Vassal System Overhaul

[Leoreth]

I like the practice of starting individual threads for current topics, so here's another.

I want to deal with the problems in the vassal system soon, and the first point on the agenda is AI willingness to vassalize.

I have asked about this in a general discussion thread already, but it seems to have been buried: what does the AI say in situations where it refuses to vassalize but you think it really should, because it has all but lost the war?

I suspect it is "Surely you must be joking", if that is the case I know a way to improve things. The problem with the vassal AI (or diplo AI in general) is that before the war score is even taken into account, a number of other things are checked that might make the AI decline no matter what. Some of these are sensible (for instance, to make sure to only vassalize to the enemy with the highest success against them, or when game rules prevent them from vassalizing), others aren't. The AI response would help me figure out which of those is the problem.

 

[citis]

The ideal would be an AI that can understand what's best for its nation and vassalise if this put his nation in better place.

Some more special cases I have in mind:
*Last city is threatened
*Last city in core is threatened
*Collapsing stability
It is willing to vassalise.

Friendly attitude+stronger army+more advanced: It is willing to vassalise.

But most important (This is for Russian UHV.):
*If master is solid vassal isn't collapsing or unstable.
*If master is stable vassal isn't collapsing.
(However, vassal can collapse from lost core.)

 

[Leoreth]

Well as I said, the way the AI code is structured means that before the AI even starts evaluating its situation, it needs to pass a series of checks that can make it decline no matter what.

The actual evaluation doesn't seem to be so bad from a first look at it, and it takes all the things you mentioned into account. So I want to address those other checks first, as they are the more likely culprit. And for that it would help me to have my question answered.

And yeah, I definitely also want to do something about collapsing vassals. The most probable solution is that the master's stability will have a much stronger impact on theirs, i.e. as long as you're stable, you won't have to worry about collapsing vassals.

 

[merijn_v1]

I would like to see an option that the human player can become a vassal of the AI.

 

[need my speed]

Remove the hard coded limit on vassals, if you can (at some point, nobody will ever vassalise to you, because you have too many vassals already).

 

[Leoreth]

I have asked about this in a general discussion thread already, but it seems to have been buried: what does the AI say in situations where it refuses to vassalize but you think it really should, because it has all but lost the war?

*broken record noises*

 

[MechatronicJazz]

I don't remember how often I've seen it, but "surely you must be joking" is definitely something the AI says when it should probably give up. I'll try to pay closer attention in my games and post if I see anything else.

 

[need my speed]

*broken record noises*

Mhm, I think it's 'you've grown too powerful for us', but I'll have to check that.

 

[citis]

*broken record noises*

I will repeat ths situations I said before. I have seens some games as Russia where:
*Tibet controls only Rasa and threatened by China (completely assymetrical war), but still refuses to vassalise peacefully to me.
*France controlling only Marseilles, being conquered by Prussian empire and still refuses to vassalise.
*Congo is collapsing, but it prefers to collapse than vassalise.

As I said before, if AI is about to vanish in some turns it should vassalise peacefull to protect its existence.

 

[skyclad]

Leoreth, for me it depends. I've seen "your enemies are too powerful", "we are doing fine on our own", and "surely you must be joking".
I've seen them go from wadfooo to symbj, before finally capitulating. Most of the time they are saying symbj until they are well and truly decimated.
Ive also noticed that some of them behave differently. Like if I am at war with both the Aztecs and the Inca and have conquerors for both, Inca might be willing to talk and capitulate after taking only one city, while the Aztecs will take 10 or however many turns just to get them talking even if I took several cities from them.

edit: I should say I am playing 1.12

 

[andrewv42]

I will repeat ths situations I said before. I have seens some games as Russia where:
*Tibet controls only Rasa and threatened by China (completely assymetrical war), but still refuses to vassalise peacefully to me.
*France controlling only Marseilles, being conquered by Prussian empire and still refuses to vassalise.
*Congo is collapsing, but it prefers to collapse than vassalise.

As I said before, if AI is about to vanish in some turns it should vassalise peacefull to protect its existence.

I like this plan

Vassalization as a way to shore up fragile states and prevent them collapsing

 

[BenZL43]

never mind

 

[MechatronicJazz]

*broken record noises*

Careful everyone. If we keep making Leoreth repeat himself, we might cause a Scratch...

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

In my experience, it's usually "Surely You Must Be Joking" and "You've Grown Too Powerful For Us"

The former happens typically when I'm in a war with someone else at the same time (conqueror event typically) but happens a lot normally as well.

The latter happens around Industrial typically for me.

 

[Leoreth]

Careful everyone. If we keep making Leoreth repeat himself, we might cause a Scratch...

Yes. Turns out my choice of avatar is appropriate in many ways

 

[Alexius08]

"You've Grown Too Powerful For Us" only appears when you have 5 vassals (which means you can't have another additional vassal). If a limit should remain in place, how many vassals can we consider to be enough?

 

[MedicInDisquise]

I was just playing Ottomans on Heir, the lowest difficulty level, and Byzantine would not surrender even after I steamrolled their cities. They only really had Athens left, and my army outnumbered them. "We're doing fine by ourselves."

 

[Leoreth]

I'd rather change it in such a way that vassal population or military power is the limiting factor. That does not make it disadvantageous to pick up smaller vassals.

It should probably be some factor of your own power. I'd have to calculate a bit to see how it plays out with Domination.

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

"You've Grown Too Powerful For Us" only appears when you have 5 vassals (which means you can't have another additional vassal). If a limit should remain in place, how many vassals can we consider to be enough?

No, I can load up an old save, but I'm sure I've received this even under that limit.

 

[Leoreth]

There are other conditions that trigger that response, but I'm not sure which. Will look that up.