Vassals and mana

[dwhee]

For a while now, I've thought that having vassals in FFH2 is just a little too sweet of a deal based on how the AI functions once it has been vassalized. Provided that they don't hate you, they will give you any of their resources- including the mana/other resources provided by their palace. For this reason, it is usually preferable to keep a civ in the game rather than destroy them just so you can mooch off their palace mana resources.

Granted, the AI isn't always willing to give up their resources. I capitulated the Malakim, and they kept breaking free of their bondage whenever I demanded a mana resource because they hated me. Usually, however, they'll give you anything you ask for. Since I usually play games with 19 players, I usually wind up getting a tower of mastery victory- with virtually all of my mana coming from vassals with extras to spare. This makes vassals even more appealing than they were in BtS, and I'm not sure if the AI recognizes the value of keeping civs alive.

Currently, the only solution to this is to eliminate vassals altogether, which is more than I want. I would like an option to make palace resources untradable. Or better yet, a compromise: an option to make only one palace resource tradable.

 

[westamastaflash]

Pretty sure they have to be at least friendly. Worse is your permanent allies - In the Svartalfar scenario I had 3 of each svalt palace mana on turn 2.

 

[Guale]

Well you could always click the no vassals option when starting up a game. I belive the reason that no one has even so much as attempted to make the resources untradable before was that before vassals back in vanilla many people complained about ToM victory being virtualy unachieveable in all but huge maps. I never encountered this problem, getting the ToM in my very first game back in fire as the Ljosalfar on a standard sized map.

 

[Avahz Darkwood]

Lets not Nerf Vassals please, if there is an option you don't like then don't use it. If the game is too easy one way or the other then try something over Noble difficulty or just set the game for no vassals like Guale says. I have had my vassals declare war on me when I made a demand that they didn't like. My only agreement here is that the threshold for voluntary vassals should be MUCH higher, but if they capitulated then their woman, children, mana etc are mine or they die...

 

[dwhee]

Lets not Nerf Vassals please, if there is an option you don't like then don't use it.

First off, I already explained that I don't want to eliminate vassals.

Currently, the only solution to this is to eliminate vassals altogether, which is more than I want.

I like the concept of vassals, I just don't think you should be able to eliminate all but one pop 1 city and still reap about 80% of the benefits of capitulation. Vassal civs are useless for research most of the time. They don't have much military power. You can't just have a weak vassal civ get an arbitrary mana bonus which it passes directly onto its master. It breaks the game.

If the game is too easy one way or the other then try something over Noble difficulty or just set the game for no vassals like Guale says.

I play on prince. And yes, it is too easy. And why should eliminating vassals so assuredly make the game harder? It shouldn't. It doesn't in BtS- it just changes your strategy.

I have had my vassals declare war on me when I made a demand that they didn't like.

So did I, if you'll read the first post. Actually, I don't like this mechanic. I was at war with the Malakim, and I capitulated them. The same turn, I asked for all of their mana, they said no, and we're at war again. Basically what it means is that once a civ hates you a certain amount- you have to destroy them, as you've lost most of the benefits of capitulation.

My only agreement here is that the threshold for voluntary vassals should be MUCH higher, but if they capitulated then their woman, children, mana etc are mine or they die...

I agree- except about the mana. It's just too powerful. In a different game, I watched the Khazad get absolutely raped by the Balseraphs, and then I noticed that they hadn't disappeared from the score graph. That was because they had started a tiny colony with 0 controlled land squares smack in the middle of Calabim territory. The next turn, they offer me vassalage, and I gladly accept their Earth Mana, Law Mana, and Gold. Thanks dwarves!

But I didn't conquer the Khazad- the Balseraphs did. They even took their "palace." But now the Khazad "palace" is in their new pop 1 city, and so are their mana resources as long as they stay in the game. Something's wrong here...

Also, I dunno if you caught it, but you don't necessarily get someone's mana if you capitulate them. It still depends on how much they like you, I just don't know what the threshold is.

If you believe that the extra mana resources are necessary to the game, for the sake of the ToM victory being obtainable (it's plenty obtainable for me already, thanks) then the real problem lies in the fact that if I destroy my potential vassal, conquering his cities, then I get 0 mana resources as opposed to 3 mana resources. That is no small difference! It makes total conquest seem highly illogical in almost all circumstances- in a game with dark, apocalyptic themes that really lend themselves to total conquest over a giant web of vassal-relationships. And yes, you can turn off vassals, but I want something in between. Every one of my games so far has ended up with me having about 3 vassals, and some other superpower having about 3 vassals.

 

[Grey Fox]

I would like at least Colonies to have a palace with no mana. And I think it's planned to use the minor leaders as much as possible with colonies.

