player vassalage

  • So one thing i understand, but dislike in games is that smaller players tend to leave.
    It gets scary.
    but maybe they could swear vassalage? Giving some of their score and tax to a stronger player.
    --it wouldn't be a coalition victory, but they could be indirectly adding to a coalition victory, which i think is interesting.
    -- noob friendly, right?
    -- more elements to diplomacy and backstabbing

    it would also be really nice if their nation name changed! so instead of having ''British Burma" it could be Burma, and then after becoming vassalized or colonised the name would change :love:

  • The intend of Supremacy1914 Regular rounds is total domination (or yeah 50-75%) so when you're so weak that you'd have to agree to such agreement there is little chance of such player still gaining the upper hand. Most users already don't use the diplomatic options they have available currently. How I even agree that in RP (my preferred game mode) it would be a nice feature. I don't think it adds a lot to the general game, (in my opinion) as in the end this is a risk like conquest game not a Roleplay Realism game. Then I'd rather have bytro focus on other features that aid both the RP and the Regular community. Andd maybe if people would start actually using diplomacy instead of jumping into coalitions never saying a word... Then Maybe this idea becomes valuable else I think still 95-99% of the losing nations will leave, especially taken that most people already leave if they lost their main army even way before the enemy enters their territory

  • it would not add...
    it would take away the domination...


    i think it would introduce new layer of politics, as 'vassalized' players would be either a player who doesn't know how to play properly or doesn't see any chance of victory or a defeated enemy; they should strive to break their vassalage in pursuit of victory screen of course.


    edit
    I'm trying to say the game would become more layered, as a defeated enemy, would take to the opportunity of situation; to break his humiliating fate.

    bonus bonus beginners might appreciate this instead of a tutorial island everyone leaves.


    to the point of dominancy, the score share could be too small to make up for not conquering all the land perhaps; resulting in ''vassalizers'' losing overall score effectiveness [not to mention all the lose ends...]

  • I doubt many nnew players are awaiting to be a slave of another nation tbh. And you also have the lack of diplomacy on the other side. In order for this feature to be used both the offender and the defender need to be diplomatically skilled. Which makes effective use of such a feature still void. You wish to add another layer but as stated above.


    Andd maybe if people would start actually using diplomacy instead of jumping into coalitions never saying a word...


    Most people aren't using current diplomacy not to make alliances/coalitions not to trade not to talk strategy. Both on winning and losing side. Why would somebody who just destroyed another nation spare him so that person can backstab later? Most winners wont do that.

    And most loser would leave before you can even message them. My conclusion remains


    Then I'd rather have bytro focus on other features that aid both the RP and the Regular community. Andd maybe if people would start actually using diplomacy instead of jumping into coalitions never saying a word... Then Maybe this idea becomes valuable else I think still 95-99% of the losing nations will leave, especially taken that most people already leave if they lost their main army even way before the enemy enters their territory

  • I have done only a couple role play maps, and in addition to all the rules in supremacy these maps seem to have predetermined outcome and winners are chosen in advance (unit limitations and vassle nations ensure this) , having nothing to do with the players fighting skills, mostly revolves around writing articles in the newspaper.


    In normal maps few things are factors in domination....fighting skills , activity and gold use...that is the order of importance IMO, diplomacy is only applied or important when you know you are facing an opponent or allie that can hurt you, so it is basic animal predator/prey relationship... you only fight the w weak that will not hurt you, if you are injured in a fight and no longer capable of hunting then you become the prey, this is only time diplomacy is used, when 2 competent players are deciding do they risk injury....


    in a monetized system diplomacy seems a last resort at best IMO

  • Vassalage already exists in the game with coalitions and even some alliances.


    When a game begins, coalitions are created which means several things can happen depending on the leader.


    1. The leader can state that they are now a team and will work together to win the match. (My position, incidentally)

    2. The leader can declare himself as dictator and NOBODY is to do anything without permission or orders.

    3. The leader can institute a system whereby all other coalition players must give him resources as either a tax or whatever because that's how you get into the coalition or stay in the coalition. (In essence, vassalage)

    4. I've also seen some coalitions using members as farms for not only resources but even for land.


    Basically, this game can be almost anything you like but the onus is on the players.

