Easy (?) way to make vassals more useful

Koshling

Vorlon
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
9,254
A few versions ago there was a long discussion about whether to take vassals, and it turned out that most human players never (or rarely) do, basically because they don't do much for you apart from boosting sore, but can be a diplomatic liability.

How about (assuming assimilation is turned on) if having a vassal gave you their base-culture (the regional one - African, European, etc.) much as conquering a city would? That would provide solid strategic reasons to take vassals on, as well as making a deal of sense (a long term vassalage relation would almost certainly be accompanied by a degree of migration).

Incidentally, if a captured civilian could remember its origin, settling it might also provide the base culture that it originated from (or in that case, perhaps a chance of doing so would be more balanced)
 
Maybe your vassal could weigh in the trade network stuff. It could weigh heavily in determining preferred trade network and be more lucrative than ordinary ones.
 
Maybe your vassal could weigh in the trade network stuff. It could weigh heavily in determining preferred trade network and be more lucrative than ordinary ones.

And subsequently would enhance the cultural influence blending between the two nations. If we worked it right, if a third party cultural ruler rose to power in either region and much of both nations were strongly aligned with the culture of that new leader, the two nations could end up in a merge scenario that would usually be to the benefit of the (previously) master nation.

But seriously, if we want to make the vassal system enjoyable to have in play, we have to keep nations that are losing in war from being able to capitulate to a nation its not at war with.
 
How about (assuming assimilation is turned on) if having a vassal gave you their base-culture (the regional one - African, European, etc.) much as conquering a city would? That would provide solid strategic reasons to take vassals on, as well as making a deal of sense (a long term vassalage relation would almost certainly be accompanied by a degree of migration).

That is what the vassal wonder Topkapi Palace is supposed to do but I never got it working.
 
How about (assuming assimilation is turned on) if having a vassal gave you their base-culture (the regional one - African, European, etc.) much as conquering a city would? That would provide solid strategic reasons to take vassals on, as well as making a deal of sense (a long term vassalage relation would almost certainly be accompanied by a degree of migration).

Even share the others culture can be good.
In my actual game, it would be great if I can share Clockpung and if my vassal can share Japan Culture...
Some "In all your cities" thing can be good to share too. My vassal have the wonder giving free Market, and... It can be useful.
 
the original Vassal sytem IRL (Medieval times) the Vassal was of equal Tech of their lord maybe a Vassal should join your team? if i am not mistaken that solves the whole Tradegood issue as well (i rarely have a game with another Human)
 
the original Vassal sytem IRL (Medieval times) the Vassal was of equal Tech of their lord maybe a Vassal should join your team? if i am not mistaken that solves the whole Tradegood issue as well (i rarely have a game with another Human)

What does being "on the same team" mean anyway.
 
When you start a game you can select teams. A team shares all research, diplomacy, war statuses, and some wonder effects all throughout the game. I don't know if a team can form or break up during a game currently - I suspect not. It is NOT the grouping that is formed when capitulation takes place.
 
Why can't vassals be realistic? I feel that we should implement a new "vassal policy" mechanic- we should be able to demand a certain amount of their income per turn (their ACTUAL income; not including their expenses, so we should be able to do this even if their income is below zero- all trade should work like this), or perhaps science, specialists, slaves, population, units (the master could demand that they build them if they don't have what it wants), setting unit quotas for their own armies, dictating precisely when they should attack enemy cities (again, this should be done with all war allies), demanding intelligence information, etc. In addition, I think that we could institute "reforms" in their own empire, changing their civics at will and perhaps forcefully putting a certain amount of the master's culture in each of their cities.

I'm also thinking that there could be a "loyalty meter" in each of the vassal's cities that would dictate how loyal that city would be to us irrelevant of the leader's attitude, such as refusing to cooperate with taxation or revolting. A city revolting would lead to other cities refusing to acknowledge the master's authority and revolting themselves (whereas crushing a revolt will buy you some extra stability), and the vassal's leader might eventually decide to save his empire and withdraw from your vassalship even at the risk of war. And yes, you would have jurisdiction in those cities to send in your units to maintain order without actually annexing them (if you wished to betray your vassal, you could, though). You might even want to keep permanent garrisons there in order to prevent revolts in the first place (although this might have loyalty penalties for that city in the long term).

Perhaps propaganda buildings (public school, radio towers, monuments) might be constructed in those cities at your orders, which would hurt loyalty initially but improve it over the long run and also increase your culture there. If you had a vassal for long enough and had enough units and resources to enforce your agenda, its cities might decide to join yours, in effect annexing the entire civilization (this is how it's been done plenty of times in history- steady cultural assimilation).

