In vanila BTS, a civ that becomes a vassal ends wars with other civs. In FfH, the opposite occurs. I accepted a petition for a civ to become my vassal, and immediately three tother civs declared war on me. Two of these cis were my closest allies. This was shocking and doesn't make much sense. If a civ becomes my vassal, he/she should end their war with my allies, not drag me into the war...afterall, I am the new master in the relationship. I tell them to bring their troops home and stop pillaging my allies! <whip noise>
Arghhhh....Vassal creates war!!!
- Thread starter Mesix
- Start date
Grillick
Prince
Vassallage is a two-way street. In exchange for becoming your vassal, you offer them military protection. If you don't want to go to war with whomever they are at war with, then you need to get your friends to end the war BEFORE you make them your vassal.
Honestly, I think it makes perfect sense, and I had no idea it worked differently in vanilla.
Honestly, I think it makes perfect sense, and I had no idea it worked differently in vanilla.
Cuteunit
Danse Macabre
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2007
- Messages
- 618
That happened to me tonight too. I whipped Sheelba into submission and she offerred vassalage. I accepted, and got her to take my state religion. Eventually she swapped back to ashen veil though, and the rest of the world declared war on her.. hence me too.
DeaExMachina
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2007
- Messages
- 168
Yesh Charles.
Did you "Vassal" them or did they "Capitulate"? I haven't vassalized in some time now but I seem to remember the difference is that if you take someone on as a vassal you are agreeing to protect them from everyone currently and in the future at war with them. However if they capitulate then all current wars cease.
Did you "Vassal" them or did they "Capitulate"? I haven't vassalized in some time now but I seem to remember the difference is that if you take someone on as a vassal you are agreeing to protect them from everyone currently and in the future at war with them. However if they capitulate then all current wars cease.
A vassal is still firmly under your thumb diplomatically though. Whether they capitulate or choose to become your vassal of their own accord, it should not affect your diplomacy in such a radical way.
There is already a negative modifier: "We are upset that our rivals are your vassal" that affects diplomacy. I don't think that accepting a vassal should automatically change a civ that had +30 diplomacy with you into your worst enemy.
It would also make sense if other civs declared war on the combined state based on diplomacy modifiers with the master...not the vassal. The vassal has for all intents and purposes become the casturated monkey marionette of a more powerful pupeteer!
There is already a negative modifier: "We are upset that our rivals are your vassal" that affects diplomacy. I don't think that accepting a vassal should automatically change a civ that had +30 diplomacy with you into your worst enemy.
It would also make sense if other civs declared war on the combined state based on diplomacy modifiers with the master...not the vassal. The vassal has for all intents and purposes become the casturated monkey marionette of a more powerful pupeteer!
DeaExMachina
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2007
- Messages
- 168
Well right their you are wrong. 
A capitulated vassal would indeed be a state who agrees to surrender without condition but retains its sovereignty. A non-capitulating vassal is a state seeking protection, even if you were a former enemy.
You may not like it but I'll cite a well known historical vassalage. When Germany trounced through Belgium on its way to France it forced Britain to declare war on Germany. Belgium was never under the thumb of the greater nation but the greater nation was offering its protection for a few choice incentives.
Likewise, if they aren't capitulating to you and you agree to accept vassalage you agree to fight all there wars for them. If someone else is keen on taking their land with a military force running rampant through out the countryside you are now bound to go and destroy that military force. The whole "Oh I'm sorry I'm not protecting them, will you please stop killing them?" thing just doesn't work.
So either destroy them, capitulate them or choose carefully when you vassal.
A capitulated vassal would indeed be a state who agrees to surrender without condition but retains its sovereignty. A non-capitulating vassal is a state seeking protection, even if you were a former enemy.
You may not like it but I'll cite a well known historical vassalage. When Germany trounced through Belgium on its way to France it forced Britain to declare war on Germany. Belgium was never under the thumb of the greater nation but the greater nation was offering its protection for a few choice incentives.
Likewise, if they aren't capitulating to you and you agree to accept vassalage you agree to fight all there wars for them. If someone else is keen on taking their land with a military force running rampant through out the countryside you are now bound to go and destroy that military force. The whole "Oh I'm sorry I'm not protecting them, will you please stop killing them?" thing just doesn't work.
So either destroy them, capitulate them or choose carefully when you vassal.
