How could 4X be fun till the end? (endgame discussion)
- Thread starter Vjeldan
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
.png){kind=avatar}
If you setup scenarios that actually start you in a "losing" position (e.g. start as a vassal, weak but more progress towards doomsday tech) play testing will be much easier.
Probably would be harder on random maps, but if there is an option to set up vassals like you can teams or starting tech progression vs army/cities, random maps could definitely have some more flavor right out of the gate depending on implementation.
It would help if there were levels to surrender and reasons for both players to consider them.
Becoming a vassal of an enemy to stop them from rolling you over should come with specific penalties and the ability for the winning player to make quests for you. Get this done, do that.
If you don't achieve it, they get to finish you off, if they do achieve it, you both grow in power (as part of your success is also theres).
The trick then becomes how much power you get, and how you can get back in the game from there, either as an ally of the empire that defeated you, or by finally breaking free.
Becoming a vassal of an enemy to stop them from rolling you over should come with specific penalties and the ability for the winning player to make quests for you. Get this done, do that.
If you don't achieve it, they get to finish you off, if they do achieve it, you both grow in power (as part of your success is also theres).
The trick then becomes how much power you get, and how you can get back in the game from there, either as an ally of the empire that defeated you, or by finally breaking free.
According to the devs, vassalage is currently a one way street. You can't break free after becoming someone's vassal.
The reason why vassalage is permanent (for now at least) is because Planetfall isn't supposed to be a political simulator a la EU4 or CK2. Vassalage is essentially an alternative loss state that's supposed to eliminate the need to hunt down the last enemy army/city (cut out boring parts of endgame), allow the losing player in mp to stay in the game and eke out a "lesser victory" and as such is supposed to be a reliable benefit to the winning player rather than a liability (otherwise there's little point in using it). That's the idea anyway.
The way I see it, though, it's just a cheap form of alliance with the 2 players not on equal victory conditions, but still - an alliance.
I mean, think about it: in a 2-player duel, it makes no sense anyway. With more than 2 players, when a player holds an advantage over another won - say a won battle -, IF the other player offers vassalage, what good reason would there be to decline? You get an opponent off your back with a reliable benefit as opposed to having to fight to the bitter end against this one opponent (making you vulnerable against an attack from another player).
So this is basically a question of a losing player weighing up their chances and offering it FIRST (because there will be the point when the winning player won't accept any offer anymore, because they have won anyway). Which means, I see this the other way round; it would not eliminate the need to hunt down the last enemy army, on the contrary. I summed things up already in this thread, how this would make sense:
Now sure, that's a bit more "diplomatic simulation", but it's may also offer an interesting additional dimension.
I mean, think about it: in a 2-player duel, it makes no sense anyway. With more than 2 players, when a player holds an advantage over another won - say a won battle -, IF the other player offers vassalage, what good reason would there be to decline? You get an opponent off your back with a reliable benefit as opposed to having to fight to the bitter end against this one opponent (making you vulnerable against an attack from another player).
So this is basically a question of a losing player weighing up their chances and offering it FIRST (because there will be the point when the winning player won't accept any offer anymore, because they have won anyway). Which means, I see this the other way round; it would not eliminate the need to hunt down the last enemy army, on the contrary. I summed things up already in this thread, how this would make sense:
Now sure, that's a bit more "diplomatic simulation", but it's may also offer an interesting additional dimension.
Interesting. That could still be good as long as they leave you enough reason to mess around. Secondary objectives are an interesting idea, but it'll have to be executed well.
Well, did the Devs state with certainty that a Vassal going for a Tech-Doomsday Victory means their Vassal-Lord is included in the Victory, or their Lord is forced to break the Vassalage if they want to try and stop it? That would be at least one way for a Vassal to win independently of their Lord, or force their freedom, as one assumes that the Domination(land control) and Last Man Standing Victory conditions would be a shared Victory.
Alternately, as suggested by Lennart above, if a Vassal can potentially gain independence by their Lord being defeated, then all they need to do is simply not defend their Lord if they get attacked. Of course, in a multi-player game, this likely means they will need to make arrangements with another player in private chat, and also likely be in a good enough position to simply not get rolled over after their Lord is defeated. Hell, maybe they would even be in a position to take their former Lord's territory and push into the attacker's.
Then again, either of the above opportunities would suddenly make vassalage in multi-player games suddenly not the certified 'safe option' they have currently designed it to be. As your Vassal could backstab you if they obtain the opportunity to do so but, well, that's realistic, practically speaking, and quite common historically. That being said, particularly erratic individuals aside, one imagines that people who frequently play with each other will quickly be known entities for whether they are generally safe to Vassal(mostly depends on if said people prefer free-for-all or team games, I would think) or not.
