Should we bring back vassals and colonies?

[Yzman]

I don't want vassals back how they were. However, I think colonies would be a lot of fun. A colony could perhaps act like a multi city state and if they get big enough they could break free from you. I think that would add a fun dynamic to the game without having to change too much core gameplay.

 

[SemperFi2382]

I don't want vassals back how they were. However, I think colonies would be a lot of fun. A colony could perhaps act like a multi city state and if they get big enough they could break free from you. I think that would add a fun dynamic to the game without having to change too much core gameplay.

That would be an interesting mechanic. That was a portion of the Civ4 vassal mechanic I liked, the liberation of a group of cities that had too many problems due to distance.

 

[ShahJahanII]

The flip side of vassals was the colony mechanic, which was in itself cool.

Owning cities on continents away from your capital had a penalty associated with it that the player could eliminate by liberating your own far-off cities into a new vassal state. There is no such penalty in Civ 5, but it could be added. Maybe a colony could become a city-state with a small empire. This would give you benefits of resources, but you would need to work to maintain the relationship.

Edit: It seems this was covered in the other thread.

This thread?

Should we bring back vassals and colonies?
I asked the same question months ago.

Please PM a mod to merge this thread into here.

 

[Callonia]

Colony breaking away from my empire doesn't happen. In extremely unlikely scenario it happens.

I'm taking them back, no two ways about it.

 

[SemperFi2382]

Colony breaking away from my empire doesn't happen. In extremely unlikely scenario it happens.

I'm taking them back, no two ways about it.

So, add in the option if/when a colony does want to break away, you can "Grant their Independence" or "Teach them a lesson". A mechanic similar to when a city was culture flipped in previous civ games and you could allow it or tell them to get bent.

 

[dexters]

Vassals are in no way a 'superior' mechanic to anything. It was just (in the context of Civ4) a nice end-run around the unreasonable pop based weighting to UN victories which penalized peaceful builders because UN in Civ4 pre-vassals was essentially domination-lite and having vassals still required conquest and war as it is often the most rleiable way to get vassals in the game.

That said, it was fun and interesting. It's just something that works with Civ4. It won't work in Civ5 with it's smaller city count &, city states. There's no way around it. In Civ5 major Civ AI shouldn't capitulate in anyway in terms of winning outside of outright liberation. You can 'beat' them, but either wipe them out of keep them around for RAs and trading, which is a far more flexible client-state arrangement than a formal hard coded treaty.

What they need to fix is the city states diplomacy. It needs more depth.

 

[awesome]

This thread?

Please PM a mod to merge this thread into here.

it's probably easier to pm them yourself.

 

[ShahJahanII]

it's probably easier to pm them yourself.

I would, but I wanted to wait until I had the OP's permission.
But, I will anyway.

 

[fromar]

It would make colonies more useful if there was a strong incentive to build off-continent cities. Maybe bonus trade-routes. Then I'd fight to keep them.

 

[ShahJahanII]

Some great ideas here.
I definitely think there should be a consequence.
Maybe we should through in a maintenance for each city.
The benefits and revolution mechanics are a little harder to come up with.
For revolutions, I think they should have to do with army size as well as everything else suggested.
For example, if your colony has a much bigger military than you, then they would DoW you to break free.
If you put down the rebellion, there would be less of a chance of them DoW you later.

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: Moved and merged benxz88's thread.

 

[MatThePhat]

Gonna give my two cents here. I have to admit, I didn't read the entire thread, its pretty long and brimming with interesting ideas. However, a few thoughts that jumped to my mind as I reviewed your discussion, tell me what you think.

Special settler unit (colonist) that is cheaper to make and probably has one more movement or something (while embarked and on land)

When its founded, it makes a city-state with random attributes. Also, give it a worker and a soldier? You get X amount of favor from it (something big, maybe 90 or something?). The favor degrades normally. Colonies founded near each other become part of the same colony.

The city-state does not give benefits until it reaches population 3 (like the maritime benefit does not trigger, this just seems more realistic, since a colony doesn't pay back from day one)

After Y amount of time (30 or 60 turns maybe? Civ V is big on multiples of 30), if you are still the highest in favor and still their ally, the colony becomes a part of your empire and you gain control of it like any normal settlement (or maybe it comes back as a puppet state, so you have the option to annex it or not)

If you are not the highest favor, and/or are not the ally of your colony, it becomes its own civilization.

If you have favor with another civilization's colony and it becomes its own civilization, you are in a certain diplomatic standing with it (If you are a 'friend' of the colony, you have a friendship pact when it becomes a civilization automatically. If you are an 'ally', you have a defensive pact when it becomes a civilization automatically). If the colony annexes normally into the parent civilization, your favor is wasted. You can gain favor like with any normal city state, with gold, spies, and through missions and whatnot.

Comments: I feel with the espionage system, and giving the opportunity for other civilizations to butt in on your colony, we can really capture the feeling of the age of Exploration, where Britain, France, and all of Europe were fighting for distant spots on the globe. Of course, you also have to make colonies worth it, and I think giving it that autonomy for the early stages of the city works well, along with the decreased cost of the settling unit and the increased movement so it can get to the far flung corners of the map. It saves on finances and happiness until the city has developed the surrounding area, etc.

 

[Melendor]

My suggestion: New Social Policies, Colonialism

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=442437

 

[Tylenol]

I liked the idea of colonies, I find when playing on a huge map you need to have either a few strategically placed cities to get enough important resources or build many cities, I also find that the AI does not expand very quickly probably due to the policy system and the system of having to have an X improvement in every city to build Y small wonder. I think that Civ5 has already started in the right direction with Colonies in how the Citadel works. If a Settler or worker could build a similar structure that has a small radius of non expanding controlled territory, perhaps even an ability to buy up more land around it, that acts like a colony for appropriating resources. Maybe even add an ability where after a certain amount of time you can upgrade the colony to a city if you have the quid and the colony meets certain criteria. I don't.... all I know is that in Civ3 colonies were kinda useless I could just build a city, Civ4 vassals were a cool idea but I never really seen an advantage to them, they always got me into a pointless war. But for Civ5 with the Policy system, Happiness system, and how resources like coal iron oil ect.. are used, makes a lot of sense to have this ability. And it gives you something else to fight over .
So I ask you, is there away to mod the game a little so that we can add an ability to a settler or worker to make a colony in a similar way a general makes a citadel?

 

[Tylenol]

Even better idea, Cities not connected to the Capitol have no effect on Policy's. If you think about it in terms of history colonies were just small autonomus towns and really didn't effect the mother nation much until it was connected and had good transportation routes. So a city not connected could be used to bring in resources to the mother nation. To keep game balance, perhaps making unconnected cities unable to produce culture, and/or unable to reach a certain size, say 5 is a max size an unconnected city can reach. Think about it, no matter how much food is available a city is not going to get big unless it can immigrate and emigrate people, throughout history all the largest cities were centres of trade and export well connected to other cities and nations. Maybe even adding a clause where cities size 5 or under can be captured without the Occupation or puppet issue, only when you capture larger cities this starts to become an issue.
I think that would work well for Militaristic players as well, get them while they are small and its just another town in your empire. Ok, so who here is good at modding?

 

[Securion]

Vassals should of course be in Civ 6. It would be an outrage if it wasn't.

You should also be able to found cities and make them into Colonies, or Autonomous Territories. Set a focus for the governor and just leave it be. There should also be a mechanic for Colonies/Autonomous Territories to rebel and declare independence and become either a new Nation or a Citystate.