyance, not game balance at all. If i had known i couldn't cancel the vassal i wouldn't accept it and instead let the war run for the remainder of the game. But of course then that "poor once city civ" would become vassal to someone else and i would gain a "bonus war" with someone who otherwise never would declare war with me.

Arbitrary game mechanics are rarely good game mechanics. (Hence why i play without tribal villages and random events now as well)

And opposed to popular belief, not all players play only for conquest. In that regard, there really are a few features missing in the game.
In the real world you can have nations that aren't part of any alliance that still are liked enough by the rest of the world to gain defensive aid if attacked.
Sweden for instance hasn't declared war since 1814 but has participated in numerous conflicts since to protect life. That's the kind of game i am trying to play for my friendly civs, protect them from evil (or unfair) crusades but not actually attack the offending civ. Provide a buffer to ensure the victim doesn't suffer a genocide. The difference from reality is there is no support in game for such. You can't station your armies on your friends borders to say "only way you'll get past us is over our dead bodies".

That is why we still have Serbs / Albanians on this planet. Swedish troops stood in the middle and simply said "no, we don't tolerate this! If you wanna rape, pillage and murder each other you will have to go through us first". And indeed both sides tried many times. But they never really hated Sweden for it, they just hated each other enough to attempt killing another nations troops to get what they wanted.
Nor did the Swedes ever declare war on either of the attackers. Their mission was clear, protect innocent civilians from genocide.

Now you can ask "why are you playing Civ then?" all you want. The only reason i post about it is to vent frustration with a bad game design. Just because the game is a good one and most who play it love it (me too) doesn't exclude it from critical analysis.

 

[uat2d]

Now you can ask "why are you playing Civ then?" all you want. The only reason i post about it is to vent frustration with a bad game design. Just because the game is a good one and most who play it love it (me too) doesn't exclude it from critical analysis.

Who'd in his right mind ask you that?

 

[Archon_Wing]

Well, in reply to all three previous posters. Game balance is good when there's no way to have an "I win button". Vassals are merely a static annoyance, not game balance at all. If i had known i couldn't cancel the vassal i wouldn't accept it and instead let the war run for the remainder of the game. But of course then that "poor once city civ" would become vassal to someone else and i would gain a "bonus war" with someone who otherwise never would declare war with me.

Arbitrary game mechanics are rarely good game mechanics. (Hence why i play without tribal villages and random events now as well)

Accepting capitulation is a guarantee that you will spare them in exchange for their service. If you can just arbitrarily cancel at any time, there's no reason they'd ever accept it from a gameplay point of view. It is the same logic as peace treaties. There's no logic to accepting a peace treaty if you can just break it again even though there's no real reason why you can't tear up that piece of paper.

Capitulation isn't the way to simulate genocide. To do that, you would take peace treaties and extract multiple concessions from them, and then finish them off.

Though there is one method to "absorb" a vassal. And that is via culture and espionage. Under the table and "pressure" the poor guy into oblivion. There's many real life examples of this where a conquered people become assimilated into the conqueror's culture and cease to be recognized as a nation.

And even from the point of realism, that bonus war is not really an issue. Why shouldn't they seek the protection of another power, especially one that sees that it may be a good idea of attacking you?

And opposed to popular belief, not all players play only for conquest. In that regard, there really are a few features missing in the game.
In the real world you can have nations that aren't part of any alliance that still are liked enough by the rest of the world to gain defensive aid if attacked.
Sweden for instance hasn't declared war since 1814 but has participated in numerous conflicts since to protect life. That's the kind of game i am trying to play for my friendly civs, protect them from evil (or unfair) crusades but not actually attack the offending civ. Provide a buffer to ensure the victim doesn't suffer a genocide. The difference from reality is there is no support in game for such. You can't station your armies on your friends borders to say "only way you'll get past us is over our dead bodies".

This is instituted in the game as defensive pacts. You pledge to take military actions only if someone else instigates it. However, my statement is that if your "friends" are clearly aligning themselves with a hostile empire that intends to encroach on you, it may be time to find better friends.

And it's only natural that if the game's settings do not reflect your vision of the game that you should turn it off. But that doesn't make it necessarily broken because it doesn't suit your needs.

There are flaws with the vassal system, and there are reasons to play with them off. In fact it is actually harder to win for you in most cases.

Now you can ask "why are you playing Civ then?" all you want. The only reason i post about it is to vent frustration with a bad game design. Just because the game is a good one and most who play it love it (me too) doesn't exclude it from critical analysis.

It doesn't. I think I bash the game more than everyone in this thread. I think the vassal system is junk too. :3 I just prefer it over the alternatives and think it has positives.

