[GS] Two lovely features from CivIV still missing. Why?

[Vasire]

Sorry to dig this up but after a second expansion I can't help but wonder about two of my favourite features from CivIV still not being resurrected.

1. Vassalage. Remember how much fun it was to get revenge on a long-time rival by not killing him off completely but making him your puppet for the rest of the game? Using him as a buffer zone etc..

2. Emerging nations. I loved it when you got to crack the rival civ in half and then there were like three chinese cities all of a sudden proclaiming themselves to be Maya and declaring independence...

I mean the devs certainly could not have overlooked these things from the past games. But they decided not to include them. Any idea why?

 

[Victoria]

Well I still play it despite them not being called vassals.
One I play is gifting civs a city on ice/tundra then wiping out the rest of them so you end up with some gimp states all annoying each other.

 

[Uberfrog]

I don’t think these features added enough to the game, even back in Civ IV.

You just end up having a bunch of fragmented AI civs who don’t stand a chance of winning.

 

[Vasire]

I don’t think these features added enough to the game, even back in Civ IV.

You just end up having a bunch of fragmented AI civs who don’t stand a chance of winning.

Exactly my point! It's not a winning mechanic. It's more of a having fun mechanic. At least for me it added a lot of character to each campaign.

 

[Arilian]

I loved that you could grand independence of your colonies in terra maps who would be allied with you for the rest of the game.
I won some diety games by rushing into the new world, settling 2-3 cities, and grant independence to them. Then with the diety bonus colonized the whole continent quickly and won the game for me

Also I am missing Terra (all civ start in the old continent) maps from 4 and 5.
Tough Maori and some civs can ruin the fun on that.

Last thing I miss is fall from heaven

 

[Uberfrog]

Exactly my point! It's not a winning mechanic. It's more of a having fun mechanic. At least for me it added a lot of character to each campaign.

I understand this, I just think that such mechanics are even more enjoyable and characterful when they engage with the rest of the game in a more meaningful way. The reason I felt that declarations of independence fell flat in Beyond the Sword is that the newly-founded state would be unable to be more than a minor player. The only relevant nuisance was to whichever civ had lost its cities in the first place. In something like the Rhye's & Fall mod, civs would appear and disappear throughout the game, which is much more interesting to me.

Likewise vassalage seemed to me a tacit omission by the developers that conquest could get boring. By having a shortcut to victory by having the losing party capitulate to your empire, you avoided the painstaking task of capturing every last one of their cities. It seems to me a better thing to address is why warfare gets stale in the first place.

Civ 6 already allows cities to be lost through loyalty problems, and since these cities can be snapped up (either passively or through arms) by their neighbours, it's far more of an engaging gameplay problem than introducing a new horse at the final furlong. Likewise we have an approximation to vassalage—I can reduce my enemy to a handful of cities and force them into an extortionate peace treaty.

To be interesting additions, and not just fluff, these mechanics would need to play into the diplomacy system. Perhaps a vassal state is forced always to support your efforts in the World Congress (as it did in Civ 4), while a disgruntled former colony will do everything it can to side with your enemies.

 

[King of Prussia]

This thread reminds me of the days i used to create some "East vs West" type scenarios in Civ 4. I would go into the world builder and make everyone on my continent/area my vassal and do the same thing to someone else so they had their minions. Eventually i would start the world war. Lead to some fun scrambling of troops here and there or naval invasions.

 

[Vasire]

To be interesting additions, and not just fluff, these mechanics would need to play into the diplomacy system. Perhaps a vassal state is forced always to support your efforts in the World Congress (as it did in Civ 4), while a disgruntled former colony will do everything it can to side with your enemies.

I would support that 100%. But weren't vassals supposed to support you by default in BTS? At least when it came to war declarations. I liked that. And as buffer states they took the first hit in times war which was nice. And it eliminated the need to hunt your opponents down to the last city.
The newly-founded state was not a contender but more of an additional headache for your rival as well.
It all actually comes down to play styles. I personally don't play to win. Been playing Civ since 1993. Maybe actually finished no more than 15 campaigns. So fluff is also OK for me )

 

[Unconquered Sun]

CIV was designed in such a way you could have "America", a latecomer who quickly develops on a new continent. Civ6 doesn't support this.

 

[MrRadar]

Vassalage is present in Civ 6, in a bit different form and under a different front name. When you become suzerain of some city state, that city state becomes your vassal, in fact. There just can't be one without another. And suzerains can levy their vassals' troops in times of need, if they have enough money; else vassals declare war and make peace automatically, aligned with the politics of their overlord, that checks out as well. So we have vassalage, only who can be vassals changed with the presence of city state system.

Emerging nations were cool, but splitting rival civ in half seems to be a feature in Civ1? Civ4 only has release colony as a vassal. Anyway, both would be nice, only for major civs there should be some satellite state system.
Bring back barb cities!
And Terra maps. I know there are mods, but it would be nice to have an 'official' option.

