This is why I think that the Apostolic Palace sucks....!

[rah]

Hmm shrine cash doesn't rely on having it as your state religion.....................

But yes every game is a custom game with diplo and vassals turned off. Two good concepts just lacking in execution.

It's bad enough taking continual diplo hits every time you refuse to blow your neighbor, but I agree that the game has to work against you somehow or it would be too easy.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
Converting gives all the $ due to the founding city shrine to someone other than yourself. Not a valuable alternative.

OTOH it gives you production bonuses. Definitely a valuable alternative.

I just turn diplo victory off.

To me that's denying some of the variety of the game. That's like saying, "I don't use strategy X and thus I'm (1) not going to give myself the option of using that strategy because I don't like variety and (2) I'm going to deny that strategy to the AI."

The first is boring, IMO, and doesn't allow in-game flexibility. I rarely plan out my game before I see the terrain and what leader I get.

The second is sour grapes and hardly fair to the AI. As humans we have enough advantages without going out of our way for more. If the AI manages to get an advantage using a specific game strategy, I say, "Bravo!" Well programmed.

[Blaupanzer]

Diplo Victory permits an exploit that leads to a nonsense win with the AP. The in-game UN is way more powerful than the real thing. So, off goes diplo victory. Vassalage specifically permits the survival of civs no longer capable of doing so on their own. The number of historic instances of that lasting more than a few hundred years is zero, I believe. So I block it too. Most of the rest feels historic, although corporations and weapons development are very abstracted.

[Garth Vader]

In my games the AI doesn't seem to prioritize building the AP, so I always get it, and I love the bonuses.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
Diplo Victory permits an exploit that leads to a nonsense win with the AP.

Agreed.

However, this exploit is only available to the human. You don't have to use it. If you're disciplined enough to turn it off, you're disciplined enough not to exploit.

Otherwise, it's like saying, "I can't keep from speeding and getting a ticket, so I'm not going to drive a car at all."

The in-game UN is way more powerful than the real thing.

Agreed.

Personally, I absolutely loathe the civic votes. It is bad game design and discourages variety of game play and reduces repeat experience.

Vassalage specifically permits the survival of civs no longer capable of doing so on their own.

By subordinating them to another civ, which gets the value of their military might without incurring exorbitant maintenance etc. I don't agree with you here. It's a pro/con, not a either/or.

The number of historic instances of that lasting more than a few hundred years is zero, I believe.

Note you're switching to a "historical" argument instead of a "gameplay" one. Which is fine, but is "crossing the streams" in Ghostbusters parlance.

Two problems here: history and gameplay are two entirely different rationalizations; they compete with each other, and they lead to different conclusions.

Anyway, historically, we need to make a distinction between # of years and # of game turns. Otherwise, ancient empires will be biased over modern ones.

Ancient ones that come to mind are the Hebrews (they were vassals of Egypt for, what, about 1800 years?). Modern, we might say Canada/Australia/Ireland/Scotland/India to England, Mexico/etc to Spain, and so on. This whole question becomes debatable when we try to dig up examples which aren't CIV options, such as the Kurds, Afgans, etc.

Most of the rest feels historic, although corporations and weapons development are very abstracted.

I have no idea what you're saying here. Care to elaborate?

[rah]

I'd have considerably less problems with vassels without the Unhappy problems when you don't finish off the civ. The other civ could have the last few cities for all I care. But in that case I want the cities that I took say, "man, our motherland was so pathetic that it ran to monty for protection so I don't want to rejoin them and I'm happy to be part of this new much stronger empire"

Or I want the other civ to say, gee, RAH is double my size on the power graph so there's no way I want your scummy little civ as my vassal. This seems to actually happen on rare occasions, but not enough as far as I'm concerned.

Actually another main issue that I have with vassals is it limits the number of AI to AI wars later in the mid game towards the end game. Then all loving each other is already a bad issue with me. Of course I once played a continent game and all the war mongers were on the other continent and I don't think there was a single turn after about turn 70 that they were all at peace.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by rah
I'd have considerably less problems with vassels without the Unhappy problems when you don't finish off the civ.