Alternately, as suggested by Lennart above, if a Vassal can potentially gain independence by their Lord being defeated, then all they need to do is simply not defend their Lord if they get attacked. Of course, in a multi-player game, this likely means they will need to make arrangements with another player in private chat, and also likely be in a good enough position to simply not get rolled over after their Lord is defeated. Hell, maybe they would even be in a position to take their former Lord's territory and push into the attacker's.
Then again, either of the above opportunities would suddenly make vassalage in multi-player games suddenly not the certified 'safe option' they have currently designed it to be. As your Vassal could backstab you if they obtain the opportunity to do so but, well, that's realistic, practically speaking, and quite common historically. That being said, particularly erratic individuals aside, one imagines that people who frequently play with each other will quickly be known entities for whether they are generally safe to Vassal(mostly depends on if said people prefer free-for-all or team games, I would think) or not.
Well, you just made a good argument towards not allowing vassals to ever break away and having them automatically lose if their overlord dies.
Realistically I don't see a former vassal ever being in a good enough position to fight back against whoever destroyed the player who vassalized them in the first place. It's just a huge negative slippery slope. Being idle while your overlord is eaten up just seems like a super boring way to delay your own loss.I guess a surprise win might be possible if the vassal was on the brink of a tech victory that they have just enough resources to quickly finish though I assume the doomsday stuff would be disabled while vassalage is in effect. But who knows I guess.
I still can't see any sense in there:
The only situation this would make sense is, if BOTH profited in some way, vassal and overlord. So making a "close to annihilation" enemy a vassal would have to be better for the victor than annihilate them - while obviously being a vassal would be better than being annihilated (so that side is clear).
How is that supposed to happen?
And why would it have to be a "safe option", when the gain would have to be necessarily higher than a simple annihilation?
It can either be safe, then it should be weaker, or it has to be unsafe, then it could be potentially better.
Makes no sense whatsoever: Why would anyone GRANT vassalage when "they are close to annihilation"? Just annihilate them.
The only situation this would make sense is, if BOTH profited in some way, vassal and overlord. So making a "close to annihilation" enemy a vassal would have to be better for the victor than annihilate them - while obviously being a vassal would be better than being annihilated (so that side is clear).
How is that supposed to happen?
And why would it have to be a "safe option", when the gain would have to be necessarily higher than a simple annihilation?
It can either be safe, then it should be weaker, or it has to be unsafe, then it could be potentially better.
To save time and be able to concentrate on relevant threats more quickly. Probably short term economic benefit too though I'm not sure if there'd be tribute and how it'd work.
Because if it's not safe, annihilation is preferable. No reason to accept a knife pointed at your back if you're so close to victory.
Basically it's time/resources saved + minor ally vs. hunting down enemy remnants for the sake of full annexation while greater threats loom. It's essentially an expanded surrender mechanic from AoW3 but with more decision making to it since it's not always strictly better depending on how long it takes you to finish them off and how high the threat of other players is. In single player it alleviates end game boredom, in multiplayer it allows "defeated" players to stay in the game for a kind of allied victory.
I could see something like:
- Normally owning a settlement of a secondary faction provides research access up to T2 or T3 techs(unit tech going up to T4 or T5, potentially). We already know there is some limited access to the technology of secondary-races if you control settlements.
- Having a Vassal of a secondary faction provides research access to one tech tier higher, T3 or T4, respectively, and T5 or T6 unit techs(still no access to the other faction's T4 unit, though!).
That way there is a definite advantage to controlling a Vassal, but it's also an extra choice for a player to allow themselves to be a Vassal, as it allows their former opponent to potentially be more powerful if they dedicate research to the vassal faction. If they're feeling spite against the other player, wishing to deny them further power, or possibly respect, and a willingness to work together, that is.
If the research unlocks are permanent, then even the risk of making a Vassal could circumstantially be worth it. Of course, there is the negative side effect against an A.I. player, who might not cognitively understand why a player might bring then down to a single settlement, then Vassal, simply for more research options.
Ultimately, I'm also in the camp of generally disliking the potential 'victim's' perspective of being forced into a diplomatic relationship which you can never break or take advantage of(plot to break free by assisting in the defeat of your Lord, even if it's simply to be the willing Vassal of another player... which you may plot to break free of, too, hah) from your side, provided you accept it in the first place, just doesn't feel good. Of course, you always have the option of declining, and fighting to the end, potentially razing what cities or structures you can, before your opponent gets to them. Depending on the world situation, they might never dedicate resources to rebuilding, thus firmly denying them your resources.
