Victory proposal & submissive allies

Maniac · May 9, 2003, 15:06

A while ago I posted this post you see below. Not many people replied though. I'll see if I have more luck this time.

What do you think of the two proposals? Idiotic, or they make some sense?

Quote:

I have another question as well. Will we simply allow the standard victory conditions, or add others ourselves (A)?
Will we allow human factions to become submissive pact brothers/sisters (B)?

A) I was thinking, to encourage RPG, that an extra victory possibility could be to convince/force all other human factions to adopt your favourite SE choice. For example for the Hive Police State (or Planned if the Hive players want to pretend the Hive to be democratic & Marxist), the University Knowledge, the Pirates Power, and the Consciousness Cybernetic (or Planned if the prerequisite tech for Cybernetic isn't reached yet?).

B) This wouldn't force conquerors to destroy all human opposition. Instead they could accept submissiveness (together with for example other conditions such as having to give all your new tech to the conqueror, or having to pay the overlord 100 ec each turn), and the conquerors wouldn't have to destroy every single human base to achieve victory. Also it would leave some hope/fun for the attacked faction. I was also thinking, to prevent all submissives to break the "vassalage" once the conqueror/overlord's armies are mostly gone, or to prevent them breaking the vassalage one turn before the overlord achieves victory, that the vassalage is only broken if the overlord agrees to break it, or if the overlord's faction itself is destroyed. In other words, the vassal simply declaring war on the ex-conqueror wouldn't suffice: the ex-overlord could still achieve victory, and the ex-vassal would not be able to achieve any victory itself before both parties break the agreement.
This achieves a good balance IMHO. A vassalage isn't just a paper agreement, giving it some value to the overlord. And it doesn't make the situation hopeless or completely without fun for the vassal: the faction could conspire together with other human factions to attack the overlord on a moment of weakness, and force him to break the vassalage.

moomin · May 9, 2003, 15:15

Don't like it. Limiting SE choice because chosing it would allow another faction to win is unacceptable.

Voltaire · May 9, 2003, 15:22

I voted “it’s ok” for both. They’re interesting proposals, but how well would they work in game? One note on moomin’s comment, I don’t think that’s what Maniac had in mind when he was talking about the SE choices, my interpretations was something along the lines of totally militarily overwhelming an opponent, and then sign a armistice if they change SE options, something along those lines.

Static Universe · May 9, 2003, 15:27

I vote "No good" on A as I don't think limiting the SE choices is a good idea in terms of gameplay.

If you can force a faction to change SE, then they must be submissive to you. And if a submissive is to help you, it needs to be at it's most efficient SE choices to be effective. I think it makes submissive too weak.

I voted "Needs Refinement" on B. I do think there needs to be something more binding than just words in the conquerer-submissive relationship, especially for the endgame, but there's no incentive for the conquerer to ever call off the pact.

Maybe if the pact is called off, there should be a set number of turns that the former submissive cannot attack, say 5.

moomin · May 9, 2003, 15:29

Don't we have submissive pacts for that?

Voltaire · May 9, 2003, 15:31

Quote:

Originally posted by moomin
Don't we have submissive pacts for that?

Apparently we do, I tend not to read these, just vote at random. That’s democracy for you.

Maniac · May 9, 2003, 15:33

Quote:

Don't we have submissive pacts for that?

Those work with AIs, but not with humans. That's exactly why I'm proposing proposal B.

Corellion · May 9, 2003, 15:50

Oops.
I meant to vote needs tweaking for A, and it's good for B, but I accidentally inverted them. Submissive pacts are good... they'll essentially be alliances with some RPing limits. For A, it's a good idea, but it should only be implemented if the nation states they are switching because they are admitting the ideological superiority of the other faction. This way, you could still be a police state, but you only trigger the victory condition if you say it's because the Hive is ideologically superior (I doubt this will happen unless the other group really overwhelms you, or something).

Hercules · May 9, 2003, 20:31

I am not convinced.

Hercules · May 9, 2003, 20:35

I suspect that overwhelmed faction members might want to offer their sevices to remaining factions.

Drogue · May 9, 2003, 21:13

A is no good IMHO. It is too easy for someone to be using that SE setting for the good it does, rather than to signify submission. If they want to signify submission, I go with B, and let them actually become submissives. Thus No for A, and Yes for B.

Maniac · May 11, 2003, 12:13

Proposal B accepted?

Micha · May 11, 2003, 15:28

A - No
B - Yes

My reasons completely tally with those already given.

Static Universe · May 11, 2003, 15:48

I'm still not sure about proposal "B".

I think it makes the unfairly advantageous to the overlord since the pact isn't likely to ever be broken. Once a faction has managed to make another a submissive, they will remain insulated from them for the rest of the game, whether they're winning or losing.

Quote:

the vassalage is only broken if the overlord agrees to break it or if the overlord's faction itself is destroyed.

I think there needs to be some kind of mechanism for the submissive to escape the pact.

Maniac · May 11, 2003, 16:11

There is a way to escape: attack your overlord faction and force him to break the vassalage "or else". The submissiveness is also broken if the overlord faction is destroyed, in case the overlord faction wouldn't want to listen to reason.

So yes, if you have been military seriously defeated once and been put into submission, you will have to find a way to trick your overlord into military defeat himself. I sense great diplomatic possibilities in that.

Static Universe · May 11, 2003, 16:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Maniac
There is a way to escape: attack your overlord faction and force him to break the vassalage "or else". The submissiveness is also broken if the overlord faction is destroyed, in case the overlord faction wouldn't want to listen to reason.

So yes, if you have been military seriously defeated once and been put into submission, you will have to find a way to trick your overlord into military defeat himself. I sense great diplomatic possibilities in that.

Thanks for the clarification.

I'm fully behind "B" now.

Now on with the game.

moomin · May 11, 2003, 16:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Maniac
There is a way to escape: attack your overlord faction and force him to break the vassalage "or else".

I don't really see the point. If a submissive is allowed to attack the overlord, then there is precious little point for a conquering faction to allow submissive pacts.

Let a faction be wiped out; the members can then be refugees in other faction of their choice.

Maniac · May 11, 2003, 16:48

The value of a submissive could be having a tech or money slave. And of course a smart overlord would forbid his submissive to build eg choppers, so a rebelling submissive won't cause too much damage.

Also submission could be used as a diplomatic tool. For example, imagine that the Human Hive is seriously beating the crap out of the University of Planet. Now the Pirates don't like that because it would make the Hive the most powerful faction. So the Pirates threaten to intervene on behalf of the UoP if a peace isn't signed immediately. Then a compromise between the Hive and Pirate demands could be the submission of the UoP to the Hive.

It's just a fictitious example. I don't know if it'll work that way as AFAIK this rule has never been tried before. But there's no harm in trying I'd say.

moomin · May 11, 2003, 20:11

Perhaps. The rules that an overlord could impose on a sub would have to be discussed first, I think.

Properly used, formers could cause serious trouble for the overlord, after all.

Drogue · May 12, 2003, 06:14

Yes, but being humans we can put rules on it, like the Overlord could say "you cannot alter anything that is within a square of our boundary" or something. And they can't raise/lower terrain then anyway, or it would be war IIRC.

FlameFlash · May 13, 2003, 10:53

I think we should leave it at this... when we get to the point of there possibly being a submissive faction the other details should really be worked out between the two factions themselves. A Pirate submissive would be a lot different than a UoP submissive after all (different strengths and such.)