  • Vassalage already exists in the game with coalitions and even some alliances.

    yes, but what i am describing goess a step further: players can become dependant states of others, taking (possibly) their color and name

    (i.e Swedish Norway, if Sweden vassalizes Norway)
    .. but definetly contributing a small amount of taxes, score and recruits to an overlord automatically.

    .. This way Player1 doesn't have to sign off on a team of nobodies
    .. this would allow the vassalized player to leave the game, leaving the AI as a vassal: in contrast to losing an important ally and learning to never trust anyone because its cold outside.


    My vision with this is to encourage players to keep playing, and it is my opinion that this may mimic reality in a fun way.

    for the record, vassaled states aren't considered winners (even if their overlord is victorious, solo or not.)
    but a humble position of learning (or if u know what ur doing a time to be sneaky)

    I doubt many nnew players are awaiting to be a slave of another nation tbh

    it is actually very common.


    mainly it is beginners who arent familiar with things like dmg efficiency and morale and get totally crushed.
    i like to give them a second chance, so they may learn, but im not polluting my coalition with rookies.

    another way it may

    go down

    is if i am losing ground, i can vassalize myself to another bigger fish, so that they may help me. (500p map)

  • On a completely different track of argument against vassalage in the game, I would have to say that we are playing in a game that takes place during the height of the Industrial Age and not during Feudal Times.

    i would recommend giving a game i hate playing "victoria 2" a try, it illustrates very well how politics at this time existed on different layers.
    Nations move from "spheres of influence" meaning that the big nations fight for power over smaller ones,
    like it still is done today to a varying degree!

    I agree that european Feudalism would be a different game than this, i just figured it was the best word i could use to convey message :):)

  • it is actually very common.


    mainly it is beginners who arent familiar with things like dmg efficiency and morale and get totally crushed.
    i like to give them a second chance, so they may learn, but im not polluting my coalition with rookies.

    Ones againt his would work if people actually communicated generally which they don't so most new players would end up vassals of either inactive or deaf nations... Ooh what a fun... A lot of other games revolve a lot more on communication I would also dare to say anybody who uses chat and forum will use communication in game but after years of being a moderator I noticed heavily that the largest group is not on chat or forum and does not use ingame messages for diplomacy other then fast trade and cries for aid when they start losing somewhere.

    I do play Victoria II every ones in a while and there are also vassals and personal union, you could even in modern day still see the british Commonwealth as such personal unions of nations together under the british crown although most likely the ties are more fragile then they were in the past. Even In WWII the use of puppet governments (and thus vassals) was used so I have to debunk the historical irrelevance. It did exist and it still exists in some form but just keep doubting I want devs to put in effort for a feature that as stated above can be done through general diplomacy. And second would probably be used by maybe 5 to 10% of the users. Then I'd like the devs to put in effort in bug fixing, other more wide spread features or the moderation tools.

    On The RP outcome being set in stone (bit offtopic) not always true Hastings TNT There are different types of RP's. Those which involve Landshuffle often indeed see the game admin as strongest and most likely winner (also because he's often loved by the people who joined so they're biased into helping him) however there is a type of RP where you don't LS and just start with the balanced Supremacy map.

    As last I would like to state, Yes it would be realistic, but in all honesty bytro in all other forms destroy realism for the sake of fairness and equality, this game does remain a (and Victory II is not) conquest game. The end goal is full conquest of the map So if somebody is weak enough to agree to becoming a vassal (and thus almost ensuring never to get the victory) he'd rather quit and if he's so weak that he'd agree then chances become realisticly that most conquerors will push through destroying the last of the resistance. A game like Victoria II is more a realistic game your end goal is not (and when you'r enot playing a large power it's even impossile) to dominate the world for at least 50% that is a game based on realism and overall fun.

  • Ones againt his would work if people actually communicated generally which they don't so most new players would end up vassals of either inactive or deaf nations... Ooh what a fun...

    im noticing we play for different reasons 😂

    I can find winning games very boring, to the point that I'll make bad deals and look the other way.


    What I mean is that the game kinda ends when hedgemony has been established, and it would be fun to see a final showdown where the vassals declare, the opposition declares,


    An actual world war!