- Normally owning a settlement of a secondary faction provides research access up to T2 or T3 techs(unit tech going up to T4 or T5, potentially). We already know there is some limited access to the technology of secondary-races if you control settlements.
- Having a Vassal of a secondary faction provides research access to one tech tier higher, T3 or T4, respectively, and T5 or T6 unit techs(still no access to the other faction's T4 unit, though!).
That way there is a definite advantage to controlling a Vassal, but it's also an extra choice for a player to allow themselves to be a Vassal, as it allows their former opponent to potentially be more powerful if they dedicate research to the vassal faction. If they're feeling spite against the other player, wishing to deny them further power, or possibly respect, and a willingness to work together, that is.
If the research unlocks are permanent, then even the risk of making a Vassal could circumstantially be worth it. Of course, there is the negative side effect against an A.I. player, who might not cognitively understand why a player might bring then down to a single settlement, then Vassal, simply for more research options.
Ultimately, I'm also in the camp of generally disliking the potential 'victim's' perspective of being forced into a diplomatic relationship which you can never break or take advantage of(plot to break free by assisting in the defeat of your Lord, even if it's simply to be the willing Vassal of another player... which you may plot to break free of, too, hah) from your side, provided you accept it in the first place, just doesn't feel good. Of course, you always have the option of declining, and fighting to the end, potentially razing what cities or structures you can, before your opponent gets to them. Depending on the world situation, they might never dedicate resources to rebuilding, thus firmly denying them your resources.
No. Look, you play an MP game with more than one opponent. You fight on one front, succeeding to a point short of annihilation. At this point, since you make serious conquests, your economy has been bossted anyway. You now get a vassal offer. Game is not over with that opponent out of the way, obviously, so accepting doesn't make any sense, when you are not under pressure to somehow remove the forces needed for annihilation; the economic boost will come automatically by conquest anyway. You don't save time either because you'll have to play on anyway, and you are obviously not in the endgame, yet. However, if there is in fact a need to pull back forces, then the attacker is in some kind of dire straits, and in that case there is no reason to offer VASSALAGE. You could just offer peace and tribute for X turns with the current rules - I wouldn't OFFER vassalage under that conditions EVER; instead it's, give me a honourable peace at this point or maybe die by the other guy trying to annihilate me. See that?
No. See above. You either have the means and the time to annihilate the enemy - or the enemy has no reason to offer some permanent slavery.
And let me tell you, there is no such thing as endgame boredom in Single player - if you know you've won and you don't want to continue, you can just end the game. I mean, who cares?
I repeat, if the offer is permanent - safe - then there must be a DISADVANTAGE for the overlord; and you also don't want to play on as a puppet anyway, do you? As I said, if there is some kind of advantage for the vassaled player (as oppoed to losing), then CONSEQUENTLY the offer has to come as soon as possible for both involved parties, to take maximum advantage (think about it: you lost SOMEthing; you don't think you can win the game; offering vassalage NOW will safe a lot more time which means better chances for the overlord to win the game, making you best loser or something like that, if that's important (if it's not important, it doesn't matter anyway)). So, no, it makes no sense.
But what if you are? That's pretty much the point on which the decision breaks down.
By "saving time" I didn't mean shortening the game, I meant saving the time it'd take to hunt down opponent's remnants before being able to face more immediate threats (like other players). Turns are a valuable, non-renewable resource.
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe the attacker doesn't have enemies staring at their cities at that very moment but not spending ~10 turns hunting you down still gives them a significant strategic advantage or worthwhile convenience. That time could be better spent positioning for a future conflict or raiding stronger opponents.
If you're at "vassalage stage" that means you're pretty much defeated. Either your current attacker will take you out or a future one. Vassalage is your alternative to leaving the game. There's a reason why Lennart notes it should only be done if you're on the brink. You might prefer to offer yourself to someone else rather than your immediate attacker but that almost certainly carries increased risk.
This seems like an extreme view. It's literally the reason why we had the surrender mechanic in AoW3 and is one of the most significant and often talked about challenges facing 4x design. It's also the topic of this thread. Sure, you can quit, but people generally prefer the legitimacy and closure of a victory screen.