 

[Kruos]

Vassalage concept from Civ4 was really great. It added a difficult-to-explain depht/immersion feeling to the whole diplomatic layer, in a way that, once at mid late game when two big blocks (with their vassals) dow each others, you really felt the WW feeling.

It's sad they did not put it in Civ6. But we can still hope it will be introduced in a third expansion!

 

[acluewithout]

Vassals feel like a solution in search of a problem. @MrRadar is right: Suzerains are basically vassals. I don’t really see what vassals would add to the game at the moment.

Th best I can think of is that maybe free cities flip to being vassals to a particular Civ rather than outright flipping to a new Civ. They’d then only become part of your empire properly if something else happens - maybe paying gold or faith?

I’m not even sure really what a vassal would do. I guess it would basically be the same as a Suzerain but with no unique Suzerain bonus?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I don’t think these features added enough to the game, even back in Civ IV.

You just end up having a bunch of fragmented AI civs who don’t stand a chance of winning.

Vassals were very useful in Civ 4, albeit buggy and with some weird hidden rules. They also allowed mercifully faster endings to runaway military games.

Vassals feel like a solution in search of a problem. @MrRadar is right: Suzerains are basically vassals.

They're not even kind of close to the mechanic as it was used in Civ 4.

 

[Uberfrog]

Vassals feel like a solution in search of a problem. @MrRadar is right: Suzerains are basically vassals. I don’t really see what vassals would add to the game at the moment.

Th best I can think of is that maybe free cities flip to being vassals to a particular Civ rather than outright flipping to a new Civ. They’d then only become part of your empire properly if something else happens - maybe paying gold or faith?

I’m not even sure really what a vassal would do. I guess it would basically be the same as a Suzerain but with no unique Suzerain bonus?

While allied/suzerained city-states in Civ 5 and 6 share some similarities with the concept of Civ 4's vassal states, they really are a different beast.

Vassal states are essentially soft defeat conditions for opposing civs. Instead of conquering an AI completely, you would subjugate them as a vassal. This meant that their territory contributed to your domination victory progress (which was based on global territorial control), and they counted as defeated for the purposes of the conquest victory. They significantly sped up these victory types, which in vanilla Civ 4 would be a lot more tedious (e.g. for conquest you previously needed to completely wipe out all enemy civs).

Like a city-state, a vassal would always provide open borders, and follow its master in war and peace, but unlike a city-state they didn't provide bonuses to your civ's production. There was an empire-wide happiness boost in the master's territory, and you could demand resources from them. But that was it. Otherwise they just carried on languishing as a civ without many cities. The issue I have is that vassal states by definition are not in a position to have a meaningful impact on the game. Sure, they join you in a war, but they obviously don't have the military to be useful.

So I absolutely agree that as it stands for Civ 6, vassals are a solution without a problem. You no longer need to take and hold anything past the capital to win a conquest victory. All the other benefits of vassalage (open borders, tribute) can already be extorted from a defeated AI in the peace deal. As for the diplomatic side of things, do we really need to give warmongers increased clout in world congress elections?

 

[Vasire]

Vassalage is present in Civ 6, in a bit different form and under a different front name. When you become suzerain of some city state, that city state becomes your vassal, in fact. There just can't be one without another. And suzerains can levy their vassals' troops in times of need, if they have enough money; else vassals declare war and make peace automatically, aligned with the politics of their overlord, that checks out as well. So we have vassalage, only who can be vassals changed with the presence of city state system.

Yes, but that is exactly what is missing for me. Like I've said earlier about the play styles. You are looking at it purely from a technical gameplay point. Like an instrument used to win. And city-states became that instrument. For me the flavour has been lost. Like after a hundred-year war with Montezuma I don't just want to win and kill him off. I want to humiliate him and turn him into a lapdog. ))

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Like a city-state, a vassal would always provide open borders, and follow its master in war and peace, but unlike a city-state they didn't provide bonuses to your civ's production. There was an empire-wide happiness boost in the master's territory, and you could demand resources from them. But that was it. Otherwise they just carried on languishing as a civ without many cities. The issue I have is that vassal states by definition are not in a position to have a meaningful impact on the game. Sure, they join you in a war, but they obviously don't have the military to be useful.

They also made future vassals easier to get (via islandtarget), gave culture borders for collateral initiative on future enemies, saved numerous turns preventing your troops going obsolete before next wars, and if you left tech trading on would not refuse even if otherwise they'd "fear you're becoming too advanced". On high difficulties, the AI upgrade discount also meant that you could foist a ton of crap units on them and they'd upgrade them at nearly no cost and their navy frequently stayed relevant.

So I absolutely agree that as it stands for Civ 6, vassals are a solution without a problem.

The inability to end a game that is already over within 30-60 minutes of real time is a glaring problem in Civ 6, and this is one of many mechanics that could assist that.

Peacevassals can die in a fire though, those should never come back absent a total rework of basic mechanics like victory conditions.