I've actually tended to turn off vassal lately. I had a few games where victory just went to whoever researched feudalism first. While it was nice to see the AI playing dangerously effectively, it also was annoying to have so much rely on one tech. Whoever got it first suddenly controlled half a dozen other civs, regardless of their previous diplomatic relations or alignment.
I HATE that capitulation ends wars. Youre about to kill a city and he capitulates to someone else, it kicks you out of their borders, you need to REDECLARE war and waste turns and strategic advantage by walking all the way in their borders again. Its bullcrap. If someone takes a vassal by ANY means, it should give you the chance to declare war on them without removing your troops.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
I concur It really should make the vassal's new master contact you immediately to renegotiate your peace treaty with him. If you reach and agreement, then the war with his vassal is over, otherwise the master declares war on you.
Oh, I also think that in diplomacy (perhaps only when negotiating peace treaties), you should be able to demand that a civ free a vassal, and that you should be able to sign a separate peace treaty with he vassal requiring that he declare war on his master (assuming he meets the normal requirements if he was a capitulated vassal). It would also be nice if you could demand that they liberate cities either to the civ with the most culture there or as a new colony.
I still think that the irrational requirements of having 2+ cities and of being on a separate landmass need to be removed. I'd like it if Colonies instead only required that their cultural borders not be contiguous with the rest of your civ (possibly liberating all the cities whose borders are contiguous with each other but not the capital as a colony.) I would also be ok with making it so that you can liberate any single city (only one at a time, but then you could liberate/gift other cities to them)
O yeah, also you should be able to gift cities to anyone, including your vassals. Why is it you can only liberate certain cities to them? I'm not suggesting you be able to liberate your entire empire to them for a huge diplomatic boost, just that you should be able to gift a city the old fashioned way without the boost if it isn't eligible for liberation
Oh, I also think that in diplomacy (perhaps only when negotiating peace treaties), you should be able to demand that a civ free a vassal, and that you should be able to sign a separate peace treaty with he vassal requiring that he declare war on his master (assuming he meets the normal requirements if he was a capitulated vassal). It would also be nice if you could demand that they liberate cities either to the civ with the most culture there or as a new colony.
I still think that the irrational requirements of having 2+ cities and of being on a separate landmass need to be removed. I'd like it if Colonies instead only required that their cultural borders not be contiguous with the rest of your civ (possibly liberating all the cities whose borders are contiguous with each other but not the capital as a colony.) I would also be ok with making it so that you can liberate any single city (only one at a time, but then you could liberate/gift other cities to them)
O yeah, also you should be able to gift cities to anyone, including your vassals. Why is it you can only liberate certain cities to them? I'm not suggesting you be able to liberate your entire empire to them for a huge diplomatic boost, just that you should be able to gift a city the old fashioned way without the boost if it isn't eligible for liberation
Roghar
Warlord
I think its reasonable to inherit their wars. I also think its reasonable that if I am attacking a civ with a couple of allies, who all want a share of the spoils, they might not be too happy just to let me have everything!
I seem to recall the americans and russians didn't get along too well after their WWII alliance, its no unusual for allies to fall out after the immediate enemy is vanquished
My pet hate is when you are going along just swimmingly wiping out an enemy, they suddenly become vassals of your largest opponnet, who suddenly swoops on you with your armies all on teh offensive. Not that I think its wrong mind you, its a great opoprtunity for that civ to take, it just drives me nuts
I seem to recall the americans and russians didn't get along too well after their WWII alliance, its no unusual for allies to fall out after the immediate enemy is vanquished
My pet hate is when you are going along just swimmingly wiping out an enemy, they suddenly become vassals of your largest opponnet, who suddenly swoops on you with your armies all on teh offensive. Not that I think its wrong mind you, its a great opoprtunity for that civ to take, it just drives me nuts
xienwolf
Deity
No matter what happens to their war after becoming Vassal, I'd just like to have a chance to see their diplomatic Status when they contact Me to ask if they can be my vassal. First couple times I did accept I immediately declared war on 3 civs!
Needless to say, I turned off the option after that, and now that I leave it on again I still have yet to accept a request.
Needless to say, I turned off the option after that, and now that I leave it on again I still have yet to accept a request.
You can see their diplomatic status, just open the foreign advisor. But it would be better if it was shown in the diplomacy window when they make the offer.
onedreamer
Dragon
ehm, this doesn't make much sense.
