I have just upgraded to Beyond the sword from Vanilla civ4. Loving the upgrade, but seriosuly what the hell is with vassal states. My settings are Monarch, standard, pangea and the top 3 win scenarios. I have played games which i am lining up for a win, but the vassal state setting i find a complete joke at times. I mean i stratigically go to to war against an average AI for some suitable land grab, just about to finish them off and then they become a vassal state of the most powerful AI in the game forcing me into war with them. Just don't understand it really at how this feature can turn a game so unfairly.
Vassal states
- Thread starter Scottm
- Start date
Lennier
Emperor
Or ask for your foe to capitulate to you. They're usually willing to capitulate to you before they go looking for a "savior" to peace vassal to you.
Or you can start up a custom game and turn vassals off.
Or you can start up a custom game and turn vassals off.
s.bernbaum
Mostly lurking
I recommend this. After trying a few games at first with Vassals on, I have always played with Vassals turned off. Custom Game allows you to have the game you want to play rather than the default one.
It can go both ways. With vassals turned off, Conquest or Domination victories become long and tedious. With them turned on, you sometimes get superpowers forming, who are impossible to beat unless you somehow form your own (and if there's no chance of that, it's best to admit defeat). You have to vassalize other civs if there's a danger they'll join someone else.
On balance I prefer it with them on. Yeah it is annoying and unfair in some cases, say where you have multiple civs including your own conquering an enemy, and your enemy's army is beaten, but you want to take their capital. Then they capitulate to your ally, who gets all the spoils. You just have to work out how to stop that happening, say by bribing your ally to declare peace, or accepting Capitulation at the first opportunity. It's just another layer of something to account for when deciding your strategies.
On balance I prefer it with them on. Yeah it is annoying and unfair in some cases, say where you have multiple civs including your own conquering an enemy, and your enemy's army is beaten, but you want to take their capital. Then they capitulate to your ally, who gets all the spoils. You just have to work out how to stop that happening, say by bribing your ally to declare peace, or accepting Capitulation at the first opportunity. It's just another layer of something to account for when deciding your strategies.
Lennier
Emperor
This! I keep vassals on and deal with it.
capnvonbaron
Democratia gladii
Vassals certainly make for earlier domination/conquest victories.
Once you research Feudalism, you can enslave any civ you sufficiently beat to tar rather than have to finish them off entirely.
The first one is typically the toughest to get since they only vassal to you once a certain power threshold is met... meaning you have to be sufficiently more powerful them in their eyes for them to bow to you.
Once you get one or two though, they add to your power total and subsequent civs will more willingly capitulate after less of a beating.
Also, some civs will more willingly capitulate than others, as well as civs that are less angry with you. A pleased Pacal will usually only require a mild beating before he surrenders -- a mad Monty will require quite a smack-down before he succumbs.
Pretty sure there's an article in the war academy on vassal mechanics...?
Once you research Feudalism, you can enslave any civ you sufficiently beat to tar rather than have to finish them off entirely.
The first one is typically the toughest to get since they only vassal to you once a certain power threshold is met... meaning you have to be sufficiently more powerful them in their eyes for them to bow to you.
Once you get one or two though, they add to your power total and subsequent civs will more willingly capitulate after less of a beating.
Also, some civs will more willingly capitulate than others, as well as civs that are less angry with you. A pleased Pacal will usually only require a mild beating before he surrenders -- a mad Monty will require quite a smack-down before he succumbs.
Pretty sure there's an article in the war academy on vassal mechanics...?
HorseshoeHermit
20% accurate as usual, Morty
If I may turn this into an Ideas tangent, I think what this inequity reveals is that the vassal system ought to have some kind of interacting limitation with cultural pressure. As well, diplomatic options in general need to not be processed in isolation, player-to-player. Some things are isolated, like trading a good, but options like defensive pacts? Surrendering a city to one of two attackers? Declaring itself. And, vassalizing.
