Vassals and diplomatic victory

[Blue Ghost]

This is a potential balance concern that I've noticed, and I was wondering what you guys think about it.

Vassals are required to vote for their master as world leader. That means that each vassal gives you a whole civ's worth of votes toward diplomatic victory. Even a weak vassal can have in the range of 20 votes by the time the world leader vote comes around, out of the ~50 needed to win diplomatic victory on a standard map. If you have multiple vassals, you can often win the diplomatic victory without doing anything else. And vassals are also a very secure source of votes; it's a lot easier to maintain vassals than religious influence or city-state alliances, especially with Iron Fist. That makes winning a diplomatic victory almost trivial for a successful warmonger.

It does make sense that having vassals would contribute to diplomatic victory, and it adds a nice dynamic to the diplomatic game. But perhaps vassals are a bit too strong compared to other sources of votes, and should be toned down a bit? Maybe vassals should only give a portion of their votes toward diplomatic victory, or a fixed number? What do you think?

 

[CrazyG]

Reformation beliefs apply not only to the founder, but whoever you spread to, right? So if I'm the founder and I pick up two vassals and give them my religion, that sounds like a pretty good strategy.

I haven't won or lost with this mechanic so I can't say for sure if its too strong, but your argument makes sense.

 

[Deadstarre]

I mean... you turned on vassalage tho

Spoiler :

 

[hr_oskar]

Getting vassals is not easy so I'd like to think that the effort should bring big rewards. If you've conquered over half the world it seems about right that you should win the game.

 

[pza]

Getting vassals is not easy so I'd like to think that the effort should bring big rewards. If you've conquered over half the world it seems about right that you should win the game.

This is partly correct, but it also means that it's too hard to achieve diplomatic victory without vassals, comparing to with vassals. Personally I don't like peaceful diplomatic games, but i might be too used to how it currently is.
Edit: It's also a consideration to take when chosing between vassalage and extermination, latter rarely beeing worth at all.



@Deadstarre: You're, once again, not helping.

 

[Enginseer]

There's no nerfs needs to be given. When good men do nothing, evil triumphs.

If you're not going to get global liberation passed or liberate the vassal, this is your issue at letting it happen.

 

[Grabbl]

I agree, you can achieve diplomatic victory through vassals without caring about city states or diplomacy much.

Perhaps vassals should just contribute their core votes to the master (the votes you can actually buy via trading also).

Edit: Typo.

 

[ishmael_]

Maybe vassals should only give a portion of their votes toward diplomatic victory, or a fixed number?

Perhaps vassals should just contribute their "votes votes to the master (the votes you can actually buy via trading also).

I thought it was this way, good to know I was wrong. I support this idea.

 

[Rekk]

I mean... you turned on vassalage tho

Spoiler :

Vassals are on by default. You shouldn't have to turn off a default feature for the game to function as intended.

 

[hr_oskar]

It just occurred to me that vassalizing the civs with lots of votes (e.g. Austria) could make for a fast DV. I haven't really explored all of this in-game.

I guess the issue, if it's an issue, is that the easiest way to convert conquest into victory is with the "diplomatic" victory and the easiest way to win DV is likely by conquest. But then conquest kind of makes any victory a lot easier. You also get a big tourism bonus vs the vassals.

I think it's fine personally.

 

[Txurce]

It just occurred to me that vassalizing the civs with lots of votes (e.g. Austria) could make for a fast DV. I haven't really explored all of this in-game.

I guess the issue, if it's an issue, is that the easiest way to convert conquest into victory is with the "diplomatic" victory and the easiest way to win DV is likely by conquest. But then conquest kind of makes any victory a lot easier. You also get a big tourism bonus vs the vassals.

I think it's fine personally.

I agree. This would be a problem if there were problematically early DV's generated by vassal votes. I have never seen one. I don't think that the vassal-buffed civ is guaranteed a DV, either -- it just means that this civ becomes a legitiate rival, via an untraditional route.

I've considered taking this approach, except I never play for a DV. I think it just adds strategic richness to the game.

 

[Deadstarre]

there isnt a problem, all is as intended. vassalage is designed to give enormous boons to the victors of wars, if you dont want enormous boons that help you win the game because you won a war, turn it off. itd be like me turning on raging barbs and voicing concern there may be too many barbs. I agree there can be some room for discussion that turning on raging barbs shouldnt mean every plot on the map has a barb at all times, but clearly nothing about vassalage is so extreme as to warrant discussion.