Yes, but that is exactly what is missing for me. Like I've said earlier about the play styles. You are looking at it purely from a technical gameplay point. Like an instrument used to win. And city-states became that instrument. For me the flavour has been lost.

No more "immersion mechanics". The game is chalk full of crap that doesn't get used when people are trying. The technical gameplay standpoint is a glaring issue in Civ 6 and does more to damage the game than the AI. It also makes good AI impossible at the strategic level. A well designed game makes "technical gameplay" PART of the immersive fun, rather than throwing in random crap that should never be used unless you're screwing around/doing a self-imposed challenge.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I agree that the whole city-state mechanic has superseded vassalage mechanic, even if it has departed from its design concept severely.

If I were a modder of some regard, I would mod in a new variety of city-state called a "colony" that can only be created by civs (on foreign continents) and initially are suzerainties of their founders with the Food-based yield boosts of the old Mercantile city-states.

 

[Kruos]

While allied/suzerained city-states in Civ 5 and 6 share some similarities with the concept of Civ 4's vassal states, they really are a different beast.

Vassal states are essentially soft defeat conditions for opposing civs. Instead of conquering an AI completely, you would subjugate them as a vassal. This meant that their territory contributed to your domination victory progress (which was based on global territorial control), and they counted as defeated for the purposes of the conquest victory. They significantly sped up these victory types, which in vanilla Civ 4 would be a lot more tedious (e.g. for conquest you previously needed to completely wipe out all enemy civs).

This.

Vassalization concept made domination/milirary victory so much less tedious/boring. Also it contributed to dynamise the mid-late game thanks to the land possession based domination victory.

When you compare with the actual one (capture all capital), the difference is abyssal. Not only you have to manualy move one by one all your units to victory (thanks to the so much wonderful 1upt - but it's another topic), but you have to do this for all capitals, which make domination victory a true nightmare even on a standard map with only 8 opponents..

If dev would bring back vassalisation and modify domination victory (turn it into land possession %age as it was before) the military game would became fun again, or at least far less tedious than actual one. Also it would also dynamise the mid-late game, as big blocks (with their vassals) would be a permanent threat to domination victory with the land possession %age threshold.

 

[MrRadar]

Yes, but that is exactly what is missing for me. Like I've said earlier about the play styles. You are looking at it purely from a technical gameplay point. Like an instrument used to win. And city-states became that instrument. For me the flavour has been lost. Like after a hundred-year war with Montezuma I don't just want to win and kill him off. I want to humiliate him and turn him into a lapdog. ))

I was looking at it purely from the terminological point

And Civ 4 vassalage system is one of the most fun and satisfying mechanic in the whole franchise, no doubt about that. To overpower your foe and make them do what you say is one of the best things in civ4
With troop feeding it could feel a bit exploity, but stronger opponents on higher difficulties in Civ4 kinda justifies that.

In Civ6, well, maybe diplo victory and all that new favour currency could be reviewed and reworked into something more interesting? This new DV is also most boring and uninspiring victory condition.
So through ample trading, reaching high level alliances, aiding in multiple emergencies, you could fill some victory bucket, at which point the civ would agree become your client state or part of your block, and then you'd win diplo when you win in such way the majority of remaining civs? To prevent exploiting via elimination of non-aligned civs, your unjustified aggressive actions could alienate the civs you've already won over to your side and make them defect your block or even switch sides?

idk, the diplomatic game in Civ6 still feels very bland in comparison to Civ4 and AI inability to war efficiently just adds to it. The whole world declared on you on emergency, so what? In the end you'll only get benefits from that. When there are no worthy foes, any victory over them feels empty.

I'm in a Civ4 game on Monarch now (I remember winning several Immortal games in a row, now I got kicked in my teeth even on Emperor) and there was more diplo tension and camp picking in that one game than in all Civ6 games I've played combined. On top of that, small Mayan civ of 5 cities came within 15 turns of winning culture, much faster than my spaceship would launch, and he got picked over me as the UN SecGen in the last election. So I rushed to congratulate Pacal with some tactical nukes, ICBMs, and modern tanks supported by mech infantry. I did not want to do this at all, he was my buddy and trade partner for a long time, but what else could I do? Realpolitks, pal, nothing personal. Excitement, emotions, machevellian machinations all game long. Where's all that in Civ 6? You win mid game, and then just snooze on until somebody wakes you up with "You've won!" Oh, wow...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If dev would bring back vassalisation and modify domination victory (turn it into land possession %age as it was before) the military game would became fun again, or at least far less tedious than actual one. Also it would also dynamise the mid-late game, as big blocks (with their vassals) would be a permanent threat to domination victory with the land possession %age threshold.

Main problem with this (and I suspect why Civ 5 dropped dom in the first place) is that even pretty late in the game quite a lot of territory isn't in the borders of a civ, and the existence of city states gums that up further. Vassalization would still speed up "conquest" though.