You offer them protection and for this reason their enemies should make peace with them, and then if they want to continue their wars declare on you and your vassal together. Ponderately. Because right now the AI doesn't know what they're doing.
More technically, it is as if they joined your team, not viceversa, so it should be THEM to declare to your enemies, not you to declare to theirs. In fact Warlords/BtS correctly works like this.
Also, most likely it is not in the capabilities of your vassal wannabe to stop their current wars, because they are probably loosing and asking you to become their Master in order to end their wars and save them.
Well right their you are wrong.
A capitulated vassal would indeed be a state who agrees to surrender without condition but retains its sovereignty. A non-capitulating vassal is a state seeking protection, even if you were a former enemy.
You may not like it but I'll cite a well known historical vassalage. When Germany trounced through Belgium on its way to France it forced Britain to declare war on Germany. Belgium was never under the thumb of the greater nation but the greater nation was offering its protection for a few choice incentives.
Likewise, if they aren't capitulating to you and you agree to accept vassalage you agree to fight all there wars for them. If someone else is keen on taking their land with a military force running rampant through out the countryside you are now bound to go and destroy that military force. The whole "Oh I'm sorry I'm not protecting them, will you please stop killing them?" thing just doesn't work.
So either destroy them, capitulate them or choose carefully when you vassal.
Actually, I'm not wrong. You might just misunderstand what a vassal state is. What you are describing is European balance of power treaties in the 20th Century. Struggling with the relatively new concepts of nationalism and the additional power that came with it led to the hostilities of WWI. To prevent this from happening again, treaties were formed that were supposed to keep the peace. "If you declare war on one of our allies, we will be forced to declare war on you along with all of our friends." This arrangement was a little like the mutually assured destruction the kept the Cold War from heating up, although it failed as you point out with your example of Belgium and England. National treaties of modern nations are not the same thing as vassal states of the middle ages.
A vassal state is a feudalist method of making one lord the master of another. The vassal state becomes a count or a duke while his lord is a king or an emperor. Other nobles of that era understood that the lesser lord was a vassal and would respect that. Declaring war on a vassal was the same as declaring war on his lord. The closest modern equavelnt to this relationship between lord and vassal is in Mafia orgainzations where "Guido is Tony's man. As long as Tony is his master, nothing happens to Guido."
Diplomacy in the game should reflect that. When a civ becomes a vassal state, it should adopt the diplomatic state of his master (at least as far as wars are concerned). Other civs will still like or dislike the vassal, but if they declare war on him, it should be based on whether or not they respect the lord. The diplomatic modifier that is in vanila BTS ("our enemy is your vassal -2 or -3") is enough to reflect the strained relations that come along with accepting a vassal. Instantly declaring war on a longtime ally that has +30 diplomacy is both unrealistic and not much fun from a gameplay standpoint.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
Mesix is correct, except of course that people aren't perfect and they often went beyond their authority/refused to fulfill their duties. It wasn't particularly uncommon for a master to largely ignore a vassal, or for a vassal to try to usurp power from his master. Also, while the practice was officially disdained, many vassals often had several different masters, who were often each other's enemies. And since this was Feudalism, many vassals often fought against other vassals of the same master. Masters often tried to stop this, but weren't often successful (some may even have liked it, since it kept their vassals in fighting shape, and prevented them from forming alliances against their lord)
xienwolf
Deity
That was my point, it is a desire for when the offer window is opened between your turns and you cannot access the Foreign Advisor. I seldom pay enough attention to other people's wars.
But you can access the foreign advisor (and all other advisors) when the AI contact you.
Except typos....
Speaking of Vassals. Shaeim and Infernal became Vassals for Elohim.
I'm Kuriorates so I was Order buddies with Elohim. Sha and Infernal were AV.
Sidar summoned Basium. Basium obviously wants to fight Hyborem but in doing so brings on the wrath of the Elohim. It was a truly tricky situation. Elohim, guardians of all that is good were protecting the AV.
Speaking of Vassals. Shaeim and Infernal became Vassals for Elohim.
I'm Kuriorates so I was Order buddies with Elohim. Sha and Infernal were AV.
Sidar summoned Basium. Basium obviously wants to fight Hyborem but in doing so brings on the wrath of the Elohim. It was a truly tricky situation. Elohim, guardians of all that is good were protecting the AV.
Similar threads
- Locked
