Explaining the Vassal System (an attempt)

As to the maintenance cost of vassals...
I am just guessing, and I have not done any tests or whatever, but my guess is that your vassals cities are considered your cities for the purpose of the 'number of cities' maintenance cost in YOUR cities. You don't pay their maintenance costs, but in each of your cities, you will get increased maintenace. However, since that cost has a limit (I think it was 5 gold/city in my last game, on a standard size map, at Noble difficulty), if you are large enough, then vassals will not cost you anything.

Again, I don't know for sure, but this seems to fit what I've observed.


Frankly, I think you found the answer. My best saves all ended up being too large to put up for download (and then I got sidetracked with way too much personal business, trust me the pity factor would be high). But this explanation does make quite a bit of sense since in every test case I went through me having (or not having) vassalls, regardless of size, didn't do a dang thing to my economy one way or the other.

Of course, this explanation would encourage creating a few profitable high production cities and skullthumping the bejebus out of everybody else since it really isn't going to cost you much if anything once you reach a large enough size. . . . .


As for why I don't consider ally flipping "broken."

These people are not your friends, they are you're rivals and there can be only one winner. You're real "Allies" in the game are the ones who are most usefull to you and your objectives (unless you're going for the Diplo Victory, in which case playing nice can be an option).

And both in pre and post patch I've been forced into peace because my rival snagged the bugger as a vassal, which is just as irritating, though probably less, than being forced into war.
 
Two questions:


the cost of vassals is very exactly linked to the "number of cities" maintenance cost.
Your vassal's city count in this number like they were yours.
And that's it.


1.) Referencing the above quote, would building an FP near the Vassal reduce the extra maintenance cost from the vassal's cities? Example from a recent game: America is located on a large continent shared with several civs. Greece has six cities located on an island far from America, with its capital, Athens, centrally located on the island. America conquers Athens and a second city, and Greece capitulates. If America builds FP (or Versailles) will all city maintenance costs be reduced, or only those costs for the two cities directly owned by America?

2.) How does the AI decide whether or not to capitulate? Is it a pure power calculus? Does it matter if your civ has caused the most military casualties? Another example from the above game: Ragnar's empire consists of three (3) cities located on a continent far from America OR its Greek vassal. Ragnar declares war on America. He briefly takes a small American island, but American reinforcements destroy his stack and sink several Viking ships, although the Viking navy remains strong and goes on to sink a few American ships, too. America bribes Shaka (and HIS vassal, Saladin,) into DoW'ing Ragnar. A Zulu-Arab force succeeds in taking Nidaros. Just after Nidaros is taken, A Viking stack sneaks past the American fleet and lands on the Greek island. An American force from Athens destroys the Viking stack before it can attack. Although American forces are in no position to attack Ragnar's homeland, and in fact, might be intercepted by Ragnar's frigates even if they made the attempt, Ragnar offers to capitulate
to America.

My question is: why capitulate to America and not Shaka -- who actually has an army in Scandinavia?
 
Two questions:





1.) Referencing the above quote, would building an FP near the Vassal reduce the extra maintenance cost from the vassal's cities? Example from a recent game: America is located on a large continent shared with several civs. Greece has six cities located on an island far from America, with its capital, Athens, centrally located on the island. America conquers Athens and a second city, and Greece capitulates. If America builds FP (or Versailles) will all city maintenance costs be reduced, or only those costs for the two cities directly owned by America?

number of cities maintenance isn't affected by versailles or forbidden palace (or even palace).
Those things affect distance maintenance only.
And your vassal isn't affected by your wonders, and you aren't affected by his wonders.
Just build courthouses and cottages.