So my scheme would basically make vassalship what it should be- giving you authority, military and economic strength, and strategic wherewithal without forcing you to conquer anything, but providing the risk of the vassal losing interest, becoming angry, not cooperating, or building up an army large enough to free itself or pose a threat to your own empire if you don't exert enough force over it. That's how it should have been from the beginning; vassals were always a half-baked mechanic in BTS.

Also, this has nothing to do with vassals, but would there be a way to stop culture from disappearing immediately after a civilization is conquered, creating temporary unhappiness and a risk of reemergence?

What do you think about all this? :please:
 
And subsequently would enhance the cultural influence blending between the two nations. If we worked it right, if a third party cultural ruler rose to power in either region and much of both nations were strongly aligned with the culture of that new leader, the two nations could end up in a merge scenario that would usually be to the benefit of the (previously) master nation.

But seriously, if we want to make the vassal system enjoyable to have in play, we have to keep nations that are losing in war from being able to capitulate to a nation its not at war with.

Actually, I feel that they should offer vassalship to its conqueror (the immediate threat) first, before finding other Civs that could help them.
 
Excellent ideas Mouthwash and yea the Vassalization thing should keep count of Warscore how much damage did the enemies do and the one with the most warscore is the only one able to claim Vassalization

that way even if you are out to complete and Utter annihilation they Cannot find a big brother to hide behind slithering like a snake "Master safe me, safe me" ending my war and buying them a couple of years of life
 
Actually, I feel that they should offer vassalship to its conqueror (the immediate threat) first, before finding other Civs that could help them.
There are multiple examples in real history which prove you wrong. The beginning of WWII, just to name one of them. Or the first desert storm.
 
Is there a reason why I can't give vassals cities? Not sure how accurate giving vassals cities would be...but, I don't see why that wouldn't be an option. Do they build settlers on their own?
 
Is there a reason why I can't give vassals cities? Not sure how accurate giving vassals cities would be...but, I don't see why that wouldn't be an option. Do they build settlers on their own?

You can give vassals cities but their culture must be present or they must be the only vassal you have on the continent. Also if you have a colony on the continent you can only give cities to the colony not to a vassal.
 
Ah okay, so its better to only have one vassal per continent? If so, I'm guessing it would be wise to merge my 2nd vassal into my empire, once they ask? I already turned down my 1st vassal, but now I kinda wish I brought him in since I would rather have my 2nd vassal be my main one. I'm guessing no way to go back on that (no save goes back that far, and dunno when I did) and merge my 1st vassal? I told him permanently no, but I didn't know how it worked.
 
There are multiple examples in real history which prove you wrong. The beginning of WWII, just to name one of them. Or the first desert storm.

Are you insinuating that Kuwait is a Vassal of the US???

Nothing is more frustrating than suddenly having a bigger war thanks to this one mechanism - and if played with, it happens every single time you try to eliminate an opponent. Not cool at all.
 
Are you insinuating that Kuwait is a Vassal of the US???

Nothing is more frustrating than suddenly having a bigger war thanks to this one mechanism - and if played with, it happens every single time you try to eliminate an opponent. Not cool at all.

Yeah, I don't really understand what he was trying to say either. There's a difference between becoming a vassal and asking other countries for help (desert storm) / allying with other countries but NOT giving up independence (defensive pact Poland/France/GB in WW2).

Regarding you second point, isn't it currently this way that if a civ you're currently at war with becomes a vassal of another civ, you automatically declare peace? But on the other hand, if a civ approaches you to become your vassal, you automatically declare war on their current opponents?
This in my opinion is one of the greatest flaws of the system. If an AI accepts a vassal,it should be willing to go to war with you as well, and it should think very hard about it if it's actually worth it. I assume most times it won't be, which would immediately solve that current problem.

And if the AI decides to accept the vassal AND go to war, it would make the game just more realistic IMO (i.e. "you don't like them, we don't like them, so we accept your plead and together we will crush those insects from the earth! (In return we will rob you of your independence and strip you of all your resources, but let's not talk about that just yet, ok?)").


Overall, I would love to see a more sophisticated adaption of the vassalage system, much more than eg multi map support. It's just so lacking at the moment (actually, the idea to add that AI to your team sounds like a great starting point, although I have never played with teams so far).
 
Back
Top Bottom