 

[Avahz Darkwood]

First off, I already explained that I don't want to eliminate vassals...

ew looks like I touched a nerve... that being said "Nerf" does not = eliminate, what you want to do is nerf... If you don't like it don't use the option. In my not so humble opinion its a valid strategy for going for a tower victory. I usually don't get more than 3 or 4 mana nodes within my boarders, and if I see a weak nation easy for the picking am going for it. That being said not everyone wants to play a game for 10 or more hours and this is a valid strategy to bring a game to conclusion. Once you get to the point that you can build a tower then you have pretty much won and your just mopping up (most games that is the rule but not always). If the argument is because the tower victory is too easy then remove it and the alter victory all together simply because the AI can not achieve it. If its about fairness or easiness then its not the vassal that is the problem, it is those victories that only human players can achieve... I would rather for these victory choices to be removed all together than simply nerf a strategy that only a human player will use anyway. Simply, get rid of the victories and you get ride of the "problem"...

 

[zup]

If Keelyn's archmagi get their spells for free, they will have more combat promos for more insane summons. Also makes them far more replaceable.

Also, vassal mana factories give some power to Amurites (whom I still consider weak). Combat 5 magi out of the assembly line and free level 2 spells (fireball, maelstorm) is pretty good. Not as awesome as hordes of summons though.

 

[zup]

If Keelyn's archmagi get their spells for free, they will have more combat promos for more insane summons. Also makes them far more replaceable.

Also, vassal mana factories give some power to Amurites (whom I still consider weak). Combat 5 magi out of the assembly line and free level 2 spells (fireball, maelstorm) is pretty good. Not as awesome as hordes of summons though.

EDIT: Ah awesome. If there's some bored mod who wants to use his powers then delete my post below please.

 

[dwhee]

In my not so humble opinion its a valid strategy for going for a tower victory.

The way I play, it makes it far too easy. With the Infernals and Mercurians, I sometimes wind up with all 21 civs in a game. To make room for them all, I usually play on a large Erebus map. Now, in order to control 21 mana resources, I would have to almost get a conquest victory. With rites of oghma, I would achieve ToM long before conquest.

I think that ToM should happen right before a conquest victory and not before. If it's not, then a conquest victory will never happen. In fact, I've never seen one ever since it became easy to trade vassal's mana. ToM should be just as difficult as the other victory conditions. With 21 civs in the game, getting 21 mana sources based on selective vassalization and capitulation is an absolute no-brainer.

And I'm not calling for a nerf. I want the option to play with palace mana sources being untradable, or, like I already said, the option to make only one palace mana resource tradeable at any given time. It would really enhance the game in my opinion, and you don't have to play with the option enabled if you don't want to.

 

[Methuselah]

And I'm not calling for a nerf. I want the option to play with palace mana sources being untradable, or, like I already said, the option to make only one palace mana resource tradeable at any given time. It would really enhance the game in my opinion, and you don't have to play with the option enabled if you don't want to.

Just like how you can play without ToM enabled?

 

[dwhee]

Just like how you can play without ToM enabled?

I know you can do that. How is that relevant? I still want ToM to be an option, it's just way too easy as it is.

Seriously, everyone's solution to this problem seems to be disable vassals or disable ToM. I don't want to do either, but I need an option to make ToM more challenging. I like vassals and ToM. I just don't want to rely on arbitrary palace resources coming from a pop 1 colony in order to get it. And I'd like there to be an option to disable this because right now, if I played a game with say, 19 human players (right...) a ToM victory would be available as soon as one civ got the prerequisite technologies. An alliance of players could simply pool their mana and give the victory to whomever they wanted. That's lame as hell.

I know that the human player is the only one going for ToM- but I like my games to work in a multi-player setting even if it's single-player.

I personally wouldn't mind if they simply nerfed vassals and took away the ability to trade mana (or limited it, as I mentioned above) but some folks would clearly have a problem with it, so I would at least like a separate option for limiting vassals.

 

[Breez]

Wouldn't the easiest solution be... Don't ask for their mana?

I have never had one FORCE their mana on me.

Don't like it? Don't ask for it.

That leaves all your options in tact and no mana from your vassels... unless you real issue is OTHER people doing it. /shrug I don't care how other people play.

 

[dwhee]

Wouldn't the easiest solution be... Don't ask for their mana?

I have never had one FORCE their mana on me.

Don't like it? Don't ask for it.

That leaves all your options in tact and no mana from your vassels... unless you real issue is OTHER people doing it. /shrug I don't care how other people play.

Actually, you pretty much nailed it. I could accomplish everything I'm asking for by simply ignoring the willingness of vassals to trade mana.

But I'd like some closure from the mod team on whether or not it's actually balanced. Is that how multiplayer games are supposed to play out, with the superpowers all going for ToM by default and only getting conquest victories by accident every once in a while?

But I guess FFH is mostly a single-player affair.

 

[Avahz Darkwood]

Dwhee how has your experience in multiplayer been? I only play single so when you go that way I could not justify an opinion.

 

[Breez]

I play multiplayer one night a week with a friend.

However we ALWAYS play co-op, TYPICALLY custom game with us on the same team from the start.

I do see how playing a "vs." multiplayer game could be different but still not enough to worry about. Make sure your opponent doesn't keep any single city Vassals very long.