Brief suggestion, when civs willingly vassalize, the master should have to agree to declare on all the vassal civ's enemies. There is no logic - but bad gameplay - in reversing this to make a peace happen on the vassal. You can't just cause peace, the conqueror has a say too, obviously, and this is one of the limitations of the "isolated" diplo system.
The above requirement would have diplomatic consequences, and balances out willing capitulation.
If a civ capitulates, there's one of two possibilities: Either the master and you are at war, or you're not at war. If you're at war, then the vassal is either an enemy that became an enemy's vassal, or is a third party that has been turned against you. All straightforward. If you're not at war, this is where the mess happens.
A civ capitulating should create some form of safety and be guaranteed to do so. Causing peace is out of the question, unless there was a multi-way diplo screen possible. Let's just assume it's not, for now. (But imagine China coming up in front of Kublai and Tokugawa, and suing for peace from -her attackers plural-, in which she offers Capitulation (Kublai). But the technical work is immense.)
Peace isn't free, but anyone can declare war. So an alternate is to make the master declare on the vassals enemies as before. But this is unlikeable, because it makes anything resembling the above ideal totally impossible; you can't arrange with your conquering buddy to get the vassal to whom wants it, not without letting any one of the three players get tricked under a white flag. Peace and war are the only two things that can be used to make the master "forced" to somehow protect the vassal*, so the search is narrowed. I think the only solution within the scope of two-party diplo is to change vassalage rules subtly, so that the capitulated vassal remains at war with those civs it was at war with, while the master may choose whether or not to join at capitulation. It has the same diplo limitations, but it can obtain peace with those civs, one-by-one until there are none of them. In this proposal, you get the noxious consequence of the master civ wheeling and dealing over the bloody battlefield of its vassal, which is nonsensical itself. And a state of No Trade is just war with borders.
Which brings me to the culture interaction.
*I would like some interaction with the culture system, where, in whatever way culture or religion is acquired and pressures other civs, and which allows the vassal to otherwise liberate itself, a fine addition to vassalage would be a penalty for "default" of the vassalage arrangement , paid in the form of that same culture resource. The big question is how to measure default.
So, within the system, the only thing that -could- work is to make the master declare on the vassal's enemies at signing, capitulation or no, just as the vassal loses freedom to say otherwise from the master from then on, including conditions for peace^. I really want multi-way diplo, though.
^Last moment insight. Maybe the master declares war on the vassal's enemies, but if this in fact would declare a war, and it was capitulation, then trigger an immediate diplo screen between the master and that enemy player, where they negotiate peace between the three of them. The master is in a proposal for war with the other enemy; he must somehow obtain the offer of (No declare) which comes under a two-way Peace (You & [vassal]). If the master cannot secure this arrangement, he declares; but if he can, the other player obtains peace with the vassal and no declare happens. Works within the two-party screen, all it needs is some augmentation to let (at least) master's negotiate peace with vassals (instead of themselves) as an item.
Brief suggestion, when civs willingly vassalize, the master should have to agree to declare on all the vassal civ's enemies. There is no logic - but bad gameplay - in reversing this to make a peace happen on the vassal. You can't just cause peace, the conqueror has a say too, obviously, and this is one of the limitations of the "isolated" diplo system.
The above requirement would have diplomatic consequences, and balances out willing capitulation.
If a civ capitulates, there's one of two possibilities: Either the master and you are at war, or you're not at war. If you're at war, then the vassal is either an enemy that became an enemy's vassal, or is a third party that has been turned against you. All straightforward. If you're not at war, this is where the mess happens.
A civ capitulating should create some form of safety and be guaranteed to do so. Causing peace is out of the question, unless there was a multi-way diplo screen possible. Let's just assume it's not, for now. (But imagine China coming up in front of Kublai and Tokugawa, and suing for peace from -her attackers plural-, in which she offers Capitulation (Kublai). But the technical work is immense.)