2.) How does the AI decide whether or not to capitulate? Is it a pure power calculus? Does it matter if your civ has caused the most military casualties? Another example from the above game: Ragnar's empire consists of three (3) cities located on a continent far from America OR its Greek vassal. Ragnar declares war on America. He briefly takes a small American island, but American reinforcements destroy his stack and sink several Viking ships, although the Viking navy remains strong and goes on to sink a few American ships, too. America bribes Shaka (and HIS vassal, Saladin,) into DoW'ing Ragnar. A Zulu-Arab force succeeds in taking Nidaros. Just after Nidaros is taken, A Viking stack sneaks past the American fleet and lands on the Greek island. An American force from Athens destroys the Viking stack before it can attack. Although American forces are in no position to attack Ragnar's homeland, and in fact, might be intercepted by Ragnar's frigates even if they made the attempt, Ragnar offers to capitulate
to America.

My question is: why capitulate to America and not Shaka -- who actually has an army in Scandinavia?
I don't know for sure, but it seems that 2 (make it 3) things enter into the deal :
- power
- relations

a third, very important but not really strategic, thing is simply that the AI will capitulate to the one who asks first when he is ready to ;)
 
number of cities maintenance isn't affected by versailles or forbidden palace (or even palace).
Those things affect distance maintenance only.
And your vassal isn't affected by your wonders, and you aren't affected by his wonders.
Just build courthouses and cottages.

Thanks. I'm embarassed to say it, but I did N O T realize that FP/Versailles did not affect #city maintenance, but only distance maintenance.

I don't know for sure, but it seems that 2 (make it 3) things enter into the deal :
- power
- relations

a third, very important but not really strategic, thing is simply that the AI will capitulate to the one who asks first when he is ready to ;)


That's what my intuition told me. In a way, it's too bad...it would be neat if the AI was more willing to surrender to the civ that destroyed MORE of its units. Oh well, something for Civ V, I suppose.
 
In a way, it's too bad...it would be neat if the AI was more willing to surrender to the civ that destroyed MORE of its units. Oh well, something for Civ V, I suppose.

It does make some sense that he'd bow to who's kicking him, but part of the deal when you sign up to be a vassal is that your master is supposed to protect you. The guy who just beat the living daylights out of you isn't necessarily the one who's going to do that best. Discretion, valor, coherence, all that. ;)
 
There are four rules i follow regarding vasals.
A) If you can destroy him you don't want to keep him alive as the advandages of having his cities are great and he may break off
B) Never allow others to vasalage the one weak enough to be destroyed by you . Usually your warring ally will do that to suround you
C) If you can't destroy him because he is going to become a vassal to someone else make him your vasal instead. This can be a greater advandage regarding the location of the vasal as you can suround by territory your enemy. Which means less space for him to manuever and pilage, attack your cities and more for you.

D) The Vasal will always break off if you don't have a strong military or if they think so , be prepared.
 
Best use for a voluntary vassal? Declare war on a powerful civ and direct his units towards a strongly defended city. Let him kamikaze the defenders, then mop up.
 
C) If you can't destroy him because he is going to become a vassal to someone else make him your vasal instead.

But how do you know when/if he's going to become a vassal of the local superpower?
In my experience ; sometimes the local superpower vassalizes my target - and I am at war, sometimes he vassalizes my target - and we all at peace , sometimes he doesnt vassalize my target - and I can continue taking that last valuable city for me.

When the option to capitulate the target is there in white on the diplo screen, it's hard to make a decision about it because I dont know what the local superpower is thinking. Are there any insights on how to know this?
 
But how do you know when/if he's going to become a vassal of the local superpower?
In my experience ; sometimes the local superpower vassalizes my target - and I am at war, sometimes he vassalizes my target - and we all at peace , sometimes he doesnt vassalize my target - and I can continue taking that last valuable city for me.

When the option to capitulate the target is there in white on the diplo screen, it's hard to make a decision about it because I dont know what the local superpower is thinking. Are there any insights on how to know this?

if it's white for you, it's probably white for others too
exception : you have ++relations, while all others have --relations
 
you should see my mad hax micro skills. I generally construct stuff on a whim and most always let the computer decide how to place the cities populations. Every now and again I focus on production or don't grow or something like that though:goodjob:

welcome to the club
 
Although the Vassal cannot take your city from you, he can surround and overwhelm the city culturally, with near constant riots being the result.

