Ok, so many of the new options in BtS look AMAZING!!! I can't WAIT for it to come out :D

But I still haven't heard any word on whether the vassal system has been fixed up? I know you can make colonies, ok fine, but what about the issues related to vassals?

There are still diplomatic issues related to vassals and the fact that a capitulated vassal refuses your tech trade demands or that they are simply redded out is a huge problem in my estimation. If you have a vassal and they have a tech you don't have, you should be able to demand it from them!!!

Also, relations with your vassal should go from furious/annoyed and be RESET to cautious!!! The war is over, you are now at peace, let's let bygones be bygones and all that jazz. You have the responsibility of protecting the civ and you've made a peaceful agreement. That should improve relations in my estimation instead of having an angry vassal on your hands for a million years. I mean I just feel like killing off my angry vassal half the time, which isn't a good feeling for the weaker party...

I dont believe they said anything about the vassals.

I don't think they did but every suggestion you have made should ne implemented.

The most annoying thing for me is when I am at war with someone and he becomes another civ's vassal. This way automatically I'm at war with both of them. :sad:
I think that when this situation occurs I should be asked If I'm going to stop fighting his vassal or not...
Also it is very strange that sometimes your vassal does not vote for you at the UN..

The most annoying thing for me is when I am at war with someone and he becomes another civ's vassal. This way automatically I'm at war with both of them. :sad:
I think that when this situation occurs I should be asked If I'm going to stop fighting his vassal or not...
Also it is very strange that sometimes your vassal does not vote for you at the UN..

This is what I find the most annoying too. It's happened so many times to me now (usually because I don't have Feudalism) it's not funny. Though I thought it was automatic peace with both parties - not automatic war - but that's just as bad IMO.

Apart from that, the issues from the OP don't really concern me. Vassals aren't easy allies. Perhaps instead you should get positive diplo points from vassals very slowly so long as you actually do your duty and protect their state in wartime ie. they don't lose more cities.

Their needs to be a way for the master to give up the vassal, especially when it's a capitulation case.

Vassels i think are fine as they are now.

IIRC, they did promise to fix the problem of entering wars because someone vassaled somebody.

I hope it is made so the AI can't peacfully accept becoming a vassal while at war.

Suffice it to say I think the vassal system needs to at least be looked at. There have been some funky things happening.

e.g., in one SG, the team had a *friendly* AI declare on them due to annoyance with the new vassal the team had acquired. That doesn't compute in my book. I could see it lowering relations to pleased and then possibly to war, but to have no change in relations and then a war declaration? That needs to be fixed I believe.

They fixed it up a lot in the 2.08 patch, but I think it could still use some tinkering.

I think what happens in the cases where a civ you are at war with becomes a vassal and then you are at war with the master is a case where the one AI says to a potential master: "I'll become your vassal in exchange for you going to war with this aggressor". If the master agrees, s/he declares on you. In that case, it is fair you don't get any warning (although it is decidedly annoying :lol:). All the more reason to watch your diplomacy (and to finish AIs quickly)!!!

I also hate how AIs love to give ALL of their techs to their vassals.

unfortunately i forsee the splitting colonies being another good idea that ends up being pretty useless and only causing headaches like the vassal system

The most annoying thing for me is when I am at war with someone and he becomes another civ's vassal. This way automatically I'm at war with both of them. :sad:
I think that when this situation occurs I should be asked If I'm going to stop fighting his vassal or not...


It would be better if the new civ who is master to the vassal, calls you on the diplo screen and tries to negotiate peace. If it doesn´t occur, then you are at war with the new civ too.

This would represent the idea that a civ accepts to be vassal of the other in order to gain protection. So the bigger civ will try to protect his vassal by negotiating peace with you or going to war against you.

i am not so sure about a few of those complaints- if a civ is getting trounced and it becomes a vassal to get help - which seems to be a prudent mechanism (what is the alternative? You just destroy them and thats that? not very interesting)- it adds to gameplay.

The vassal people should be hostile i would think - you just killed them.