And peacevassaling should be eliminated.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

If i had known i couldn't cancel the vassal i wouldn't accept it and instead let the war run for the remainder of the game. But of course then that "poor once city civ" would become vassal to someone else and i would gain a "bonus war" with someone who otherwise never would declare war with me.

My initial point was that your annoyance was spurred from taking a vassal without understanding the very ground level basics of the vassal system (IE that it cannot be canceled by the player). Why not take peace? Or even a Cease Fire since a 1 city civ generally doesn't have anything to offer in and will never give up any techs they have over you. Just cease fire or take whatever you can from peace. Then, send a small contingent towards his last city and finish him off once and for all. Or don't. If the AI takes a 1 city civ as a vassal during peacetime, it's his own mistake.

And opposed to popular belief, not all players play only for conquest.

You can utilize vassals in any type of victory condition. Often, they can be used as a buffer between yourself and another civ that could be a bit more aggressive. Your particular gripe is about vassals with respect to war, so saying not all players play only for conquest is kinda moot.

As previously stated, Defensive Pacts are better suited to your ideas regarding protection of weaker civs. They will often come to you with such requests (particularly when you are much more powerful than they are). Turn off the vassals is a simple solution for you. Or, you can always learn the ins and outs of said systems and use them to your advantage.

 

[Cadde]

Accepting capitulation is a guarantee that you will spare them in exchange for their service. If you can just arbitrarily cancel at any time, there's no reason they'd ever accept it from a gameplay point of view. It is the same logic as peace treaties. There's no logic to accepting a peace treaty if you can just break it again even though there's no real reason why you can't tear up that piece of paper.

The first thing that comes to mind is, you take a vassal in capitulation. Then find out you never wanted that vassal so you cancel the deal...
Now, there are two ways this could go:

1. You are the one cancelling the vassal.
   • You suffer a +2 penalty in all your cities for X number of years. "The lack of political stability makes us angry!"
   • You suffer a -4 to diplomatic relations with your previous vassal. "We are upset that you broke the terms of surrender with us!"
   • You suffer a -1 to diplomatic relations with all civs that have positive relations with the previous vassal. "You abused a capitulation vassal agreement."
   • If you then declare war on your previous vassal within X years you suffer another:
     • +1 penalty in all cities for X number of years. "You are seen as a villain by the world!"
     • -2 to all diplomatic relations. "Your war on a capitulated nation have proven your bad nature to us!"
2. They are the ones cancelling the vassal.
   • They suffer a +2 in all their cities for X number of years. "We think you lost your mind."
   • They suffer a -3 to all diplomatic relations. "You broke a capitulation agreement"
   • You are now allowed to (free of any repercussions) engage in war with that civ again should you decide to do so.

Why a capitulated vassal would break the agreement is beyond me but perhaps he "just doesn't like you enough" (<= -10 diplomatic relations?) and they'd rather fall to oblivion than be slaves to your nation.

Though there is one method to "absorb" a vassal. And that is via culture and espionage. Under the table and "pressure" the poor guy into oblivion. There's many real life examples of this where a conquered people become assimilated into the conqueror's culture and cease to be recognized as a nation.

Yeah, lets culture him to death after having had him as a vassal for the rest of the game... His last city was a colony on the other side of the continent with lots of tundras and no good resources to get a culture city started. I might as well plant cities and give them to him. Not that it would matter since within 5 tiles where the other power blocks cities and that would just spark "close borders cause tensions" and then they would declare war on me/him because of that.

And even from the point of realism, that bonus war is not really an issue. Why shouldn't they seek the protection of another power, especially one that sees that it may be a good idea of attacking you?

The same reason i wouldn't take a vassal that would do more harm than good.
I admit i never read the full terms of surrender in the first place, had i known he would become an unbreakable vassal to me i would have opted to keep the war going until i could conquer a coastal city and then sent one galley to finish him off.

The reason i killed him off to begin with was that he kept declaring wars on me despite him having a 1:2 power ratio with me and always lost his attacking force within 4 turns of the war declaration. I was simply fed up with him so i razed all cities in sight.

This is instituted in the game as defensive pacts. You pledge to take military actions only if someone else instigates it. However, my statement is that if your "friends" are clearly aligning themselves with a hostile empire that intends to encroach on you, it may be time to find better friends.

