Best Strategies to Avoid AI Vassaling to War Ally or Peace Vassaling?

[Plains-Cow]

On my recent game (lost it), I'm playing as Catherine of Russia and have two vassals. I'm trying to wrap up a war quickly against Shaka who was already at war (he DOW'd Sitting Bull) before then swinging my forces around to attack the culture leader (Pacal). I have plenty of time to do so, and plan on ending the game after capping Pacal, but before I can finish the war with Shaka, he vassals to Sitting Bull and not me! I took city after city, checking each turn to see if Shaka would vassal, but he'd always say "refuses to talk!" My army was stuck super-deep in Shaka's territory with ZERO open borders. Railroads, transports, nothing matters because I can't move this army out of the city with Zulu culture all around it. Shaka had one city left before vassaling to Sitting Bull; he never would even speak with me. By the time I put together another force, Pacal's cities have had enough culture in them to push borders so far away from his cities that it was impossible to make it to the last cultural city in time.

I've lost other games too (ironcially to Shaka) because war allies have vassaled to him almost immediately after making peace (not same turn; I'm saying that a non-vassal war ally of mine would make peace and then would vassal to our mutual war enemy two or three turns later). The worst part is often they'd only lose one city or one battle before suing for peace and then vassaling a few turns later. Actually, that's not even the worst part. The worst part is when I have taken cities off of our mutual war enemy but then my ally still vassals to them after making peace! That's brutal!

In short, what can I do to possibly stop this or at least reduce the chances of it happening? I get that the AI has personalities and that they don't always "play-to-win," but it makes no sense that I have crushed enemy stacks and have taken multiple enemy cities yet they refuse to even consider vassaling to me...but will vassal to someone who has had zero comparative success against them in war!

Help a confused cow out?

 

[Thrasybulos]

In short, what can I do to possibly stop this

Sorry, I'll see myself out...

(That said, that kind of BS is one of the reasons I've never played with Vassal States on, and don't intend to ever do.
Hopefully, others can provide a more insightful answer. )

 

[Plains-Cow]

View attachment 749767

Sorry, I'll see myself out...

(That said, that kind of BS is one of the reasons I've never played with Vassal States on, and don't intend to ever do.
Hopefully, others can provide a more insightful answer. )

I've heavily considered trying a few games sooner rather than later without vassals. I just like how they can speed up a conquest victory on some maps. Still, I think that it might be worth trying them off a few times to avoid the inter-turn vassaling to someone who's not taking any cities or winning many battles.

 

[Fippy]

From what i remember, they always refuse to talk for some turns after you declare war.
That period gets longer if you re-declare (somewhat countering cease fire tricks).

Declaring earlier (even if you are not ready with your units yet) can get around that problem.
Sometimes they will talk faster after losing many units..sometimes they refuse again after winning fights themselves

Peace vassals happen when they border each other, and one has a much higher power rating (as seen in Survivor..check power Sullla? ).
Relations must also be at a certain level..Kai included that here: know your enemy
Gandhi example: Will possibly peace vassal to human player: Cautious

 

[a pen-dragon]

If you are really paranoid, you can beg from any AI you are not at war with to enforce a peace treaty. Then they can not take someone as a vassal that is at war with you, while the forced peace lasts. Also buy "allies" out of wars against weak opponents that might vassal.

IIRC this does not work for the civ (peace-)vassaling to someone else.

My army was stuck super-deep in Shaka's territory with ZERO open borders.

Well, if they do not want open borders they surely want a war, do they not? (Declare a war to get your units out. Ideally SB will sign peace after killing a few units and you might take that last Shaka city.)

 

[Plains-Cow]

From what i remember, they always refuse to talk for some turns after you declare war.
That period gets longer if you re-declare (somewhat countering cease fire tricks).

