I want to cancel the vassal states, damn it!

[GoldenWheels]

because if that were true then the only logical conclusion the other side should make everytime is to never become ur vassal. now u can program the computer to be dumb if u want. but IMO taking on the vassal should atleast have a veil of benefit for the other side.

Well, as someone already mentioned...these are wartime capitulations here. They're not doing it for a "benefit" ...merely as a last gambit to avoid total destruction. In fact, you are even more the "master" in these type of capitulations...yet you have less real game power than in a peacetime capitulation, as that one can be ended. Wartime....nope. Now thats silly.

Besides the fact that it really ISN'T the only logical conclusion anyway... because as far as safety from other nations...they still recieve total benefits of the vassalage whether the master can break it himself or not. If Freddy's worried about Wang Kon, he could still use my protection right? Regardless of whether I (as the MASTER) can break the agreement.

 

[yavoon]

Well, as someone already mentioned...these are wartime capitulations here. They're not doing it for a "benefit" ...merely as a last gambit to avoid total destruction. In fact, you are even more the "master" in these type of capitulations...yet you have less real game power than in a peacetime capitulation, as that one can be ended. Wartime....nope. Now thats silly.

Besides the fact that it really ISN'T the only logical conclusion anyway... because as far as safety from other nations...they still recieve total benefits of the vassalage whether the master can break it himself or not. If Freddy's worried about Wang Kon, he could still use my protection right? Regardless of whether I (as the MASTER) can break the agreement.

but he wont get ur protection because if anyone dangerous attacks u'll just break it and let him die.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Which is why it shoud be Breakable by the Master only if at peace and with a 10 turn delay.

Also that would provide a way to actually use vassals. You want to be my Vassal, pay 10 gpt for the benefit of having my army defend you. [or give me a tech for the guaranteed 10 turns of Vassalage.] In any case that could be renegotiated every 10 turns.

Capitulation of course is different, and there they need to either be strong enough to break it, or have your permission to turn it into a regular Vassalage (and then you can threaten to break it unless they provide you 10 gpt)

 

[Chin Too Phat]

Someone brought up a situation before about just burn the last city to the ground instead of accepting their capitulation. Well going on previous experience this does not work well either.

In every game I play if I go to wipe out an inferior civ it never fails that when they get down to one or two cities they offer to capitulate and I refuse. So they just go and whore themselves out to my powerful neighbor and bam instant war with a giant rival.

What is better is ya I can wipe out that last city but I have to deal with the 2457624652456 turns of we refuse to talk to you. So while my army is off in some frozen tundra trying to wipe out a final city my giant neighbor is bringing his stack of doom to pillage every improvement he can lay his hands on.

I was fighting tokugawa and I ran out of units to finish off his last city and he had one longbowman that had like .4 hitpoints left. Of course he becomes a vassel and I instantly get new war.

Why would any civ in their right mind get into a war to protect a civ that has nothing? I will tell you cause the cpu will cheat like that. Just like the same way if you start on an island with only one other civ they will never trade tech with you. It is like they are all playing together against you. One guy has to bite the bullit and suck while the rest zoom past the human player.

Vassal states need a big fix. And they need it now.

 

[Minmaster]

guys the patch will address some of these stupid vassal st./capitulation according to firaxian.

 

[wolfigor]

For example, my last game. I was buddies with Roosevelt most of the game. I went out of my way to keep him friendly. Then, out of no-where he decides to attack one of my vassals. WTH? Is he stupid? He didn't decide to attack ME, but that's de facto what happened.

Either the AI needs to be improved (in regard to the vassal relationship), or else you need to be alerted when certain things happen and you need to be able to cancel the relationship. Or both.

Your example is very good!
This is were things can be improved... now you can cancel a vassal agreement (capitulation) only if the vassal refuse to give you a resource.
This is too limiting!
There shall be other events that can allow you to cancel the vassalage agreement.

For example You are CIV A, CIV B is your vassal, CIV C an independant CIV (maybe friendly and powerful like in your example):
CIV C declare war on CIV B:
At this point, according to the vassal agreement, you are the protector of B and you should help B.

But you (CIV A) should have an option to refuse to help the vassal (CIV B), that will mean:
- Vassal threaty is cancelled
- CIV A gets a very bad diplomatic malus with CIV B
- CIV A gets a bad diplomatic malus with all the other CIVs (you are not trustworthy)
- The diplomatic malus will be lower (down to zero) if CIV A has agreements like mutual defence with CIV C.

 

[wolfigor]

Why would any civ in their right mind get into a war to protect a civ that has nothing?

