Back To The Vizier, Part II

[Twelvefield]

A while back, I started a thread about Grand Viziers. The people in the thread said a lot of interesting things that made me think deeply about the game, and I put in some hours trying to figure it all out.

Now that I have more experience, I see Grand Viziers in a somewhat better light. I still like them more than I dislike them. I honestly like that they take over production, as that's a bit of micromanagement someone of my stature (as an ancient demigod ruler) probably does not need to perform. I should be able to delegate. But I can see where others would be bothered by it, and would want to have full control.

One thing about GV's is that they seem to have a greater love and understanding of my Nation than I do. They have great bonuses, which makes leading the Nation usually a fair bit easier, even if their production queues don't always match my agenda. The people of my Nation seem to adore GV's as well. So, in some ways, a GV lowers the difficulty of the game. I'm fine with that, but I also wouldn't mind seeing GV's that have smaller buffs to their stats, or even have ones who go insane with power. Something that stirs the narrative milk shake a little to the counter-clockwise.

But one thing I have come to loathe are the foreign GV's imposed on me. My house rule is if that happens, I quit the game. And I get why it happens: I've somehow made my Nation into a welcome mat for the other players. My gameplay is so inept that the game AI feels it needs to take over.

But that's just my early game. I tend to play a weak game in the opening, grovel my way through the crisis, and then build up for a wow finish with globe-spanning victory. A MP player once burned me by calling me the Neville Chamberlain of the ancient world, and I've never forgotten that insult. But my play is still valid if I can make the win! The foreign GV, though, prevents all of that. It short circuits the process of national redemption and instantly allies me with the strongest player on the map. I've come to resent that.

So I would like to ask for the GV mechanic to be revisited, please. I'm not convinced they need to be turned off completely (the option to do so is there), but I'm also not pleased with how they handle things when I let them have their way.

[Siontific]

My main issue with the grand vizier simply boils down to:

- The GV's uses the exact same A.I. that the computer does. The main constraint being that they cannot buy and sell resources, nor can they rush productions in cities. So in some ways, it's the computer A.I but with one hand tied behind it's back. But this combines with:

- The bonuses for a Grand Vizier are just **insane** - you can end up with an entire empire full of happy cities, you can 2 turn most military units without ever building a single barracks, you get more orders than serfdom or monasticism without any of the effort of establishing and spreading a religion. The science output per city is nuts. If you get even **one** good stat, your empire is super buffed. If your grand vizier is a rising star, all of your stats are good. Get them to pleased or friendly - which is not at all difficult, and the outputs are absurd. Which brings us to:

- The Player gets Grand Vizier's and the computers don't. This is a human only mechanic. which lands us at the final conclusion:

Since the Grand Vizier uses the same A.I. as the computer, and regardless how good the A.I. of this game might be, a human player is always going to (generally) play better and more efficient than the computer due to various factors, and the GV is super buffed while the computer can't ever even get one.... It just puts the player in the driver's seat of an insanely buffed "A.I." nation for literally no reason and tries to pass it off as a bad thing.

It's only a bad thing because strategy gamers play strategy games because they like to armchair general/govern nations... So the main design conceit of the grand vizier is that it's come and taken away your toys, and you as a strategy gamer find that annoying.

Except it's singularly the most powerful thing in the entire game, and all it REALLY does is put you in control of one of the computer nations but buffed to insane output levels.

It's basically an instant-win button in any game I've ever played where it shows up and I hate it. It's all perks and no drawbacks. The only "drawback" of the mechanic is that it is essentially designed for players to find it annoying.

But it's drawbacks are sentimental at best - so you got a bunch of settlers or slingers you don't need; who cares - you just got 20 turns of 5 laws worth of power for nothing. A Coup? Fine. A rebellion? Fine. None of it matters because the raw mathematical output of even the most basic of Grand Viziers will blow any of those things out of the water.

It drops the difficulty of a game by 1 - at least. Probably 2.

Which is a shame; I'd enjoy it as a narrative thing to engage with if it didn't neuter the entire game just by showing up.

The Foreign Vizier is even worse - a Grand Vizier and a Free alliance? Give me a break. You're right to quit the game; you were just handed the victory instantly with one event.

[omnius]

If you automate too much why are you even bothering to play? The joy for me comes in micromanaging regardless of my stature in the game. Artificial Ignorance just allows people to think less while supposedly doing more. This is why I will never waste money or time on Behind the Throne.

[Twelvefield]

Not everyone enjoys min/max like you. I prefer the narrative, and I like it when the narrative gets in the way of forward progress. It's just preference and the style of gameplay. If I wanted a min/max game, it should have way more spreadsheets and less animation and graphics, right? We should have far more data than we are presented. We should be able to open up scrolls and crunch the numbers ourselves, and then open scrolls within the scrolls. That would be a proper min/max game. Like: Out Of The Park Baseball, in the years before they started putting in player animations.

I feel that automation is beside the point, though. As usual, our friend Feigro has the correct analysis of the true problems and nature of the Vizier system. I still think Viziers are salvageable, though. But they need more work, and are the least compatible subsystem in the game right now.

[Siontific]

I also prefer when narratives upset the general flow of the game and create interesting experiences for the player to work around - which is why the vizier bothers me so much; it's **supposed** to do that, but it just doesn't because it's so overpowered.

A rebellion or a coup might mean something if I didn't just get 20 turns of double orders and 5 culture level events I never would have gotten otherwise. Etc.

If behind the throne had a "bad stuff only" event option I'd probably toggle that on in a heartbeat. As it stands, though, Estates, opulence, Rising stars, and GVs are all player-only mechanics that just make the game easier for the player so I keep it off even though it would be nice to have things like slums, rebellions, and power hungry characters shaking up the game narrative.

Viziers just need to have **actual** drawbacks. In their current form you lose only 4 legitimacy when one takes power. That's it. : {

[Twelvefield]

A "bad stuff only" option goes so far against the spirit of the holidays, that I have no choice but to ask Santa for that. I did want a rice cooker, but now I have to change my wish. Too bad there's a postal strike at the North Pole.

[krabdr]

Assassinate the foreign-imposed GV? Worked for me!

[rennodm]

Interesting thread!
I only once accepted a GV (not foreigner) and instantly regretted it. "OMG, never again!". It's MY toys, as Feigro said.
Power hungries and rising stars: some times I manage to make good use of their qualities, case per case,
But otherwise I try to sidetrack them, finst by appointing them to ambassador or councellor, or governor of a small city or as commander of an outdated/untrained/unimproved military unit stationed on the outskirts of the empire (*), and let them rot there. (*) or even I could send them out on suicide missions.
They can also be exiled/slighted or assassinated if needed.

The drawback is that once in a while some faction, either religious or familial, will lobby to have them better recognized. Mostly I turn a deaf ear to those manoeuvers, until they loose their appeal to their supporters over time, by themselves. Some times, it can lead to assaults on my royal person, or to civil unrest /rebellions in the cities governed by their supporters (religious or familial).

I'd rather loose the game through war rather than accepting a foreign GV.

[rennodm]

I forgot: they can be jailed too.

[Twelvefield]

Originally posted by krabdr:

Assassinate the foreign-imposed GV? Worked for me!

You're still stuck will the alliance, though, right? The foreign GV is not wonderful, but I can live with him. It's the instant map reveal and the might of the Whatevers that's suddenly on-side with me that kills the game.