Vassal system exists?
- Thread starter yokachinu
- Start date
Leyrann
Deity
Nope. Doesn't exist in 6, just like it doesn't in 5. Really hope they'll add it in an expansion though. After all, they can't add religion in an expansion this time around.
Leyrann
Deity
I was talking about Religion being the focus of the Gods & Kings expansion in Civ5. Civ6 has them in the base game, so they can't be in an expansion (making room for vassal states).
you can trust the developers that they know about all features that have been in any previous civ games.
If it gets included is their choice, however. The fan base can probably make a difference, but I guess only when a topic is really pressing and occurring in different forums etc. all the time. Or if really good arguments pop up (btw you didn't name any).
I still think that improved diplomacy and more diplomacy options would make a very nice reason to buy an expansion and thus I think it is likely that we'll see things like vassal states again.
If it gets included is their choice, however. The fan base can probably make a difference, but I guess only when a topic is really pressing and occurring in different forums etc. all the time. Or if really good arguments pop up (btw you didn't name any).
I still think that improved diplomacy and more diplomacy options would make a very nice reason to buy an expansion and thus I think it is likely that we'll see things like vassal states again.
If Firaxis actually listened to what the fans wanted, then I doubt we would have cartoony graphics - I don't mind the graphics, but I'd rather have something less cartoony. We would probably get some info about patches and not just a youtube video once in a while when they need to sell a DLC. So I really doubt they care what fans of civ wants - they care about what sells. The disconnect between fans and developer is probably the biggest there is in the gaming industry, so if "vassals" can be made sexy within marketing then I guess there's a chance.
Leyrann
Deity
I love the graphics. That said, I do agree Firaxis is far too silent.
Don't wanna derail the thread htough.
Don't wanna derail the thread htough.
As long as there's an option to turn them off. I'm not a fan of the vassal system of civ4, mainly because it didn't make sense that your long-time friend and trading partner suddenly declares war on you, permanently screwing up your diplomatic status because someone who he didn't like in the first place offered to become his vassal. But rather than going back and forth on the pros and cons of having vassal states incorporated in civ6, I'd rather just acknowledge that some people like them and some people don't, so it would be fine to put them in, as long as there is an option to turn them off.
Leyrann
Deity
To be fair I haven't played enough Civ4 to know the details of vassal states, but I'm sure it can be implemented in a way where relations don't suddenly change because of vassals forming.
You are the first to actually say he likes the vassal mechanic in 4. Can you expand on why?
Leyrann
Deity
Isn't it awesome that you can basically "control" another state? You don't need to conquer them, you just take a few cities and they pledge loyalty. And with colonies, you can't handle them normally because they're too far away, so you grant them semi-independance.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,902
You can control a CS army for 30 turns. You cannot delete the troops or upgrade in their territory but otherwise they are yours. Ally CS could have some better rules around them to make them more similar but yes, ally is not quite vassal. Was it really such a big thing?... I agree diplomacy could be better, at least its more visible than in Civ V
I'd say control is a generous term for what you can do with them. I find them to be a nuisance at best, if they are on your side their culture renders most of their conquered cities useless. On the other side they pledge themselves to the AI when you are about to crush them, without the chance to make peace potentially setting of a war nobody wanted.
I think Civ6 would be an exceptional platform for such a feature. Just make it so that when civilizationA capitulates to civilization B, civilization A continues generating it's own science and cullture (100% of it), but civilization B is granted a bonus equal to 25% of civilizationA's output in these two categories (science and culture.), maybe 10% if this seems too much. Additionally, 50% of the gold generated by civilizationA is tributed to civilization B. Maybe reduce that 25% if it's too much, or give civilizationA a reduction (50% ?) in building and/or unit maintenance so they can stay competitive. Neither civilization needs to concern themselves with the amenities of cities of the other civilization, both civilizations can declare war independently without dragging the other party along, but any third party civilization that declares war on one of them declares war on both. Optionally, the vassal can only make trade routes to it's master who receives 50% of it's yield.
There, that was simple. I think that meets all your criteria:
1.) a civilization that capitulates can still be competitive.
2.) There are times when it IS useful, when you have a sprawling (10 city, 30 city... whatever) empire, allowing a civilization to capitulate rather than finishing them off grants you extra yields without needing additional amenities for the territory, and saves the headache of having to micromanage another 10 or 15 cities. But...
3.) ... there are times when it is NOT the most useful choice, as if you want the full yields that can be generated by the lands (let's face it, in all civilization games, more land=more power= more ability to win) you have to take it all.
Don't want to sound vain and toot my own horn, but I kinda like this idea and wish it was in this game.
Disgustipated
Deity
Put another vote in from me for vassal states. I loved them in Civ4.
Similar threads