Tech trade i agree with tho. Seems a vassal would have to fully capitulate/coorperate - however, it could be a balance thing where if you just built up a military, vassalize a bunch of civs, and take their tech all the time, it might be boring.
One could muse they are hiding their tech secretly for the day they will break free from vassalage.

Well, there should simply be a threat option in vassalage relationships. They can never red-out a request, but they may refuse it - but you can always threaten them with renewed hostilities.

I agree Willbo... to be honest I odnt like anyhting being redded out - very few deals should be under absolutely no circumstances... plus I wish you could request gold above what the AI currently has per turn - lets say you have oil you want to sell to a friendly state, you should be able to offer it to them at any price - not just what they currently have,. Then if they wanted to pay it they could reduce their research budget accordingly

unfortunately i forsee the splitting colonies being another good idea that ends up being pretty useless and only causing headaches like the vassal system


I am betting that, depending on how they work exactly, random events will occasionally make it worthwhile for even a human player to split off some of his colonies into a new civ.

depending on how corporations work, you could put corporations in the cities of a a small island or something, then let it split off and collect the cash.
Have a permenant alliance to allieviate any hostile feelings (is there any in a colony split off?) and it should be better than a vassal. (speculation)

...

...

...

100% agreed with PieceOfMind, PimpyMicPimp, and DemonHunter. Once these issues only are fixed, I'm absolutely happy with current vassal system.

BTW, sometimes I'm forced to cease fire with a country when they become another civ's vassal. how is this case different with ones with getting into automatic war with their master? I'm curious..

BTW, sometimes I'm forced to cease fire with a country when they become another civ's vassal. how is this case different with ones with getting into automatic war with their master? I'm curious..


When civ A and civ B both are at war with civ C, and civ C becomes vassal of civ A, automatically civ B is also at peace with civ C.
When civ A is at war with civ C while civ B is not, and civ C becomes vassal of civ B automatically civ A has war with both civ A and civ B.

The first case IMO counters the argument "when someone gets a vassal has to protect it and thus declares war to the aggressor"

About vassals I want to tell you about a bug (or an exploit) I have found. In one of my games at the other continent were Shaka, GK, Tokugawa and Frederik (pure guy :rolleyes: ). Frederik was tokugawa's vassal. I wanted to bribe Shaka for an attack to Japan, but the option was red -"We are afraid of their military might".
I found very handy that the option for an attack to Frederik was available! And only for a cheap tech since Frederik was very week. So, Shaka declared war on Frederik (and also to Toku) preparing the way for my invasion to Japan! :D

i am not so sure about a few of those complaints- if a civ is getting trounced and it becomes a vassal to get help - which seems to be a prudent mechanism (what is the alternative? You just destroy them and thats that? not very interesting)- it adds to gameplay.

The vassal people should be hostile i would think - you just killed them.

Tech trade i agree with tho. Seems a vassal would have to fully capitulate/coorperate...:goodjob: ...however, it could be a balance thing where if you just built up a military, vassalize a bunch of civs, and take their tech all the time, it might be boring.
One could muse they are hiding their tech secretly for the day they will break free from vassalage.:thumbsdown:

I could possibly tolerate this explanation...except...

Why does the diplomacy interface allow you to tell the vassal what to research if, at the end of the day, there is no mechanism to make him hand over the results of that request to you?

I have never seen a vassal refuse to switch research, no matter what their attitude towards me, but once finished and I go to ask for the resulting tech they tell me to get lost!!

The most annoying thing for me is when I am at war with someone and he becomes another civ's vassal. This way automatically I'm at war with both of them. :sad:
I think that when this situation occurs I should be asked If I'm going to stop fighting his vassal or not...
Also it is very strange that sometimes your vassal does not vote for you at the UN..

I think you normally get a warning before they do this. If they offer capitulation and you refuse, they're free to shop around for a master. I only recall an AI becoming someone else's vassal after they offered capitulation. That's the sign that it's coming. Has anyone seen a counter-example?

If I want to finish them off at this point, I'll usually end the war and negotiate for a peace treaty. You can always re-declare later on. Otherwise, they're just going to drag someone else in.