Like i said, i wanted to play a game where i never had to fight someone else's wars but could use my power to ensure my friends never fall. Hence why i had such good relations with them to begin with as i had provided them with strategic resources and units every time they where in war time. It's just one more aspect of the game missing which just makes other aspects of the game incomplete IMHO.
If you have a +16 in diplomatic relations i don't see how that doesn't constitute a "friend". A civ should consider the negative impacts from becoming vassals to your friends enemies.
"I will not become a vassal to my friends worst enemies"

Is there any other way of befriending a civ than having >10+ diplo relations with them? I don't see how some civ that has a -10 diplo relation to me would ever consider me as their friend unless i lick their a** until they get a +diplo relations with me.
Find other friends... Right, so they can vassal to my enemies too after having spent thousands in coin and fed them with resources for ages.

And it's only natural that if the game's settings do not reflect your vision of the game that you should turn it off. But that doesn't make it necessarily broken because it doesn't suit your needs.

Yes, the reason it is broken is because it is a locked situation. First off there should be a big bold red warning text stating "This deal cannot be canceled!" and then a link to a civpedia article that explains what it is. (Because it's an abnormal game design, all other deals can be canceled in X number of turns)
Further more, a piece of paper or handshake has never stopped a civilization from breaking said agreement. The only thing keeping the world in relative peace is the fear of repercussions from other civs against their actions.
There are plenty of nations that would love to murder each other. Neither are in defensive pacts but if they start something then the world will think of them as the villains and bombs will start flying. (Libya?)

My initial point was that your annoyance was spurred from taking a vassal without understanding the very ground level basics of the vassal system (IE that it cannot be canceled by the player). Why not take peace? Or even a Cease Fire since a 1 city civ generally doesn't have anything to offer in and will never give up any techs they have over you. Just cease fire or take whatever you can from peace. Then, send a small contingent towards his last city and finish him off once and for all. Or don't. If the AI takes a 1 city civ as a vassal during peacetime, it's his own mistake.

No matter how had i think about it, i have never seen any other deal which simply cannot be canceled. I went on the assumption that i could cancel the deal later on. (much later on in fact)
I also never knew that i could demand offerings from a vassal until i realized i couldn't break the capitulation agreement. (EVER)
Where all other deals can be canceled at one time or another, the vassal system sticks out like a sore thumb. It just doesn't fit with all other game mechanics, it's broken!

You can utilize vassals in any type of victory condition. Often, they can be used as a buffer between yourself and another civ that could be a bit more aggressive. Your particular gripe is about vassals with respect to war, so saying not all players play only for conquest is kinda moot.

This is a domination game but the AI plays it as if it was conquest. They declare wars left and right even though they still have plenty of land to grab.
There's at least 20 tiles between each civ except for the 2 civs that are close to me that i have befriended.
The reason i wanted to keep them around was a role playing aspect, they are civilizations i like IRL.
I could just as well not have bothered with them and let them fall to ruin.
And i never employ the slavery civic for the simple reason, i don't like slavery IRL. Even though slavery is a powerful civic to have!

Where most other game mechanics in Civ 4 let you shape your experience to some extent. The vassal system invalidates all efforts you make with diplomacy by merging nations that hate each other indiscriminately.
Add to that, i can never become a vassal to an AI player... I have to fight or die.

As previously stated, Defensive Pacts are better suited to your ideas regarding protection of weaker civs. They will often come to you with such requests (particularly when you are much more powerful than they are). Turn off the vassals is a simple solution for you. Or, you can always learn the ins and outs of said systems and use them to your advantage.

The ins and outs of the system as far as i can tell is that it is broken. Why should i be interested in a mechanic i deem to be broken?

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Man oh man, you think the vassal system is broken now and you'd want the player to be able to become a vassal? Just turn 'em off, man. I wouldn't worry too much about broken systems if you use your real life opinions on morality when playing CIV. Just turn 'em off.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Yeah, lets culture him to death after having had him as a vassal for the rest of the game... His last city was a colony on the other side of the continent with lots of tundras and no good resources to get a culture city started. I might as well plant cities and give them to him. Not that it would matter since within 5 tiles where the other power blocks cities and that would just spark "close borders cause tensions" and then they would declare war on me/him because of that.

Well... they do break away if they lose most of their land do to culture you know. I never said it was a perfect solution, but something that makes sense in most cases, and really, if they're so crippled anyways, just wipe them out, you were intending to do that without requesting or demanding their "service"

Like i said, i wanted to play a game where i never had to fight someone else's wars but could use my power to ensure my friends never fall. Hence why i had such good relations with them to begin with as i had provided them with strategic resources and units every time they where in war time. It's just one more aspect of the game missing which just makes other aspects of the game incomplete IMHO.

Well, I think defensive pacts are significant enough to achieve the same effect. If it's an informal agreement, well, then there's no need to have any feature.