Declaring earlier (even if you are not ready with your units yet) can get around that problem.
Sometimes they will talk faster after losing many units..sometimes they refuse again after winning fights themselves

Peace vassals happen when they border each other, and one has a much higher power rating (as seen in Survivor..check power Sullla? ).
Relations must also be at a certain level..Kai included that here: know your enemy
Gandhi example: Will possibly peace vassal to human player: Cautious

Tragically, I crushed Shaka's armies and took cities while Sitting Bull took none and didn't participate in any sieges. I suppose SB could have killed a lot of his units, but I can assure you my power level was higher than SB's at the time. I also only declared one war. One of my vassals was Frederick. He capped nearly instantly after losing a few border cities. The other was Napoleon. He took longer, but capped eventually. Shaka was riding on his last city and refused to even talk.

The peace vassal thing doesn't bother me so much in principle. The issue I have is an AI will declare (say Shaka vs. Isabella), I will join the war against Shaka, after capturing Shaka cities, Isabella will peace out, then become a vassal of Shaka despite not being significantly smaller and having me as a war ally. I get that there might be some code, it just feeeeeels so un-intuitive and wrong for your war ally to cap to their aggressor after signing peace (again, not same-turn vassal as a result of a treaty) after losing a few units while you're still crushing their enemy.

I suppose my real question is how can I predict this happening in the future so that I can avoid it before it happens? It's the only thing that really screws with my wars most times (AI losing badly to me vassaling to a war ally who's doing comparatively nothing). Is it all in that guide, or do the AI have a bias for vassaling to one another? I had that Immortal game in the bag.

If you are really paranoid, you can beg from any AI you are not at war with to enforce a peace treaty. Then they can not take someone as a vassal that is at war with you, while the forced peace lasts. Also buy "allies" out of wars against weak opponents that might vassal.

IIRC this does not work for the civ (peace-)vassaling to someone else.


Well, if they do not want open borders they surely want a war, do they not? (Declare a war to get your units out. Ideally SB will sign peace after killing a few units and you might take that last Shaka city.)

If I bribed SB out of the war with a tech, Shaka wouldn't be able to vassal to him because SB and I would have an enforced peace though, correct?

 

[a pen-dragon]

If I bribed SB out of the war with a tech, Shaka wouldn't be able to vassal to him because SB and I would have an enforced peace though, correct?

If you have enforced peace with SB that would be the case. However, bribing him out of the war not lead to enforced peace between you. It will lead to enforced peace between Shaka and SB, which I believe is not relevant here.

I suppose my real question is how can I predict this happening in the future so that I can avoid it before it happens?

In the end, you have to check the diplo matrix and see if a peace-vassal is possible.

IIRC this does not work for the civ (peace-)vassaling to someone else.

Apparently this is wrong? According to this thread a civ can not peace-vassal if it would break enforced peace. (Also you can find a discussion of the mechanics in that thread.)

 

[Henrik75]

While you are at war with the target, another AI can only accept the target as a vassal if they can already be bribed on you. This won't happen if they're already at war/plotting.

Once I learned this it rarely became an issue for me; you can swap religion/civics etc to manipulate diplo for emergencies like this; or even bribe in whoever's a danger into the war so they can't vassal them(for a bit).

What you do need to watch out for though is peace vassaling when no ones at war with them; as they'll do it instantly soon as they get the chance. be careful with cease fires etc.

The only time that peace vassaling really bothers me is when pacal or huayna sit in the corner with 5-6 cities because they built temple of artemis, and then vassal to some big 10 city sury or suleiman or something, then you have a serious problem. Those are bad luck and make for a really tough game for no reason.

 

[sampsa]

Exactly what Henrik says. Understand how it works, pay some attention and it becomes a non-issue.

 

[Fippy]

Can also beg for 10t peace from AIs they might vassal to.
Like..you are at war with Pacal who likes big Shaka.
If you now beg succesfully from Shaka, Pacal cannot peace vassal to him for 10t
Cos Shaka cannot declare war on you.

 

[Plains-Cow]

I understand. Does bullying an AI for gold if they're cautious also work?