I think you normally get a warning before they do this. If they offer capitulation and you refuse, they're free to shop around for a master. I only recall an AI becoming someone else's vassal after they offered capitulation. That's the sign that it's coming. Has anyone seen a counter-example?

I have seen many, at least more than one per my game on average. Not always the AI offers capitulation,(sometimes not even ceasefire at all) In most cases *I* offer a truce for capitulation first.

When civ A and civ B both are at war with civ C, and civ C becomes vassal of civ A, automatically civ B is also at peace with civ C.
When civ A is at war with civ C while civ B is not, and civ C becomes vassal of civ B automatically civ A has war with both civ C and civ B.

The first case IMO counters the argument "when someone gets a vassal has to protect it and thus declares war to the aggressor"

Is my corrected version what you meant? ;)

First case - your quoted argument seems supposed to include declaration of war initiated AFTER vassal agreement. I can manage to accept it.

However, I don't understand two cases taken at the same time. what's the idea behind these rules? my amended version of your argument on the 1st case again contradicts with the 2nd. What simple idea can explain those two cases reasonably??

Anyway thanks for the answer!

I think you normally get a warning before they do this. If they offer capitulation and you refuse, they're free to shop around for a master. I only recall an AI becoming someone else's vassal after they offered capitulation. That's the sign that it's coming. Has anyone seen a counter-example?

If I want to finish them off at this point, I'll usually end the war and negotiate for a peace treaty. You can always re-declare later on. Otherwise, they're just going to drag someone else in.It has happened to me on occasion that they didn't offer capitulation and went straight away to the opponent. Maybe that's also dependant on which civ it is and who he's at war with. (as in GK probably never capitulates to ghandi, if it can offer himself as a vassal to Shaka). But i can't recall correctly if the civ i was at war with was also at war with the eventual master, so i'm not positively sure

What simple idea can explain those two cases reasonably??
I also am eager to know.

I've definitely had a situation once where both I and Egypt were killing Korea and when Korea vassalized to Egypt, I got automatic peace and and I think my units were moved out of Egypt's territory. Maybe it was cease fire but that's more or less the same right?

I also am eager to know.

I've definitely had a situation once where both I and Egypt were killing Korea and when Korea vassalized to Egypt, I got automatic peace and and I think my units were moved out of Egypt's territory. Maybe it was cease fire but that's more or less the same right?

It's not the same. Remember the rules:

When a civ capitulates, it adopts the peace/war stance of the master.

When a civ becomes a voluntary vassal, if either the master or vassal is at war they will both be at war.

In your case you were ok because you and Egypt were at peace and Korea inherited Egypt's stance. We're complaining when a civ becomes a vassal of a civ it wasn't at war with. In that case, the master now enters the war against you.

It's not the same. Remember the rules:

When a civ capitulates, it adopts the peace/war stance of the master.

When a civ becomes a voluntary vassal, if either the master or vassal is at war they will both be at war.

:eek: ......... got it! :goodjob:

In your case you were ok because you and Egypt were at peace and Korea inherited Egypt's stance. We're complaining when a civ becomes a vassal of a civ it wasn't at war with. In that case, the master now enters the war against you.

Yeah I have the same complaint.

It's not the same. Remember the rules:

When a civ capitulates, it adopts the peace/war stance of the master.

When a civ becomes a voluntary vassal, if either the master or vassal is at war they will both be at war.

In your case you were ok because you and Egypt were at peace and Korea inherited Egypt's stance. We're complaining when a civ becomes a vassal of a civ it wasn't at war with. In that case, the master now enters the war against you.

That may be ok for you but my complaint is about the situation I described - capitulation. I thought it was unfair when I was about to take Egypt's capital the next turn, when suddenly I find all my units moved out of their territory and I'm at peace! I'd then need to declare war on the master (and I wouldn't have minded if he was forced to declare war on me). My economy was already struggling (running very bad deficit) and I was relying on being able to take the very juicy capital. Perhaps you're a more peaceful player if this doesn't bother you. Now you've cleared up the distinction, I think both the capitulated and voluntary scenarios need to be fixed.

Maybe I'm just ignorant, but I didn't realize you could win Conquest Victory by vassalizing all your opponents.