In my recent game in BTS 3.13, Huayna Capac vassalized to me, and I noted that the fat crosses of my cities (even when under his cultural control) were completely owned by me. Mousing over showed things like 90% Aztec, 10% Holy Roman (=me), but the squares are still in my cultural borders and I can work the squares. Also I do not get riots in cities with higher Aztec cultural control (just every so often an annoying message "The people of ... want to join the Aztec empire"). So I guess this annoying behaviour has been changed.
 
nice guide, im sure we've all noticed tha some civs will capitulate very easily (those toads louis and wang kon for instance) whilst others require much more conquering b4 they will (churchill!), some form of table giving a guide to the various civs propensity to this would be a god addition imho.
 
Can anyone offer a bit of clarification on what happens when I'm at war with someone who has a vassal? The situation is I'm fighting Tokugawa and his vassal colony Wang Kon is between us. At this point it would be fairly easy for me to do away with Wang Kon completely and capture all his cities. What happens if I take most of the Vassal out? I know he can be set free from the vassal agreement (allthough as a colony, does that still hold?) if I take 50% or more of his empire than he started with. But then what happens? Can I make him my vassal or will he run to my arch-enemy Boudica and become her Vassal and make my life much more difficult?

Would I be better off skull thumping Tokugawa to either vassalize him or eliminate him alltogether and then deal with Wang Kon?

Any insight would be appreciated. I'm a little stumped here. :crazyeye:
 
I am wondering if the option is available to become a vassal if you are getting your head thumped. I haven't seen anyone mention this, and so I thought I would ask the question.
 
<snip>
Condition 2: The Vassal State grows in size AND population to a point where it has more than 50% of the Master Civ’s size AND population. It’s important to reiterate that this is a two part condition. BOTH have to be met in order for this option to become available to the Vassal.
<snip>
The Downside of having a Vassal(s):
<snip>
The downside of the creative trait is that it probably won’t be the best idea to Vassal-ize a Creative Civ. Although the Vassal cannot take your city from you, he can surround and overwhelm the city culturally, with near constant riots being the result. The Financial & Organized traits should really speak for themselves on this point.

Thoughts on the Acquisition of Vassals:

*The more vastly more preferable situation is to acquire a Vassal through Capitulation. A Voluntary Vassal will simply leave you at the earliest convenient time, usually the most inconvenient time for you after having driven up your maintenance cost and enjoyed your protection. There may good short term advantages to accepting a voluntary Vassal such as beefing up a combined front to stave off more powerful Civs.
<snip>


Thank you for sharing this with us. This is really good stuff. :) :goodjob:

re Condition 2 of vassal breaking off.

I have had a voluntary vassal meet this condition and not break off. It had 89% of my territory and 50% of my population. BTW One of those "Historian Lists of the most powerful civs" popped up. I came in at #4 and my vassal was #2 ! I think voluntary vassals can break off at any time in BTS anyway but I'm not sure of this? It seems, based on my experience, that a voluntary vassals decision to break off is also influenced by relations and trade. I had exceptionally good relations and a lot of trade with this vassal. (It was Elizabeth BTW who has been my voluntary vassal many times and never broken off)

OTH I am quite sure I have had voluntary vassals break off who IIRC did not meet these conditions but trade and relations were not as good.

It also seems, based on my game experience, that some civs are more likely to remain loyal (if treated well).

The Downside of having a Vassal(s):

In BTS you always get to keep the fat cross of your city regardless of your vassals cultural pressure. (I think there has been a change since you wrote this?)

