The problem with vassalage *isn't* a problem with Vassalage

[dearmad]

People are wondering and concerned with what possible advantage having a vassal is over jsut conquering another nation...

My opinion: The problem here in CIV is that conquering a nation is badly modelled. In history, truly conquering a nation has happened not very often unless it as both a small and waning nation already. Ethnic identities and cultural divisions have a way of popping back up again and again and again... this isn't modelled well in CIV so conquering is the easiest way to deal with an entrenched enemy that has only 1-2 cities, whereas in real life- nope, this isn't anything like history. More likely the little nation gets dominated but remains...

Yes there are exceptions, but from a GAME DESIGN standpoint, making it harder to conuer that last (AI) city without the culture/ethnicity popping up again to annoy the heck or redecalre independence at some point would make the game a lot more fun and challenging. Having to diplomatically and long-term deal with rivals is a lot more fun and challenging.

[LordShiva]

As long as this isn't another "nation painting"* thread...


* I still don't know what it means

[dearmad]

Nation Painting?

hm.... banana?

[padillah]

I'd try and explain but... I think it's a dumb idea.

Tom P.

[Jaybe]

Ah, something like a conquered city retains its nationality, even after the whole (victim) civ is destroyed; may then rebel.

[MadDjinn]

Originally posted by Jaybe
Ah, something like a conquered city retains its nationality, even after the whole (victim) civ is destroyed; may then rebel.

that could be modeled in Civ...

the cities pop is a slider showing % this or that...

maybe while the % that is not your own there may be chances for a revolt (to a new AI controlled civ)...

this should only really occur if you're not a cultural civ, and the previous civ's culture ratings are higher than your own in that area still...

but then we'd need to model new pop as some mix of the old civ and your own, rather than just your own...

and ...

[padillah]

Originally posted by MadDjinn
but then we'd need to model new pop as some mix of the old civ and your own, rather than just your own...

and ...

No, that's race. It's kinda the same thing with racism in America, the more you identify with your race the less you identify with your culture (America).

For example, my wife is Brazillian because she was, in point of fact, born in Brazil. Me, I'm American. Our kids? Half Brazillian? Nope, American.

It's the difference between where you were born and what you were born.

That's what that silly "Nation Painting" thread was - a way to model race in Civ. No thanks.

Tom P.

[MadDjinn]

Originally posted by padillah


No, that's race. It's kinda the same thing with racism in America, the more you identify with your race the less you identify with your culture (America).

For example, my wife is Brazillian because she was, in point of fact, born in Brazil. Me, I'm American. Our kids? Half Brazillian? Nope, American.

It's the difference between where you were born and what you were born.

That's what that silly "Nation Painting" thread was - a way to model race in Civ. No thanks.

Tom P.

no, this has nothing to do with race (my version, ignore the other one)...

as you're in the US, then you should best understand this.

Irish-American, French-American, German-American...

all are used (except the french one, they tend to stay 'french' or go 'american') all are based upon splits due to cultural identity, not racial.

in the idea that's generated here, you have to consider that a cultural identity can't just be wiped off the map with a simple attack. that's partially modelled with the new pop being considered yours, and the rest being the previous civs. (and the supporting anti-war stuff/want to join the motherland, etc)

the only extension being thought of here would extend the cultural model to post destruction of a civ.

[Son of David]

Originally posted by padillah


No, that's race. It's kinda the same thing with racism in America, the more you identify with your race the less you identify with your culture (America).

Pan-Africanists being a case in point.

[padillah]

Originally posted by MadDjinn


no, this has nothing to do with race (my version, ignore the other one)...

as you're in the US, then you should best understand this.

Irish-American, French-American, German-American...

all are used (except the french one, they tend to stay 'french' or go 'american') all are based upon splits due to cultural identity, not racial.

in the idea that's generated here, you have to consider that a cultural identity can't just be wiped off the map with a simple attack. that's partially modelled with the new pop being considered yours, and the rest being the previous civs. (and the supporting anti-war stuff/want to join the motherland, etc)

the only extension being thought of here would extend the cultural model to post destruction of a civ.

Ah, OK. Kinda representative of the first (maybe even second) generation immigrants that come to a country.

That doesn't sound too bad.

Tom P.

[MasterDave]

Originally posted by LordShiva
As long as this isn't another "nation painting"* thread...


* I still don't know what it means

Nation-painting is for hippies!

[Ijuin]

I would say that there should be a revolt probability as long as the majority of the city is not of your nationality, even if their nation has been conquered by you.

[DeyReepher]

I do miss the national identity of citizens that Civ 3 used. I wonder why that was ditched.

[dearmad]

It's a tough call. I might mod in greater odds of rebelling, but I don't want to hobble the AI. I'll have to see.

[Forwarn45]

I agree that - at least since the rise of nation-states - large and midsized countries have rarely been totally conquered for an indefinite period of time. But I do not agree that modelling this would make Civ more fun. It's perhaps a good idea for a carefully balanced scenario with special victory conditions, but that's about it IMO.