[POLL] How should a master's capitulation impact their vassals?

[Rekk]

Yup, because that logically makes sense - when you make peace with the master, the vassal is going along with their master's political stance. When you make peace with one independent enemy while you're at war with two, you aren't forced into peace with the second. Why should that change because the second was formerly a vassal of the capitulating civilization?

Because at the time you sign the peace treaty, they're not two independent states. Liberation of its vassals is a condition of the master's capitulation.

If the vassals successfully declared independence while at war with you, then you're at war with two independent states, and you can make peace with either at your discretion, but otherwise, the vassals aren't independent until after the peace treaty is signed.

 

[Laz0r]

I personally think you should have a choice whether or not to liberate or vassalize the enemy's former vassals, and they should have a choice in either capitulating to you or declaring war and independence.

 

[Recursive]

The community preference for liberating vassals seems to be clear. I'll implement this.

 

[notaspambot]

There still is the question of whether liberated vassals should stay at war or not upon their former master's capitulation. Will you simply be putting them to peace?

 

[usadefcon1]

There still is the question of whether liberated vassals should stay at war or not upon their former master's capitulation. Will you simply be putting them to peace?

If liberation happens at capitulation then everyone is at peace.

 

[Recursive]

There still is the question of whether liberated vassals should stay at war or not upon their former master's capitulation. Will you simply be putting them to peace?

Yes, the same as it is now.

 

[4CV]

The community preference for liberating vassals seems to be clear. I'll implement this.

The new masters units are all removed from his new vassals land in the moment of capitulation, although he gets open borders next turn. Could that be changed as well? Thank you.
(Because it is no real fun in it and no logic at all. Sorry, if this is a known issue that cannot be solved, and its only me who don't know it...)

Edit: Btw, I voted Masters should never capitulate! Even on their knees they should go on fighting, as long as they still have one... Even longer, thinking of Monty Python's knights...

 

[Recursive]

The new masters units are all removed from his new vassals land in the moment of capitulation, although he gets open borders next turn. Could that be changed as well? Thank you.
(Because it is no real fun in it and no logic at all. Sorry, if this is a known issue that cannot be solved, and its only me who don't know it...)

Edit: Btw, I voted Masters should never capitulate! Even on their knees they should go on fighting, as long as they still have one... Even longer, thinking of Monty Python's knights...

Sure.

 

[InkAxis]

I think for voluntary vassals this shouldn't really happen: voluntary vassalage happens for protection, if their master is losing so badly that they themselves get vassalized clearly they are not being protected.

 

[dostillevi]

What I think I'm hearing is the following:

1. When a master capitulates, all of it's vassals will immediately be at peace with the victor.
2. This will be a special peace that does not move victor units out of former-vassal territory.

I believe there are some remaining questions:
-How long can victor units move in former-vassal territory?
-Will there be a cooldown on this peace with former vassals, or can war be declared immediately?
-Will wars on former-vassals start off with forcing victor units out of territory? I believe this is the current behavior on starting a war against someone with whom you have open borders.
-Will there be a diplomatic penalty for declaring war on a former vassal?
-Will the master consider the power of it's vassals when making the capitulation decision, or just it's own state?

I'm trying to find the logic in why a conquering empire, upon receiving the capitulation of a master, would always and without option choose to halt war against former vassals. There are plentiful examples where capitulation of the master might be a desirable outcome, but where victory over the vassal might be the primary goal - for example, if I have a vassal as a neighbor, and their master is further away, I am currently unable to vassalize that neighbor. I either have to conquer their cities outright, or, under the new logic, I have to force the master to capitulate, which frees the vassal so I can declare war on it a second time in an effort to vassalize it. This just seems convoluted, when in "reality", I'd absolutely maintain war with the former vassal after it is "liberated" from the master.

In any case, the liberation mechanic is much better than not allowing capitulation at all.