Typically before a war I beg for gold from everyone around me to avoid getting counter-DOW'd from a bribe and to avoid sudden vassaling. However, I did not to that with SB this time because I thought that since SB and I were war allies and I was doing so well against Shaka that SB couldn't vassal Shaka and that the Zulus would talk at some point, which they simply never did. I did beg for gold from Pacal who was pleased with me. Should have hit him first anyway. Wanted to be cheeky with getting close to the culture win but flew too close to the sun.

 

[Fippy]

I understand. Does bullying an AI for gold if they're cautious also work?

Yup.

 

[Henrik75]

yes, peace vassalling follows all peace treaties. AP forced treaty, begging, demanding, saying sure always happy to help...

 

[Plains-Cow]

yes, peace vassalling follows all peace treaties. AP forced treaty, begging, demanding, saying sure always happy to help...

Exactly what Henrik says. Understand how it works, pay some attention and it becomes a non-issue.

Do you know the reasons why the AI refuses to vassal to a player who owns their capital and multiple other cities ("We're doing fine on our own."), but then will vassal to another AI they aren't at war with on the inter-turn? I had that happen to me as well in the past. I get that I didn't beg/bully-out their new master beforehand in this scenario, but that also never made sense to me. Is it a power graph check, or is it how much they like one another? Again, I am aware that to prevent it I need to beg/bully gold, but I am wondering why it is how it is.

 

[drewisfat]

Land target status doubles the threshhold at which they'll vassalize. Usually that's the dominant factor. https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/land-target-and-manipulating-the-ai.561148/

As a result, it's often better to attack an AI from a potential overlord's side. That way you're breaking their land target status while preserving your own borders. Somewhat counterintuitively, conquering in an otherwise rational manner can cost you land target status while cities are revolting and cultural borders are changing. This is probably what happened in your game: by desperately trying to finish Shaka off you made it inevitable that he vassalized to someone else.

 

[Plains-Cow]

Land target status doubles the threshhold at which they'll vassalize. Usually that's the dominant factor. https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/land-target-and-manipulating-the-ai.561148/

As a result, it's often better to attack an AI from a potential overlord's side. That way you're breaking their land target status while preserving your own borders. Somewhat counterintuitively, conquering in an otherwise rational manner can cost you land target status while cities are revolting and cultural borders are changing. This is probably what happened in your game: by desperately trying to finish Shaka off you made it inevitable that he vassalized to someone else.

That's an outstanding thread. Will read it an implement it. Crazy how more of this info isn't present in the game itself. Would make much more sense out of things that would otherwise seem intuitively true but are wrong when assuming what would cause capitulation to the player faster.

This is not meant to be universal, but as an example:

A=my civ, B=civ I want to vassal, C=third party

Borders are:
ABC

I would be better off attacking civ B from the territory of civ C because it shrinks the number of tiles touching civ B from civ C while maximizing (at least 8 is the goal) my tiles touching civ B's tiles for faster capping?

 

[drewisfat]

Yes, assuming C hit the diplo checks to be B's master. Now there's also the truce trick, and if you can time that smartly it may be better to attack from your side. Or you can do a hybrid approach depending on the geometry, start on your side but be sure to knock out land target before they're weak enough to vassal.

Where attacking from the opposite side becomes more standard is when you don't seek to vassalize B. I get that generally vassalizing is better, but exceptions exist. The biggest one is if you want to draft from cities you're conquering you need to wipe out the master's culture (or wait a long time). Vassalizing is also weaker if there's NTT, if you need them for trade routes, if you're ORG or Charlemagne, if you're trying to win domination on a 5-civ continent, etc. If I'm trying to wipe out a civ entirely for these reasons, I will attack from C's side, because I need to save the 10-turn truce beg for when B is very small (2-4 cities), at which point they're a threat to vassalize to anyone who hits the diplo check, land target or not.

 

[Plains-Cow]

Yes, assuming C hit the diplo checks to be B's master. Now there's also the truce trick, and if you can time that smartly it may be better to attack from your side. Or you can do a hybrid approach depending on the geometry, start on your side but be sure to knock out land target before they're weak enough to vassal.