Thoughts on the Acquisition of Vassals:

For a relatively peaceful builder type game I actually vastly prefer voluntary vassals but accept and court only some of the peaceful leaders. Some of them seem to stay remarkably loyal but sometimes you have to make some tough decisions to keep that loyalty. eg. I only just researched Nationalism sio I could get a Taj Mahal golden age and vassal Lizzy has just asked for it as a present. Do I gift it to her or blow away some diplomatic points? BTW I gifted it.

OTH I see the merits of having Monty or Shaka in a skull thumping game. It seems ones game style influences which vassals will be best for each player.​
 
I am wondering if the option is available to become a vassal if you are getting your head thumped. I haven't seen anyone mention this, and so I thought I would ask the question.

Not possible.

You can go into world builder and set yourself as somebodies vassal. (Can be an interesting game BTW)
 
Your Economy: The ONLY thing that Matters:

Before you consider whether or not take on a Vassal make sure your house is in order first. Other threads have and will explain the specifics how best to manage or to help guide your economic advancement. I will simply sum things up thusly: If you don&#8217;t have a strong economy you can&#8217;t afford to do anything with your empire, let alone acquire someone else&#8217;s.

I'd definitely prefer a mention of the conquerer's plateau in this part of the article, where having vassals (or settling more cities of your own) does nothing to your existing cities.
I'd go as far as to say that the increase of maintanance even before the plateau, is never great enough to deny yourself the advantage of having a capitulated vassal.

Other Fine Points:

*A general piece of Warmongering Advice: the first Civ you meet isn&#8217;t going to be the best candidate for Vassal-ing. Generally speaking the first Civ you run across is probably going to be your best bet for early elimination and/or outright acquisition. If you&#8217;re skullthumping your neighbor with early swordsman (or earlier with axmen, warriors, etc.) then you aren&#8217;t going to be Vassal-ing anybody anyway since you probably haven&#8217;t got Feudalism. Therefore, if you do go to war finish the other guy off completely, no sense of having some enemy out on the field for the better part of eternity with a grudge just waiting to come back to haunt you.

I can think of situations where this is bad advice. Example: consider your civ sharing a continent with 2 other civs.

Kill AI1 early, then AI2 will not only have expanded and teched in the meantime, but will also never trade techs with you again. All the disadvantages of being isolated, combined with all the disadvantages of having to compete directly with the cheating AI 1 on 1. Not nice on emperor and beyond.
Instead I would advice to Choke one AI and stay friendly with the other one. You can now trade with the friendly AI, without fear of ever becoming the weakest civ on the power graph and thus his target.
Then when you gain feudalism force capitulation on your choke target, before the victim can vassalize to the other AI.

*It may not be necessary or prudent to accept a Civ&#8217;s offer of Capitulation the first time it&#8217;s offered. For example, say you invade an island and take two of three cities, the remaining city being the enemy capital. And the other civ knows he&#8217;s beat will offer to Capitulate. Don&#8217;t vassal the civ until AFTER you&#8217;ve taken the capital otherwise the culture war will be a constant irritation in later turns (&#8220;An Indian revolt is taking place in Madras . . . &#8220;).
...or you could simply gift those revolting cities back the the vassal. Keeping your vassal healthy and in the tech race may be a good idea anyway.

Though a much more compelling reason to accept any capitulation is to prevent the AI from vassalizing to another.

In the best case it's a neutral third party, so there's still a chance that the AI may freely leave after 10 turns. In the worst case scenario the AI capitulates to your war ally, in which case you'll never get him (not without a war on your previous ally).
What I do is poll every turn for a capitulation. When the choice comes up I will immediately take it, unless all the other civs are either still unknown or my vassals.​
 
Does anyone know if you are running mercantilism do you get any bonus from having vassals? assuming that mercantilism is basically a closed trade block you should be able to use mercantilism so that you and your vassal only trade with each other.

Yes, you can trade with vassals under merchantailism (at least in BTS 3.12 w/bhruics patch)
 
Top Bottom