No Vassal States in WOTM please

[Erkon]

I suggest that future WOTM games are run with the "No Vassal States" setting checked. The vassal state feature makes the game more unpredictable and random without adding any significant value. Instead it generates frustration when your plans are ruined (such as when the AI you are attacking gets vassaled by another AI). Playing WOTM without vassals will enable more options to the player and make the game more fun.

 

[Airny]

I had that problem multiple times in WOTM3, where my oopnents got help from stronger AIs than me =gg.
Vassals can also be in your favor if you are going for fast Domination or Conquest Victory.

 

[Thrallia]

I don't see how turning off Vassals would give MORE options for the player.

I personally would disagree with turning them off, or at least, turning them off being the standard. While I am not a militaristic player, I find that vassal states adds to my strategic game, rather than detracting from it.

 

[Lexad]

Vassals are great. Make your conquest faster. No other use.

 

[Mutineer]

Vassals are fine, more twist.

 

[DaviddesJ]

It's the game as Firaxis designed it. That's pretty much how the GOTMs have always been run. There were some substantial glitches in the vassal system, but 2.08 seems to have fixed them. The "problem" of your target vassaling to a stronger AI is, I thought, exactly how it's supposed to work.

 

[ngraner42]

Admittedly Firaxis did not fully work out the kinks in Vassalage, but I still really enjoy the feature. Vassalage and Great Leaders are what makes Warlords, Warlords, otherwise you might as well just play Vanilla. Ok, the new Leader traits and special buildings are nice too.

 

[drkodos]

More unpredictable and random IS the added benefit.

 

[azzaman333]

Barbarians are more random the Vassals, so unless you remove both, vassals should/will be used in a majority of games.

 

[Thrallia]

to add to my statements, I think a human would vassal himself to a superior civ in order to fend off an aggressor, if given the option...so I don't see how that is a problem.

 

[Htadus]

I like the twist Vassel states add but....I wish the game gave me the choice to select to continue the war or to sign a peace treaty, instead of selecting peace for me. In a recent WOTM I was about to finish off Ashoka when he became a Vassel of Saladin and the game told me I made peace with Ashoka and teleported my armies to the last captured city. My other Army was just about to knock on Saladin's doors and I would have dowed on him a turn earlier.

I do not see why that option was not available. After all, I do not recall when England said they will defend Poland, Germany halted their blitz in the 1930's and move their forces to the last captured city. It only would speed things up.

 

[Vynd]

I understand Erkon's frustration (and Htadus's) but I don't think Vassal States should be disabled in the WOTMs. I guess because I disagree that it makes the game more "random." It's actually fairly predictable that if an AI is getting beat down and there's someone out there that they could offer to vassalize themselves to, that they will do so. I see it as just one more thing you need to take into account in your planning. And of course vassalization can work greatly to the human player's advantage as well.

 

[da_Vinci]

I thought we wanted the AI to play more like a human, rather than a dumb robot. If so, that would mean we want it to be more unpredictable, wouldn't it?

So isn't unpredictability more of a challenge, and isn't that what we seek?

Unpredictability does mean that for any one XOTM game, the AI might play "smarter" against one human compared to another, but that should average out over a series of games.

So I am a believer in maintaining the unrpredictability since it adds challenge. I even think that the occasional XOTM game should have complete fog of war: Settings of landforms, barbs, number of rivals etc. should be listed as "for you to find out".

dV

 

[Erkon]

The advantage with Vassals for humans is that it will speed up victory. Has anyone ever experienced that turning an AI into a vassal made you win instead of loose?

I have a problem with the way vassals are implemented: an AI that you are friendly with for some reason thinks that it's ok to vassal my opponent. It's as if they didn't care of the relation with me? What is the point of having relations in the game if they can be circumvented in this way? If the AI that vassals my opponent is not prepared to declare war on me, why would he defend my opponent against me?

Don't get me wrong: I like the concept of vassals. I really like Warlords (Great Generals, Unique Buildings etc). I just don't like the way the vassal states is implemented, and I would welcome at least one WOTM to be played without the feature (that would enable me to go for a true diplomatic victory).

 

[sooooo]

Personally I hate vassals with a passion. Being the default option in the interface (ie not having to check a box) doesn't mean it should be the default option in the GOTMs.

Why is vassal states enabled by default and permenant alliances not? Both will probably ruin your game, so by that logic both should be enabled. And why not add permenant peace while you are at it? Yay, all the game-destroying settings.

I have no idea why "unpredictability and randomness" should be a good thing. Why not roll a random number between 1 and 10, multiply by 100 and add to your firaxis score? Instant randomness!

 

[da_Vinci]

I have no idea why "unpredictability and randomness" should be a good thing. Why not roll a random number between 1 and 10, multiply by 100 and add to your firaxis score? Instant randomness!

I think there is a difference between unpredictability in decision making by an opponent, and unpredictability in game mechanics. I think that the game mechanics should be predictable (even if they are "predictably random", like RNG in combat), in that the rules don't change.

If the options available to the AI were to be limited to make it less upredictable, then eventually you would know with near certainty what to expect the AI to do in various situations. As if you broke his code. I think for the game to stay fresh, we need the AI to surprise us from time to time.

I don't see permanent alliances as ruining the game, unless you play a game with that activated but do not account for that in your game plan. Then it will ruin your game. But so will ignoring any other game feature.

dV

 

[DynamicSpirit]

So I am a believer in maintaining the unrpredictability since it adds challenge. I even think that the occasional XOTM game should have complete fog of war: Settings of landforms, barbs, number of rivals etc. should be listed as "for you to find out".

I would love to have a GOTM/WOTM like that! (Though in practice that might be difficult because players can look at the game settings screen the moment they open the starting save, which kinda destroys the point of it. I guess for landform at least, you could get round that by so heavily editing the land manually that what the game notionally says it is is irrelevent).

 

[cas]

I have a problem with the way vassals are implemented: an AI that you are friendly with for some reason thinks that it's ok to vassal my opponent. It's as if they didn't care of the relation with me? What is the point of having relations in the game if they can be circumvented in this way? If the AI that vassals my opponent is not prepared to declare war on me, why would he defend my opponent against me?

When you are at war with a AI and it vassals to another AI, you should have the option to continue the war against the vassal/master combo or declare peace. This simple change would make vassals fine, IMO.

I prefer to have 'no vassal states' option checked, but can live with it either way.

cas

 

[DaviddesJ]

When you are at war with a AI and it vassals to another AI, you should have the option to continue the war against the vassal/master combo or declare peace. This simple change would make vassals fine, IMO.

That would certainly be an improvement.

 

[Airny]

Yeah, that's something they should fix with the next patch.