    OoooooOOooO what fun! ✓



    Yeah. Gameplay comes before realism, but if they can hold hand in hand no need 🤝

  • im noticing we play for different reasons 😂

    I can find winning games very boring, to the point that I'll make bad deals and look the other way.

    No, I'm saying the majority of the users play for different reasons I play RP there winning is always the 5th thing to achieve. The majority of the users are just conquest type of users as this is per definition a conquest type of game. The majority of users would not care about this option or use it.

    And as such still remain with the opinion that an investment in this feature would be a waste of resources that bytro already has short. And for your world war to be achieved the majority of the people in your map must be the type of users who'd like this option.... If you get that done (and thus invite people who actually think this is a needed feature) you could as well have asked them to use the coalition features (as Furry1 already explained) . Else I guarantee you that most of the users in your randomly joined map, will not use this feature they're retire upon losing their main stack to save their k/d and the conqueror would just take it all as he can use the full amount of resources better then just some small tax amount.

    If we're going to make gameplay and realism meet then maybe the first thing to handle are the horrible province shapes in most Bytro maps. No eye for cultural, natural or historical borders at all... That is the first unrealistic thing where gameplay and realism could go hand in hand that annoys me the most. Althought even that should apply only to new maps as I also for that part agree that bytro should first focus on handling issues that don't have work arounds

  • . And for your world war to be achieved the majority of the people in your map must be the type of users who'd like this option.... If you get that done (and thus invite people who actually think this is a needed feature)

    This especially if you are vasalizing while your opponent is growing gives you a weaker spot so you actually end up in a situation where if you yourself use this option you are reducing your power.

    Lets go to realism for a second why did personal unions puppet states and vassals actually exist? Contrary to the game they existed because if you took direct control the local people would be more resistant and trying to overthrow the foreign power. If you install a puppet government the local people think they are independent and as such are less likely to riot against it. And also because annexing territories of civilized nations was frowned upon and would shift the balance of power to much.

    Now in this game balance of power is something you want to shift to your side, and everybody knows and does that it's a conquest game not a game where you try to guard the balance of power which is what happend in the real world and is the reason historically allies change to guard it. e.g. how Britain and france suddenly unite after centuries of hostility because the new player (germany) seems to disrupt the balance of power.

    Secondly this game would lack any form of nationalistic riots and revolts which would make occupying costly. Which is another reason why in the real world it's opted to influence the government of a nation instead of conquering the nation.

    Annexing a nation is not frowned upon so it has little reason why to guard international relations as contrary to rl the alliances will remain even if you become to powerfull because this game isn't endless in an endless game you woul dneed to betray allies to guard your own growth just like irl.

  • Well, I know that some of the Hard core Role players have followers, and that these followers respect and honor the leaders of said Role play maps, realism is one aspect... resources to make changes is a real consideration.


    Since players enter these maps for many different reasons which draw them to these games... ie. flags, strategy, tactics, history etc.... some players enjoy the comrade's they meet, or the surprise attacks, perhaps some like the idea of surviving a map or winning the map.... we all have different activity levels and game play styles


    Bytro is a business and at the core of any business is a profit margin, so to effect any positive change other than a wish list of how it could be better, there has to be a way to show Bytro the wish list will increase the profit.... Just my opinion

  • Intresting topic. But I think it goes into the same direction as capitulate does. What to do with players that are about to be defeated. I rather vote for the "capitulate" option, so leaving the battlefield with white flag raised than being just the milk cow for the one that nearly defeated me. Also, what would happen if this enemy himself/herself is going to be killed by another player? Wouldn't you need the option to be "free'd" from this vassalage again? Well, better let Bytro do other things on our wishlist :P

  • I think options is what makes this game so interesting.

    I tend to end my conflicts with a newspaper "pledge to protect" which can give me casus belli on future agressors of my (basically inactive) friend,

    and also having AI as a vassal could be a very interesting for countries like Britain and France in 100p map at day 0, and maybe add some difficult and easy nations to play....

    ... But i understand and agree that because of goldmarks and K-D this could be a terrible idea:(

    worht considering tho.

    TLDR

    options are great, the more the merrier. Being suprised by other players choices is really fun.