I'm never greatly impressed to see a fellow Emacs user saying "Here's the libraries I use, ain't they great? You should switch!" The effect is almost always what it's been in your case: someone looks at the list, says "My God, it takes that much to make Emacs usable?", and resolves afresh never to touch Emacs with a ten-foot pole.

This is especially true in the case of a Vim user, because, unlike most editors (Sublime Text especially), Vim is roughly comparable with Emacs in terms of raw editing power. Each is about as powerful as the other, in most respects, and each has borrowed concepts from the other over time -- some Emacs modes are "modeful" in the Vim sense, in that you might, for example, press 'e' to enable editing in an Occur (regexp search across file) results buffer, and C-c C-c (control-C twice) to switch back to browsing mode; in the other direction, I hear Vim has windows now, as well as buffers.

The difference between Emacs and Vim isn't so much one of basic capability as of perspective on the world; Vim is (more or less) the quintessential Unix editor, very lightweight and deriving most of its power from the broad range of tools provided by the platform. Emacs, on the other hand, is more or less a virtual Lisp machine with a text editor built on top of it, and while many of its capabilities work in concert with external programs, it is as much as possible designed to behave independently of whatever platform it happens to be running on. The cavil that "Emacs is a great operating system which just needs a good text editor" is, as with many cavils, not entirely devoid of truth; rms has I think never stopped grieving for the MIT AI Lab and its Lisp machines, and a lot of the early design decisions that went into GNU Emacs were driven, I think, by a desire that it should offer at least a broadly similar environment -- turning a Unix box into a Lisp machine in spite of itself, if you will. (After a few years using Emacs, I can understand what makes that a desirable result, too.)

But, overall, either editor can do anything the other can, to the extent that the editor war has no clear winner; if you use the tools you're comfortable with, and get as good at using them as you can, then it's hard to go too far wrong.

On the other hand: Emacs has Tramp, which is far and away the best tool available for transparent remote editing. If you can get to a file by any means more immediate than emailing it back and forth, you can open it in Emacs, edit it, and write it back, with only as much additional effort as is required to identify the host and authenticate for whatever protocol exposes the file. And, unlike FUSE, it works identically on every platform where Emacs itself compiles, which matters to me because I use all of Linux, OS X, and Windows, for both work and play.

Better still, Tramp ties into Emacs' built-in shell, so that you can, for example, 'cd /host:/path/to/some/directory' and run shell commands there, copy files back and forth between local and remote directories or from one remote host to another, so forth and so on, and have everything behave exactly as you'd expect. For someone like me, who spent years sshing hither and yon, opening another xterm to scp something across without having to drop a remote shell, et cetera and so forth, Tramp, and especially Tramp + Eshell, amounts to a revelation. I'd never used anything like it; I'd never imagined anything close.

If what you're using right now satisfies your needs, then I wouldn't recommend Tramp and Eshell as a reason to switch. But if your needs change, to a point where what you're using right now can't live up to them, it's an option worth keeping in mind.