The disadvantage is that the attacker forgoes the long term economic benefit and full control provided by full annexation. As for whether one wants to be a puppet or not, that's up to the individual player. In single player the AI won't care about the "humiliation" of being a vassal and being overlord is something players shouldn't be very much opposed to, it becomes a more elaborate surrender mechanic from AoW3 and cuts out the more tedious parts. In mp it allows one to be the "bride's maid". Maybe some people will want that or maybe they'll fight to the death or just quit. Any of those is fine.
Much speculation here, some it rather forcefully presented.
Strongly suggest we wait until it can be tested? If it's not fun, Triumph have a history of excising unfun mechanics in the testing phase.
Strongly suggest we wait until it can be tested? If it's not fun, Triumph have a history of excising unfun mechanics in the testing phase.
Look, man, I'm not interested in debating for rhetorics's sake....
So you AGREE with me. If you are NOT under pressure, vassalage isn't an option. So much for that.
It's part of the game to consider the fact that you may have more than one opponent. There shouldn't be a cheap way out. Also, this may be part of the strategy of an alliance: tempt you to overcommit, with the ally using the opening for a deadly strike. Do not offer easy ways out of difficult decisions (see next paragraph)
No. It's potential OVERLORD, who has to make a decision, about how important it is to stop the conflict, and it's actually that exact point that decides about their further fate! There is no reason whatsoever to offer a cheap way out by accepting vassalage. Instead, in MP game - as in diplomacy - players in trouble may make an offer to be accepted or not, but what offer is made and whether it's accepted or not and what is actually negotiated, is part of the game and the quality of the players involved.
You didn't answer the question why a player would want to spend time with a meagre existence as a puppet.
Surrender mechanics are good in AoW 3 for AI. There is no need to change anything. The way it works in AoW 3 is generally fine.
Well. There are a lot of players who don't like this soft crap. What about fighting to the last man standing in cases of extreme dislike? What about honoring an alliance buying an ally the time needed to smash the hated enemy? I mean, isn't it silly to set up longish convoluted games and then complain about the fact that the wars may be tiresome, drawn-out, bloody and no cakewalk? Isn't that the reason you pick harder difficulties? To go tooth and nail? To have to battle it out to the last breath? The EPIC stuff? Wars of attrition have been quite common in history, and I want that that to be possible. If everyone folds before you, it's no challenge.[/quote][/quote]
Obviously it's not meant to be an option you take 100% of the time. Understanding how much pressure you're under very much depends on the information you have on the other players and your assessment of the strategic situation. Can I finish off the beaten player in 5 turns or will it drag on for 20? Are my other enemies otherwise busy or are they barreling down on me just beyond my vision range? Making this choice will require some finesse on both sides, especially the attacker's, which is a good thing imo.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Yes, both sides get to make a decision...and? I'm also not sure what you mean by "a cheap way out". For the beaten player it's kind of a moot point. For the potential overlord it's a trade off. Sometimes accepting a vassal will be better for them, at others it could be worse, it's up to them to assess correctly. Everyone has the same options so nobody has an inherent or cheap advantage. If the weaker player just quits their stuff turns independent which makes it easier to take over which helps the attacker. Does that mean the stronger player gets a "cheap win"? They're all different outcomes based on good or bad decisions.
Because they're having fun and want to stay in the game, get that "allied victory"? Personally, I'd most likely gg and quit but to each their own. I primarily play single player and to me vassalage is an interesting expansion of the surrender mechanic. In mp it's an additional option that I honestly don't really care if anyone makes use of but I don't think it hurts to have it either.
I'm again not sure where this is coming from. What's soft? I never complained about potential difficulty of the game. I only talked about lessening the tedium of having an insurmountable advantage and hunting down enemy remnants, the thing the surrender in AoW3 deals with. This is primarily a single player issue and has nothing to do with how hard or elaborate a game is. As for honoring alliances everyone plays by the same rules, nobody has a it easier or harder and I don't see how the vassalage mechanic would "dumb down" the game overall. If anything it adds a bit of complexity.
Saying that everyone will fold before you feels very exaggerated. Vassalage will generally happen at points when people would quit anyway. If anything it might make them persist longer. It's not like you'll be forced to either offer or accept it. The challenge of actually beating someone will still be there. Maybe it turns out that being in an alliance will require that becoming a vassal be disabled. That's something that will come with testing and experience.
In my experience with Civ, you accept Vassalage as you are likely about to be attacked by someone else, and a war on more than one front is not a good situation.
Also, if you don't accept (or the AI just hates you), they offer Vassalage to your main rival instead. This also causes war on more than one front.
Also, if you don't accept (or the AI just hates you), they offer Vassalage to your main rival instead. This also causes war on more than one front.