 

[Methuselah]

But I'd like some closure from the mod team on whether or not it's actually balanced. Is that how multiplayer games are supposed to play out, with the superpowers all going for ToM by default and only getting conquest victories by accident every once in a while?

Surely ToM wouldn't work in multiplayer as effectively?

Think about it - the vassal way only works because the AI hands it over. Against a player, they can just refuse. If you go and crush them because they said no, you just deprived yourself of their mana, and didn't actually gain anything from it.

 

[dwhee]

Surely ToM wouldn't work in multiplayer as effectively?

Think about it - the vassal way only works because the AI hands it over. Against a player, they can just refuse.

Actually, just because of the difficulty of getting a large group of people together to play FFH, I was assuming that most, if not all, MP games include some AI civs. In that since, it would screw up the game quite a bit to have vassals willingly handing over their mana resources. The counterpoint is that, once a rival civs starts taking vassals:

1. The player has extra incentive to declare war every time their opponent takes another vassal. More-so than in regular civ due to the extra mana.
2. The player is probably better off going after weakly-defended the vassals first, such that even if you can't eliminate a player, you can still deprive them of their mana for the small price of fighting a very weak civ. This definitely applies when the vassal only has one city.

If you go and crush them because they said no, you just deprived yourself of their mana, and didn't actually gain anything from it.

And that's how it ought to be!

This is a fantasy mod. Vassalization was only added into civ 4 to further simulate the ways in which nations can be interdependent. In FFH, it's my opinion that the concept should be peripheral at best- not the driving force behind diplomacy.

And in fairness, you don't fail to "gain anything" with the destruction of a civ. You "gain" one less opponent. The way it is now, the opportunity cost for destroying a civ is too high- the ONLY logical reason for destroying a civ is if they hate you enough to not give you their mana. You're better off vassalizing them and using them as a meat-shield when you've got a real enemy to deal with. And in the meantime, get some extra mana.

How am I supposed to play the Sheaim if the game makes me feel stupid for causing destruction?? I'm not a roleplayer, and I haven't played FFH multiplayer in over a year (back when, i believe, you couldnt trade mana). The whole thing just bothers me.

But if no one can see any merit in my proposal, then I'll just limit myself to trading one palace resource at a time with vassals and see how that balances out.

EDIT: On second thought, here's an idea: what if conquering a civ's last city (eliminating them) gives you a permenent palace resource based on the civ conquered. Bannor give you law, Malakim- sun, etc.. If people think that vassalization is balanced as is, then this could be the thing that balances it out for the players who dont want to have a bunch of vassals- and it's no longer disadvantageous to war with someone that hates you.

 

[Avahz Darkwood]

Dwhee is this from your experience while playing multi-player games? Or are you just bringing this up, because if you have never played multi-player FFH (I haven't) then your proposal would not have very little merit without input from those who have played multi-player. As it stands it tends to be rare that Kael and co. would do this as an option, they would just get rid of it all together (i.e. Guilds) if it don't work in multi-player. Doing so would take a part of single player that I enjoy (i.e. Guilds) to please the few that this may hamper/bother. So my beef with this isn't for it to be an option as you suggest, but my experience being that they will remove it all together for the sake of "balance".

My question to the ones who have played multi-player FFH with Vassals is this: Has this been an issue in your games...?

 

[dwhee]

Dwhee is this from your experience while playing multi-player games? Or are you just bringing this up, because if you have never played multi-player FFH (I haven't) then your proposal would not have very little merit without input from those who have played multi-player. As it stands it tends to be rare that Kael and co. would do this as an option, they would just get rid of it all together (i.e. Guilds) if it don't work in multi-player. Doing so would take a part of single player that I enjoy (i.e. Guilds) to please the few that this may hamper/bother. So my beef with this isn't for it to be an option as you suggest, but my experience being that they will remove it all together for the sake of "balance".

My question to the ones who have played multi-player FFH with Vassals is this: Has this been an issue in your games...?

Like I said, I only played MP back when this wasn't a problem. I'd like to hear some multi-player testimony as well, but we can pretty much see how it would work out...

The only difference i can see between this issue in the context of a single-player game and the issue in the context of MP is that in MP there are fewer (if any) vassals to control and leech mana from. Also there would be human players to respond to the situation and destroy your vassals.

Obviously, human players being vassalized and giving up their mana is a non-issue. Can that even happen?

That doesn't make the whole thing a non-issue, although I admit that my complaint applies much more to single-player games than multi-player. I also don't have the self-control to not do something that the game freely allows me to do- at least when it helps you as enormously as extra mana resources.

And truthfully I'm surprised that palace-mana-trading is still in the game at this point. I'm pretty sure that when I first saw it in a version of FFH I regarded it as a bug. Clearly Kael et al disagrees.

With my last proposal (the one about getting a mana resource whenever you destroy a civ) I don't see why it couldn't be added as one more extra checkbox whenever you start a custom game. How does this relate at all to guilds, which were eliminated before they were perfected because they made the game feel bloated, along with many other features in .3?