youngsteve
Prince
I think that is a good move, as it was really exploitive. Stalker explained this very well in his experiences in using vassals, pointing out that they need to be nerfed.
New Beta Version - March 2nd (3-2)
- Thread starter Gazebo
- Start date
- Status
I think that is a good move, as it was really exploitive. Stalker explained this very well in his experiences in using vassals, pointing out that they need to be nerfed.
Yes, I agree that using vassals to get diplomatic victory has been an easier path to victory than actually finishing a domination victory. Conquering diplomatic civilizations could be very effective for diplomatic victory.
But vassals are a larger source of votes for diplomatic victory. With them gone 100%, I'm not sure how that will shake up. I've said play it out - and also suggested a compromised of vassals votes for diplomatic victory counting only 50%, rather than 0. So still a nerf, just not as much as currently happening.
bahamut19
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2020
- Messages
- 95
I think the vassal system where you earned all of the vassal's votes was more of a puppet state system, which is not necessarily a vassal. Also, a vassal in VP basically meant you earned a glorified city-state ally, which is not really how a vassal worked.
A vassal system is basically a mutual agreement between 2 nations, one of which is obviously superior to another. Since a vassal in VP can only be earned through war, part of the mutual agreement should include the defensive pact and open borders which currently happens. The tax system used currently is more of an imposition than agreement, and instead there should be some tradeable asset(s) the vassal can agree to provide for your protection, your mercy, and your strength. Gold could be a part of that agreement, certain types of votes, or even stuff not in the diplomatic game (if anyone wanted to program it) such as great works, great people, or great people points, free conversion of all cities to your religion, or whatever. The key is it is a mutual agreement and the agreement is not forever. It has a duration, perhaps longer than normal trade deals, definitely longer than a truce, but still finite.
I am glad that vassalage isn't exactly an automatic puppet state now in the new beta.
A vassal system is basically a mutual agreement between 2 nations, one of which is obviously superior to another. Since a vassal in VP can only be earned through war, part of the mutual agreement should include the defensive pact and open borders which currently happens. The tax system used currently is more of an imposition than agreement, and instead there should be some tradeable asset(s) the vassal can agree to provide for your protection, your mercy, and your strength. Gold could be a part of that agreement, certain types of votes, or even stuff not in the diplomatic game (if anyone wanted to program it) such as great works, great people, or great people points, free conversion of all cities to your religion, or whatever. The key is it is a mutual agreement and the agreement is not forever. It has a duration, perhaps longer than normal trade deals, definitely longer than a truce, but still finite.
I am glad that vassalage isn't exactly an automatic puppet state now in the new beta.
SpankmyMetroid
Prince
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2016
- Messages
- 320
You can still use them to support other proposals to shape your DV victory (passing UN, getting spheres of influence, etc). Gunboat diplomacy already helps with securing city state votes. Why should a peaceful diplo player be at such a disadvantage over a warmonger player (who might not have even went statecraft) simply because of extra votes from vassals? I like this change but we’ll have to see if it’s too hard for autocracy to pivot.
youngsteve
Prince
That is incorrect, unless it has changed with this latest version. In my last two games. Portugal stopped me winning by suddenly gaining a large Persia as vassal, who was not at war. In my previous game as Huns, just entered medieval era & Spain who had 5 cities wanted to be protected & became my vassal. Was never at war with her previously & was actually friendly.
Vassal independence & capitulation logic was revised by me for this latest version.
youngsteve
Prince
I didn't know that, as I am currently playing the older version saves. Is there a reason for that, as many nations became vassals of stronger neighbours, usually for fear or protection.
One question I was going to ask. I notice Gazebo mentioning changes to Spain. Hopefully these are positive ones, as every game I play, not as Spain, they always struggle & do badly. Eventually either being vassalised or destroyed.
I revised it so the AI made more sensible choices about when and when not to capitulate, as well as who to capitulate to. If you're interested, here's the revised code.
Spoiler :
Last edited:
Does voluntary vassalage still exist, or not?
Stickerbrush
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2016
- Messages
- 46
That's not true, you can buy out vassalage if you're considerably stronger than other civs and they don't hate you
JamesNinelives
Emperor
Think that was a misunderstanding, barb spawns aren't changed, I just cleaned up some of the code.
Theft amount is capped at the Barbarian unit's current HP, to prevent them stealing 40,000 Science in the lategame, etc.
They do heal everywhere now, though, not just in encampments.
Sick. I usually play 10 or 11 civs on a standard size communitu continents, and the recent changes have made the barb threat real on a crowded map for the first time. Really shaking up the rote opening rounds.
On that note, I do wonder if anyone else has shared my experience of finding lots more ruins in this and the last version? I used to find maybe 3-4 per game and my last several games, I've found 8+. Maybe because of either a more barb-cautious AI or else some reckless AI scouts getting offed? Anyone else experiencing this?
I removed the AI's extra XP bonuses on their initial Scout. Could possibly be a bug with recon code, though.
The thing I'm weary of regarding DV is not that vassals don't contribute to hegemony anymore, but the fact that recently CS are more vulnerable and susceptible to conquer over the course of a game; the tactical + diplo AI is becoming superbly bold, decisive and advantageous, so I've found that fewer CS remain by game's end.
When combined, we may find that DV is actually quite hard to achieve now. I'm okay with trying vassals abstaining from the hegemony vote, but the vote requirement might have to be lowered, or CS might need some kind of defensive buff that kicks in around the mid/late game -- maybe give them a tiny supply boost (2) once Renaissance or Industrial era hits, so they can each have another unit or two for defending themselves a bit better.
When combined, we may find that DV is actually quite hard to achieve now. I'm okay with trying vassals abstaining from the hegemony vote, but the vote requirement might have to be lowered, or CS might need some kind of defensive buff that kicks in around the mid/late game -- maybe give them a tiny supply boost (2) once Renaissance or Industrial era hits, so they can each have another unit or two for defending themselves a bit better.
I strongly agree with this. An allied CS these days is likely to be conquered if in a vulnerable position near a warmonger. So the effect of no vassal votes for diplomatic victory can be quite critical. Let's play and see.
youngsteve
Prince
Although I agree with the decision regarding vassals, you are right about the vulnerability of CS, & agree these should also be made slightly more stronger or vote requairement for UN lowered. I also cannot see why Civs can't support any allied CS that is declared war on without any repurcussions to your democracy. In reality countries have done this constantly. Austria declaring war on little serbia caused WW1, which Britain joined when little Belgium was attacked by Germany.
- Status