Peace isn't free, but anyone can declare war. So an alternate is to make the master declare on the vassals enemies as before. But this is unlikeable, because it makes anything resembling the above ideal totally impossible; you can't arrange with your conquering buddy to get the vassal to whom wants it, not without letting any one of the three players get tricked under a white flag. Peace and war are the only two things that can be used to make the master "forced" to somehow protect the vassal*, so the search is narrowed. I think the only solution within the scope of two-party diplo is to change vassalage rules subtly, so that the capitulated vassal remains at war with those civs it was at war with, while the master may choose whether or not to join at capitulation. It has the same diplo limitations, but it can obtain peace with those civs, one-by-one until there are none of them. In this proposal, you get the noxious consequence of the master civ wheeling and dealing over the bloody battlefield of its vassal, which is nonsensical itself. And a state of No Trade is just war with borders.
Which brings me to the culture interaction.
*I would like some interaction with the culture system, where, in whatever way culture or religion is acquired and pressures other civs, and which allows the vassal to otherwise liberate itself, a fine addition to vassalage would be a penalty for "default" of the vassalage arrangement , paid in the form of that same culture resource. The big question is how to measure default.
So, within the system, the only thing that -could- work is to make the master declare on the vassal's enemies at signing, capitulation or no, just as the vassal loses freedom to say otherwise from the master from then on, including conditions for peace^. I really want multi-way diplo, though.
^Last moment insight. Maybe the master declares war on the vassal's enemies, but if this in fact would declare a war, and it was capitulation, then trigger an immediate diplo screen between the master and that enemy player, where they negotiate peace between the three of them. The master is in a proposal for war with the other enemy; he must somehow obtain the offer of (No declare) which comes under a two-way Peace (You & [vassal]). If the master cannot secure this arrangement, he declares; but if he can, the other player obtains peace with the vassal and no declare happens. Works within the two-party screen, all it needs is some augmentation to let (at least) master's negotiate peace with vassals (instead of themselves) as an item.
Lennier
Emperor
It really doesn't need to be a whole diplo screen. The civ that's at war with another civ that capitulates or peace vassals to another should get a pop-up to decide to either a) go to war with master as well or b) make peace with the vassal (assuming not at war with master already.)
HorseshoeHermit
20% accurate as usual, Morty
No, that is exactly what's wrong with the system. Why bother having a popup if you would just auto-peace and then declare war on the super-side if you wanted? And it's what the OP was most annoyed by.
What I'm proposing is that the master state must be the one to declare war, not the other warring state. But since he shouldn't -have- to do so if the other player hasn't got a problem, they need an opportunity to deal. So at minimum, there should be a popup where the other warring state decides whether the new master declares on him, or he makes peace. But this decision is unsatisfying and obviously degenerate when compared to a possible negotiation, so I think a diplo screen is needed.
Lennier
Emperor
A difference without any meaning.
Current system: If enemy civ caps to a co-belligerent, you're automatically at peace with former enemy. Want to continue war? Declare on new master.
If enemy civ p-vassals to another civ, you're automatically at war with new master (if not so already.) Don't want to be at war? Hope that the new master is willing to negotiate peace.
Your system: Enemy civ caps or p-vassals to another civ. Get diplo screen to possibly change state between you and new master. Might be "time to die (declares war)" or "let's bury the hatchet (make peace)." (Current diplo demand screens don't show if refusal of demand will automatically lead to war or not.) Want to be at war with new master? Declare war. Don't want war with new master? Hope new master is willing to negotiate peace.
My system: Enemy civ caps or p-vassals to another civ. You get popup asking if you want to make peace with enemy civ or go to war with new master.
In either my or your system, the "peace" option could be made stronger by putting a 10-turn peace treaty on top of it, but you could still declare either way at the expiration of the 10 turns.