Where attacking from the opposite side becomes more standard is when you don't seek to vassalize B. I get that generally vassalizing is better, but exceptions exist. The biggest one is if you want to draft from cities you're conquering you need to wipe out the master's culture (or wait a long time). Vassalizing is also weaker if there's NTT, if you need them for trade routes, if you're ORG or Charlemagne, if you're trying to win domination on a 5-civ continent, etc. If I'm trying to wipe out a civ entirely for these reasons, I will attack from C's side, because I need to save the 10-turn truce beg for when B is very small (2-4 cities), at which point they're a threat to vassalize to anyone who hits the diplo check, land target or not.

Sometimes (more often than not, actually) I need to beg/bully 10g off the AI before starting the war because I land border someone who declares at pleased and I don't want to have someone bribed in against me. I have tried that staggered beg before though, and it can work well when absorbing another CIV. I am a big fan of drafting; I just won my last game with it.

However, take a look at THESE borders for land target vassaling. I know that diagonals count, but this shoreline and inner-lake stuff was brutal this map:

Spoiler :

 

[ArchGhost]

In short, what can I do to possibly stop this or at least reduce the chances of it happening? I get that the AI has personalities and that they don't always "play-to-win," but it makes no sense that I have crushed enemy stacks and have taken multiple enemy cities yet they refuse to even consider vassaling to me...but will vassal to someone who has had zero comparative success against them in war!

The AI has preferences between human vs other AI. It tends to show bias toward attacking the human player when in a multi-front war, for instance. Not sure if this is a factor in this specific instance but I wouldn't be surprised.

As for a mutual enemy capitulating to your ally and not you, well even though I didn't know any of the Kaitzilla experimental stuff that drew posted, I know from being in the same shoes many times that the AI ticks the boxes for capitulating (size/pop threshold, war success requirement) much more easily against other AIs because they are stupid and burn up their units on each other while being very slow to take cities. Human conquest tends to focus on quickly and efficiently taking cities and thus pop+territory off the AI as rapidly as feasible, especially when fishing for that quick cap (at this point you'd pretty much be just waiting out the "Refuses to talk" timer, having long since ticked the boxes for cap requirements after a handful of city captures).

In my games at least, I also win by less margin of units with each capture (i.e. I lose almost as many units as were killed in taking it) which can make it harder to get the war success threshold compared to a big AI that fully bombards+collaterals every city. War success is a tug of war match, and when every engagement is mutually bloody, it may be harder to hit that +40 net even with city captures. It is possible (and I have done it a lot) to never get the option to cap them until they are almost completely dead, if they fight back hard enough or you are meat grinding so hard. As an aside, this happens a lot with warmongers because they tend to resist capping more and many of them are unit spammers too.

AIs take potshots at each other constantly, pick off roaming units, slam their stacks into each other's, suicide against impossible odds because they don't think outside of reducing city defense, etc. that allows a more powerful/technologically advanced AI to easily get the war success they need even without multiple city captures (or any, if they are already big enough). This can lead to a situation with an ally where as you as a human player reduce the size and pop of the mutual target through fast city captures, bringing it down to the disparity threshold of your ally, they just instantly tap out. I've seen several times AIs cap each other with zero city exchanges just because one of them was already so much bigger when the war started the vassal just capped out after a single major unit exchange...sometimes not even that.


To prevent peace-vassal DOWs on yourself, just look at potential masters of the target and their potential war status with you. A DOW due to peace-vassal is the exact same thing as a bribe-in --the little guy trades himself as a vassal for the DOW...and the AI will ALWAYS take this deal if they can, mechanically (makes Aggressive AI with Vassals On pretty powder-keggy)-- so if they can't war with you diplomatically (attitude/power) or due to treaty/war/plotting they won't accept the vassal and come in on you. The same dirty tricks to keep a nasty bribe-in away (beg gold, bribe someone else on the potential master, etc) stop it.

I've gotten so grumpy about the vassal mechanics in this game that I will often try to force unilateral wars with my target this way, especially if I want to vassal them at a useful size. More often than not I just end up killing off the first AI unless I need a critical buffer state.