Not when it comes to defensive response in case of war declaration. In this regard, they are the same.
To some degree. But the conditions under which alliances are formed and break and vassalage is formed and cease are different. And it can be relevant in different cases.
Also, how about this scenario for instance: if vassal asked for a promise not to attack them, but suzerain feels that he is going to lose control over vassal very very soon, he also can (and should be able to) ask for a promise not to attack them.
And, as far as i know, AI perceives differently when it comes to who asked for "not attacking". If its vassal - it might not affect much, but if it suzerain - AI might react differently.
 
Last edited:
This just leads back to permanent promise again.
 
Now I'm a bit confused: Are you talking about vassals who ask the master not to attack them? I've never experienced anything like that, and I've had plenty of them
 
Had a situation today that I haven't experienced before. I was Master of Austria and at a very inopportune moment she requested to be released from vassalage, and my only options were to grant it to her- ending vassalage, or declare war. No option to turn her down, or to have her declare war on me. I always play warmonger so i'm used to having vassals. They've declared war on me, denounced me, etc, but never asked to be released and have me forced to choose between those alternatives. I really hated that.
 
I don't mind the forced war, what I dislike is if I give them a spanking too quickly I'm unable to revassallize (is that a word) until an arbitrary amount of turns has passed. I think if they sue for peace after trying to break free then it should automatically go back to a vassal state. Basically quenching an uprising. But, I either have to completely destroy them or make peace and they get independence anyway which defeats the whole purpose of teaching them respect as the game says. I feel there should be no turn limit whatsoever if the vassal fails at war.
 
Now I'm a bit confused: Are you talking about vassals who ask the master not to attack them? I've never experienced anything like that, and I've had plenty of them
I think they mean vassals who ask a (civ not their vassal) to not attack them. I've never experienced this
 
Had a situation today that I haven't experienced before. I was Master of Austria and at a very inopportune moment she requested to be released from vassalage, and my only options were to grant it to her- ending vassalage, or declare war. No option to turn her down, or to have her declare war on me. I always play warmonger so i'm used to having vassals. They've declared war on me, denounced me, etc, but never asked to be released and have me forced to choose between those alternatives. I really hated that.
The scenario you've never experienced is common in my games. How do vassals literally declare war on you (as you mention)? I have no idea how else they do it.
 
The scenario you've never experienced is common in my games. How do vassals literally declare war on you (as you mention)? I have no idea how else they do it.
Well they can just declare on you outright (might be a certain amount of turns after becoming vassals, not sure). Unless you are deep into the game and go Authoritarianism and choose the relevant policy that prevents vassals declaring or being liberated. What I haven't had before is them giving me an ultimatum, either liberate them or declare war. I feel it's ridiculous for them to force ME to declare war. If they want to rebel that's one thing, but why should I have to incur the diplo penalty of declaring on them? It's not really a big deal, but annoying. Maybe I haven't experienced that before because of playing on lower difficulties? I had to go back to Prince for a bit but now i'm playing on King and that's getting too easy also. Maybe on King and above, they are more likely to present that choice.
 
Well they can just declare on you outright (might be a certain amount of turns after becoming vassals, not sure). Unless you are deep into the game and go Authoritarianism and choose the relevant policy that prevents vassals declaring or being liberated. What I haven't had before is them giving me an ultimatum, either liberate them or declare war. I feel it's ridiculous for them to force ME to declare war. If they want to rebel that's one thing, but why should I have to incur the diplo penalty of declaring on them? It's not really a big deal, but annoying. Maybe I haven't experienced that before because of playing on lower difficulties? I had to go back to Prince for a bit but now i'm playing on King and that's getting too easy also. Maybe on King and above, they are more likely to present that choice.
What if there's an option to just deny their request and then leave it in their hands to accept the rebuke or do something about it. Of course, the option to just DOW on them would be available too. Advanced options would be to negotiate taxes or some other kind of concession that would make both sides comfortable with the vassalage again. That might be too much, but the basic 3 options of: Yes, try to earn it if you dare, or DOW should be minimum in my opinion.
 
What if there's an option to just deny their request and then leave it in their hands to accept the rebuke or do something about it. Of course, the option to just DOW on them would be available too. Advanced options would be to negotiate taxes or some other kind of concession that would make both sides comfortable with the vassalage again. That might be too much, but the basic 3 options of: Yes, try to earn it if you dare, or DOW should be minimum in my opinion.
Yeah, that's what I would prefer. At least have it be them who DoW if nothing else.
 
Same with when a civ asks for a promise not to attack them.
I don't see why I should be forced to DoW them. If I refuse a promise, it's them that should DoW me if they so choose, or just live with it and fortify their border.
I'd also love an option to disable these promises altogether.
 
Same with when a civ asks for a promise not to attack them.
I don't see why I should be forced to DoW them. If I refuse a promise, it's them that should DoW me if they so choose, or just live with it and fortify their border.
I'd also love an option to disable these promises altogether.
The promise not to attack them is to prevent you from cheesing them by setting up perfectly on their border and then launching the attack when you are perfectly positioned to your liking.
 
That's not cheese. The AI is perfectly capable of doing so.
 
Same with when a civ asks for a promise not to attack them.
I don't see why I should be forced to DoW them. If I refuse a promise, it's them that should DoW me if they so choose, or just live with it and fortify their border.
I'd also love an option to disable these promises altogether.
I full agree with this, either you promise and I think it last like 50 turns, way too long or you declare war from a suboptimal position and not being able to attack first. There should be a 3rd option, not making a promise but also not attacking.
 
Can we nerf inca ffs xd every gameplay he is dominating in every aspect
Considering that in the last AI analysis they're not even in the top 10 for win rate, I'd say that's not necessary.
It's most likely that their starting location allowed them to reach a powerful position, still there's ways to fight like, like the WC or military alliances.
 
Where can I see gold from ICC? I can find production ...
 

Attachments

  • 8930_20250712041340_1.png
    8930_20250712041340_1.png
    2.3 MB · Views: 141
  • 8930_20250712041350_1.png
    8930_20250712041350_1.png
    2.3 MB · Views: 144
I think it only shows when you hover over the connection icon. I think it should -- with current effects available -- always be the same as the production number?
 
Back
Top Bottom