I think mine makes more sense as a civ accepting a vassal is stating that it's willing to go to war with anyone who wants war with the vassal. If that civ wants war with you, it can always declare. You should get the option of deciding whether to go to war or not with the new master.
Any gift by an AI to you (money, resource, tech, city) will result in a 10-turn peace treaty. So a common tactic is to beg/demand 1
from a civ you don't want to go to war with right now to get a 10 turn peace treaty.You're welcome.
Chrysheight
Chieftain
Vassals are the worst BTS feature. I will occasionally get a weak civ going like "PLEASE BE MY MASTER PLEASE" and then it turns out that they are a war with a massive globe spanning empire that I am unprepared to fight. Set up a custom game with vassals off.
Lennier
Emperor
That could have been solved if they had included a "wait--let me consult my diplo advisor" button.
HorseshoeHermit
20% accurate as usual, Morty
You and I are actually thinking close to the same thing. You have a mistaken impression about my system. Two things: P-vassaling and capitulation are treated differently. And, I can't stress this enough, declarations of war caused by vassals are considered to be initiated by the master state.
Four possibilities and two conditions:
Peace with vassal, War with vassal, Peace with master, War with master. Call these P(V), W(V), P(M), W(M), the initial conditions when a vassal vassalizes to the master. The vassalization is either peaceful or capitulation. Obviously if you're P(V) and P(M) no behaviour is needed. There are up to six distinct situations.
For p-vassaling
W(V) --> Eh. I'm indifferent to what happens here, really. No change needed from current.
W(M) --> Declare war on vassal. No change needed.
Peace is obvious.
For capitulation
W(V) : W(M) --> War is obvious.
W(V) : P(M) --> The -master- must declare on you, unless you can work something out on the spot.
P(V) : W(M) --> Declare war on vassal. Not even relevant who declares on whom, as vassals forfeit international repute anyway.
Only part I'm not sure myself is if you declare on a peaceful vassalizing master of an enemy civ, or they declare on you. The hallmark of your position is that this situation gives a simple declare-or-no to you for the new master-vassal superstate. I'm okay with that. It does not escape my notice that, for consistency, if this scenario played just like the capitulation in same conditions, then the whole ruleset has just three situations, one of which is obvious, and p-vassals are the same as capitulation. But this irks my intuition and as I said, I'm okay with your system on p-vassaling a W(V)*P(M) situation.
Dhoomstriker
Girlie Builder
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 13,452
Doesn't that already exist? I seem to recall being able to press F4 when a diplomatic request screen comes up. From there, you should be able to see the current status of AI-AI relations, assuming that you've met said AIs. Of course, I use the HOF Mod or the roughly-equivalent BUFFY Mod for almost all of my games, so I'm not sure if pressing F4 works when playing the game without a mod.
The key is to manually click on the EXIT button from the F4 screens... if you press the Esc key, then that Esc key keypress gets sent to the original diplomatic request screen, and the Esc key tends to pick the wrong answer to the request.
I'm not sure what would happen if an AI asks to become your Peace Vassal if they are at war with someone you haven't met... perhaps they aren't allowed to ask you in that case?
Let me answer that for you.
Monty tricked me to accept him as a vassal and suddenly I was at war with 2 other civs which I had not met.
A bell should have rung, because no single dow from him.
Dhoomstriker
Girlie Builder
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 13,452
Haha, nice bit of trolling by an AI.
Hmmm, yes, before accepting a Peace Vassal in a game where I haven't met all of the other players, I'll have to remember to click "Care to Negotiate?" and then hover over top of another nation's name, to see if said Peace Vassal (Monte in this case) has his hands too full as his reason for not wanting to declare war on someone else... and therefore he is just waiting to make your hands also be full, with his burden.
CaterpillarKing
Conqueror of Cacoons
I love vassal states. It lets me own them without making me lift a finger 
In RFC they are very useful as they prevent respawns.
In RFC they are very useful as they prevent respawns.Similar threads
- Locked