If you have a +16 in diplomatic relations i don't see how that doesn't constitute a "friend". A civ should consider the negative impacts from becoming vassals to your friends enemies.
"I will not become a vassal to my friends worst enemies"

Is there any other way of befriending a civ than having >10+ diplo relations with them? I don't see how some civ that has a -10 diplo relation to me would ever consider me as their friend unless i lick their a** until they get a +diplo relations with me.

Actually no. Friendship is mutual. If someone demands tribute from me and I give them tribute twice they may become pleased with me, but they are also now my mortal enemy! If I have made them happy and they don't reciprocate, then they are not my friend.

Find other friends... Right, so they can vassal to my enemies too after having spent thousands in coin and fed them with resources for ages.

Either your enemy is growing too powerful or too popular If he can suck up all your friends, it appears you will have to deal with them all anyways. Convince them they need your protection. Usually that requires coercion sadly.

Yes, the reason it is broken is because it is a locked situation. First off there should be a big bold red warning text stating "This deal cannot be canceled!" and then a link to a civpedia article that explains what it is. (Because it's an abnormal game design, all other deals can be canceled in X number of turns)
Further more, a piece of paper or handshake has never stopped a civilization from breaking said agreement. The only thing keeping the world in relative peace is the fear of repercussions from other civs against their actions.
There are plenty of nations that would love to murder each other. Neither are in defensive pacts but if they start something then the world will think of them as the villains and bombs will start flying. (Libya?)

That only proves that the UI and documentation is trash. Not the feature itself. And like I said, there's no reason a piece of paper can magically stop you from attacking someone for 10 whole turns. It's the same concept-- game balance. So like I said, just because it doesn't conform to your ideals of reality and gameplay doesn't mean it's broken.

No matter how had i think about it, i have never seen any other deal which simply cannot be canceled. I went on the assumption that i could cancel the deal later on. (much later on in fact)
I also never knew that i could demand offerings from a vassal until i realized i couldn't break the capitulation agreement. (EVER)
Where all other deals can be canceled at one time or another, the vassal system sticks out like a sore thumb. It just doesn't fit with all other game mechanics, it's broken!

Yes, it is an inconsistency. But in most cases vassals have a larger impact than most deals... and thus restrictions are more severe.

Where most other game mechanics in Civ 4 let you shape your experience to some extent. The vassal system invalidates all efforts you make with diplomacy by merging nations that hate each other indiscriminately.
Add to that, i can never become a vassal to an AI player... I have to fight or die.

Actually it doesn't. Vassals have just eliminated themselves from the game, but diplomacy remains a huge factor. I've won tons of diplomatic victories without conquering if you know how to manipulate and please the big players. In most games, I make sure the aggressor is widely hated, and gets no vassals-- in fact, usually he is the only one that becomes the vassal. And considering the tons of people that have won diplomacy peacefully on high levels and without even an army, perhaps you could admit you have much to learn about diplomacy rather than dismissing it as broken?

If you want to place arbitrary restrictions on yourself, that's fine. It's a single player game. But it's not the game's fault though.

But since you like real life examples, let's think about Cold War diplomacy. I think it was very important there despite many a nation being "vassalized". Did it end up as fighting or dying? Nope, there's no fallout in my yard I think.

You seem to run under the assumption that the other superpower will inevitably come to blows with you. That isn't true from many civ games I've played, at least the ones that end peacefully leads to no big war.

The ins and outs of the system as far as i can tell is that it is broken. Why should i be interested in a mechanic i deem to be broken?

Perhaps consider that there's more to the game than you currently see? Maybe it is broken, but it doesn't mean that it is completely useless. Or it's only broken given your own policies towards the game? Everyone plays their game to a different style. And failing that, just turn it off...

It's not like I don't agree with this feature being incredibly flawed, so there is absolutely every reason to forget it exists and check it off just like I usually do with events.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Don't understand what's so unrealistic in releasing your vassal. Europa Universalis, for instance, allows it.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

It has nothing to do with realism. It is totally about the balance of gameplay. The way the game gets figured out is usually some of the higher level players do some code diving, or simply understand the underlying mechanics of the game & AI and learn to abuse its weaknesses and take advantage of the systems. This information propagates through the forum.

Having vassal states able to be canceled at any time would be a highly abused and broken system. It would be a system where the player could, at will, DoW, take a bunch of cities, see his economy falling into shambles, take the vassal, take techs/resources/gold from the vassal, rebuild army a bit, break agreement, finish him off. Rinse repeat.

 

[Archon_Wing]

A lot of things in Civ are abstractions. It is utterly unrealistic for a modern army to take several months just to move a few squares. Or guys with clubs taking over a "undefended" modern cities. Or suicide panthers.

There is NO justification on why my tanks shouldn't have more moves than cavalry for example. But to maintain coherent gameplay, it requires a bit of suspension of disbelief.