Agreed 100% !!!!

This isn't an indictment against vassals. It's an indictment against the magic "oh my motherland no longer exists now I love you" issue.

This has nothing to do with vassals and it exists either way.

Actually another main issue that I have with vassals is it limits the number of AI to AI wars later in the mid game towards the end game.

This has been fixed in many patches. It's a bug.

[joncnunn]

There's plenty of wars in my game; in fact Catherine has been at war with at least one other AI more turns than at peace since I made contact with her. (She's on another landmass) These involved the Zulus & the Malines. The Arabs appear to have stayed out of it.

There's basically 3 landmasses on this huge landmass, there were two American + Protugese on HRE (me) wars. First ended with slight HRE gains that stalemated (DOW by FDR could have been a random event based on how many turns it took him to get a force to the conflict zone). Second ended with the capituatlaion of America & Protugese. (FDR DOWed again right after I got the tech to upgrade my Crusanders and Lanks to Calvary & Rifles.)

On the other landmass, the result of a Sumerican - English war was England capitulation to Sumeria. Based on the city names it looks like there were earlier wars between some of the other civs on that landmass prior to me making contact.

[Willem]

Originally posted by wodan11
Modern, we might say Canada/Australia/Ireland/Scotland/India to England, Mexico/etc to Spain, and so on.

With the exception of Scotland and Ireland, none of those are really good examples of modern real-life vassals. Australia is now a republic with no ties to the monarchy, India hasn't had very many dealings with the British since they gained indendence, and Canada has much closer ties to the US than with Britain. Even the Mexico/ Spanish connection is debatable. There has been very little contact with the two since Mexico became independant.

[pedrojedi]

Originally posted by joncnunn

... HRE (me) wars...... (DOW by FDR ...)... (FDR DOWed again... )...

Please translate, I can't figure it out what you're saying.

[ColdPhoenix]

HRE = Holy Roman Empire
DOW = Declaration of war
FDR = Franklin D Roosevelt

[Blaupanzer]

What are Lanks and Crusaders? I gather the latter to be horsed (perhaps a form of knights?), but am at a loss as to what Lanks are.

As to abstracted weapons development, the troops available in the game are a tiny subset of those actually in use in history and thus several of the forms represent either a selected example or a kind of summary of troops of that general type. Further, not all continents had all the resources, e.g., horses, to produce these troops. The abstractions are within range and keep the game playable. This mostly affects historicity, as I noted.

As to corporations, one company, based in one country controlled by the state, hardly comes close to reproducing the effect of capitalism overcoming feudalism or the modern competitive market. One cannot say, "oh, look what they are doing. Let's do that too." The modern age is poorly represented by seven corporations all controlled by their respective states. However, for playability this model works much better than simply ignoring that phenomenom.

I turn off diplomacy because no institutions had the coercive power represented by the Palace or the UN. Processes by which these institutions could reward those that cooperate rather than punish those that do not would work better. As to vassals, once they capitulate they no longer initiate their own wars and always join wars on the side of their masters. This reduces the number and variety of wars as the number of actual independent players becomes fewer and fewer. If the masters want that power, I say, "conquer those cities." Examples of vassals on this thread so far are mostly colonies with no real independent governments and troop raising powers of their own, with the possible exception of India (a relationship that lasted about 120 years). I have no problem with the game's abstraction of colonies. (Note in history a lot of colonies upon independence were actively hostile to the former colonizer, e.g., most of South America in relationship to Spain. But what we have works well enough.)

[Ming]

I kind of wish we had the option to turn off vassels, but leave colonies. They are really two different concepts.

[rah]

If they did that, I'd use it. Maybe not often but sometimes.

[Ming]

I'd probably use it all the time in SP. If a nation wants to set up a colonies, fine by me. That's far different than having some civ that you are beating the crap out of bring one of your buddies into a war just because they are are wimps and beg to be their vassel.