How could 4X be fun till the end? (endgame discussion)

  • 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.
Look, Jean-Luc, I have no idea why you repeat the same things over and over again, without actually replying to the points in question.
We have to make a difference between single and MP. So let's see single first.
In AoW 3 we have a surrender mechanic in place, that solves the problem. A vassal-kind of surrender doesn't add anything, except a necessity to take care of the vassal as well - it can obviously be attacked, and if a vassal is attacked, it has consequences for the overlord as well. In short, the surrender mechanic, NEUTRALIZING the remaining "empire" of a surrenderer, is more practical than leaving it in place as a small vassal empire, because it will end the game if it was the last guy who surrendered, and it won't force you to do anything for or in the now neutral towns, but offers the option to do whatever you want there, as opposed to when the rest is vassaled.

So for single player it's a different mechanic than surrender in AoW 3, that doesn't do anything more or better with a view on reducing "tediousness", except offering a different option that is not in any way better than the surrender in place. Also, it's meant only for AI players to offer vassalage

Then there is multiplayer, and since we both don't play that, it's obviously pretty difficult to judge, but: the difference is, we are talking about HUMAN players offering vassalage to another human player. We have different cases here as well. The first is, 2-player game. In 2-player, vassalage is useless. It doesn't solve the problem that one actually beaten player may simply "run" with their Leader, hiding somewhere, delaying the game, maybe even living off of still to be explored stuff and going guerilla. This problem can simply be solved the same way as a battle ends when there was no damage done within a certain number of turns, only for the advanture map. If there is "inactivity" on the adventure map for X turns the game ends with a percentage win based on population, troops or whatever you deem worth to compare and come up with a relative strength.

That leaves games with more than 2 players. Here it is possible to have a mix of human players and AI players or exclusively human players. With a mix, the surrender rule for AIs is spot-on again, and there is no need for something different, as above (mixed play being something very few are caring for anyway). That leaves games with exclusively human players (that is, vassalage amongst human players), and that is the only thing worth discussing, which I was making the points for I did make.

Now, why would something like that be a good thing? Maybe people should say something about it who play multiplayer games with more than 2 people ...?
 
Since it was ignored for the sake of perpetuating the current argument, and yet, it was a proposed suggestion, I'll just copy my own post again for you:
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.
Overall, I do agree that there should be some definitive advantage to taking a Vassal over simply eliminating a player and potentially getting all of their resources(barring what they might destroy), but not a significant one, either. Thus the proposal of advancing one tech tier in potentially researchable tech for the primary faction of the Vassal. I don't think this should unlock any access to their Secret Tech at all, though.

Aside from that, I must say that things are getting a bit heated. Perhaps take a day off from the thread, watch the Stream, and see what questions may arise afterwards.
 
Look, Jean-Luc, I have no idea why you repeat the same things over and over again, without actually replying to the points in question.

That's really unfair. I did my best to explain the benefits in both sp and mp and the strategic decisions it brings and interpret the design intent behind it. I could try to explain again but I guess I'd be repeating myself. If you're so convinced this is some fatal mistake I wish you luck in convincing the devs of it since it's their idea.
 
Look, it's not heated, it's just that I'm simply saying, for single player the surrender mechanic does already everything that's necessary, while for multiplayer, the options for in-between player dealings should be either more detailed or less controlled, that is, in MP it's always a matter of dealing with each other and negotiating with each other. So either you can deal freely (I grant you peace, what do you grant me?) or, if you basically get something like pre-made options of dealing with each other they should be more detailed.

That is, if you want a mechanic that aims for ending a game (sparing tediousness) you can do it with surrender for AIs and an "inactivity" end as we have it in battles (a basically beaten player is "running and hiding", without trying to actually fight, just to annoy the victor and maybe force a rage quot or something). If, on the other hand you want to add to the "player relations" and define more controlled dependency states (with a view on determining different victory qualities and so on), a more detailed approach would be necessary with a view on simplifying and formalizing player dealings, so that there are OPTIONS to consider.

The two goals of reducing tediousness and adding victory conditions and different victory qualities shouldn't be listed under the same tab.
 
That's really unfair. I did my best to explain the benefits in both sp and mp and the strategic decisions it brings and interpret the design intent behind it. I could try to explain again but I guess I'd be repeating myself. If you're so convinced this is some fatal mistake I wish you luck in convincing the devs of it since it's their idea.
See my post before this. I have no problem with a "vassaling mechanic", but it should offer some options, instead of a barebone yes/no, since it's not needed as a new mechanic for tediousness reduction, while too barebone for an additional game element.

In other words, I don't want the devs to drop it, I want them to EXPAND on it, and that's what I said with my first post. So what you actually do is trying to find points why it would be WRONG to expand on the mechanic, which is something I have a problem to understand.
 
I know I should not poke my nose in this tension, but I thought I'd offer my two cents.

I see a situation where MP vassalage would be great. A situation that I've had in MP 4X games before (albeit not AoW since it sort of requires more than 2 players, which is the most I've had). Two players at war, one winning, one losing. As an attempt to put pressure on the dominant player, the weakened faction offers his vassalage to a THIRD PARTY. "Assist us and we will be forever loyal to you"-scenario. Suddenly, the dominant player goes from having a mostly won war on one front to having two wars on more fronts. The forces may have to be completely repositioned. And the weaker player could be getting reinforcements from their master in the form of summons (or if they are close enough, actual built units).

It gives the weakened player hope for survival, the stronger player a twist on the situation, and the third party suddenly has Casus Belli and extra resources they did not have before (in the form of a loyal faction that may or may not give resource tribute, but will definitely try to fight and reclaim some of its old territory). An Alliance would not motivate the third party as much since Alliance can be broken.

It is partly about getting hope for survival, and it is partly about denying (though perhaps only temporarily) the dominant faction the resources they'd get from eliminating the weaker player.

The problem is that last time I asked about it, I think Lennart stated that vassalage cannot be offered to a third party at the time but they will see whether or not to put that in.
 
Well, I also stated that vassaling could be great if they worked on it and increase the options. My problem with it is based on the current form, not on the general idea.