@Deadstarre: You're, once again, not helping.

no but your avatar is helping, I smile whenever I see it. keep posting. SO CUTE

 

[Rekk]

there isnt a problem, all is as intended. vassalage is designed to give enormous boons to the victors of wars, if you dont want enormous boons that help you win the game because you won a war, turn it off. itd be like me turning on raging barbs and voicing concern there may be too many barbs. I agree there can be some room for discussion that turning on raging barbs shouldnt mean every plot on the map has a barb at all times, but clearly nothing about vassalage is so extreme as to warrant discussion.

No, this is like keeping Raging Barbarians unchecked (as per default) and discovering that your capital city is getting swarmed by barbarians anyway. Perhaps it's a player problem, but maybe the default barbarian setting is actually tuned to be too aggressive.

 

[Txurce]

No, this is like keeping Raging Barbarians unchecked (as per default) and discovering that your capital city is getting swarmed by barbarians anyway. Perhaps it's a player problem, but maybe the default barbarian setting is actually tuned to be too aggressive.

That's why there's a "chill barbarians" setting as well. That way everybody's happy!

 

[Rekk]

That's why there's a "chill barbarians" setting as well. That way everybody's happy!

So, because the chill, standard and raging settings exist, there's no need to balance the standard setting?

 

[Txurce]

So, because the chill, standard and raging settings exist, there's no need to balance the standard setting?

Exactly. If you want a micro-adjustment, just do it yourself.

 

[pza]

Guys, are we still talking about diplomatic victory? Because there is no "chill vassalage".

 

[Blue Ghost]

There's no nerfs needs to be given. When good men do nothing, evil triumphs.

If you're not going to get global liberation passed or liberate the vassal, this is your issue at letting it happen.

I was more talking about the player's side. The AI is pretty good at competing for city-state alliances, but not so much at dealing with vassals.

I agree. This would be a problem if there were problematically early DV's generated by vassal votes. I have never seen one. I don't think that the vassal-buffed civ is guaranteed a DV, either -- it just means that this civ becomes a legitiate rival, via an untraditional route.

I've considered taking this approach, except I never play for a DV. I think it just adds strategic richness to the game.

That's not exactly fair, since early DVs are impossible due to the tech requirement for World Ideology. A better measure would be how many votes each source grants when the global hegemony vote comes around, and I'm pretty sure vassals grant too may.

I wonder if @ElliotS can chime in on this? He's the expert on all things war-related around here; I'm sure he would have some good insights.

 

[Txurce]

That's not exactly fair, since early DVs are impossible due to the tech requirement for World Ideology. A better measure would be how many votes each source grants when the global hegemony vote comes around, and I'm pretty sure vassals grant too may.

I didn't mean "problematically early" in a chronological sense, but rather "sooner than would otherwise have occurred"

When you say vassals grant too many votes for global hegemony, you're saying that you have seen victories won this way on enough occasions for it to be problematic, in your opinion. More precisely, you're saying DV's are won this way that otherwise would have been out of the winner's reach. Has this been your experience?

 

[Vortok]

I like that there are alternative ways to reach a victory condition. In one of my first games in VP I did Austria + Tradition/Statescraft (because I've liked Tradition and wanted to explore the diplo system). Got a lot of tourism (because Austria Tradition), which in turn made all my trade routes better. It felt good that I was still making progress/gains in that area without it being an all or nothing deal, like vanilla tourism was generally handled.

As such, a strong vassalage game leading to diplo potency seems good as well. A bit like a public face politician having somebody they answer to that sets the real agenda.

One concern is that it didn't seem like you could easily sway a vassal about other WC votes. Haven't had a chance to explore that, but is there some way to influence them to vote for certain things? Maybe I should've used the request screen rather than trade? It felt like they'd just vote for whatever. I get that the system has a few things to simulate different levels of rule (aka, oppressive iron fist vs benevolent ruler, etc), and vassals aren't meant to be meek, obedient robotic slaves (last one that I had denounced me while still a vassal, lol), so maybe it'd be a non-Freedom tenet, at the very least.