Because a Vassal state agreement is a threaty you stipulated with an other CIV and you need to respect (like a defence agreement).

 

[GoldenWheels]

but he wont get ur protection because if anyone dangerous attacks u'll just break it and let him die.

When someone attacks your vassal, they also attack you....they declare war on both of you IIRC. So even if you can break the vassalage....you're still in a war. Breaking the vassalage in that case would actually hurt you IMO and be pretty pointless...you're giving up the benefits (albeit small ones) of a vassalage when you need them most. It's not like the computer is going to roll over and let you sue for peace, as they were most likely targeting your power (the bigger of the two nations) in the first place. And you can say "well, you don't have to really go and help if you dump the vassal"...but thats true of a vassalage relationship as well. Usually a token effort is enough anyway. Either way the opponent is attacking two targets, splitting forces, etc.

And as Krikkitone pointed out, making it a ten turn delay, much like a peace treaty, would help that immensely. Keeps the spirit intact and protects the vassal but leaves the master with some options. Or you could simply make a rule that vassalage can't be broken in wartime. All/any of these solutions seem better than creating a ridiculous arrangement where the vassal has more pull than the master. Any game balance issue that can be dealt with in game should be dealt with in game....not merely left out as a missing option. (also useful might be relations penalties, vassal revolts, and the loss of the master/vassal ability if you ever break a vassalage. Leaves you the option but gives you a real in game penalty.)

Anyway, I was told by a "Firaxian" on another vassalage thread that the real reason (which has nothing to do with "benefits") this option was left out to preserve game balance, to prevent people from using it as a "war, vassalize, rebuild, re-declare war" cycle on an enemy....and even this reason is pretty shoddy IMO. You can basically do the same thing with peace treaties now anyway, and any of the above suggestions would solve this problem easily...rather than leave a realistic option completely out of the game.

 

[yavoon]

When someone attacks your vassal, they also attack you....they declare war on both of you IIRC. So even if you can break the vassalage....you're still in a war. Breaking the vassalage in that case would actually hurt you IMO and be pretty pointless...you're giving up the benefits (albeit small ones) of a vassalage when you need them most. It's not like the computer is going to roll over and let you sue for peace, as they were most likely targeting your power (the bigger of the two nations) in the first place. And you can say "well, you don't have to really go and help if you dump the vassal"...but thats true of a vassalage relationship as well. Usually a token effort is enough anyway. Either way the opponent is attacking two targets, splitting forces, etc.

And as Krikkitone pointed out, making it a ten turn delay, much like a peace treaty, would help that immensely. Keeps the spirit intact and protects the vassal but leaves the master with some options. Or you could simply make a rule that vassalage can't be broken in wartime. All/any of these solutions seem better than creating a ridiculous arrangement where the vassal has more pull than the master. Any game balance issue that can be dealt with in game should be dealt with in game....not merely left out as a missing option. (also useful might be relations penalties, vassal revolts, and the loss of the master/vassal ability if you ever break a vassalage. Leaves you the option but gives you a real in game penalty.)

Anyway, I was told by a "Firaxian" on another vassalage thread that the real reason (which has nothing to do with "benefits") this option was left out to preserve game balance, to prevent people from using it as a "war, vassalize, rebuild, re-declare war" cycle on an enemy....and even this reason is pretty shoddy IMO. You can basically do the same thing with peace treaties now anyway, and any of the above suggestions would solve this problem easily...rather than leave a realistic option completely out of the game.

I like the comparison to peace/re-declare. both are cheesey and I'm glad in vassalage they dont let u do something that cheesey. if u dont want to have to defend ur vassals dont fricking take vassals. if u could dump ur vassals at a whim it'd just make the game that much dumber.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Why would any civ in their right mind get into a war to protect a civ that has nothing? I will tell you cause the cpu will cheat like that. Just like the same way if you start on an island with only one other civ they will never trade tech with you. It is like they are all playing together against you. One guy has to bite the bullit and suck while the rest zoom past the human player.

Vassal states need a big fix. And they need it now.

Who says that Civ has nothing to give them... perhaps it gave them a tech for thier protection. (this should be less likely once the AIs begin realizing that effect of taking on a Vassal with the Patch)

As for the Island... well I believe two AIs alone on an Island don't trade either. so its not cheating

Over all they are OK, its just the AI doesn't recognize the cost of taking on a Vassal (war with their good, strong friend ie you)


I do think that they should allow an 'easing out' of the Vassalage by the Master (during peace you can change it to a Temporary Vasslage (which will last for 10 turns because its new and then you can break it))

But it is a Treaty that you have to honor.

 

[GoldenWheels]

I like the comparison to peace/re-declare. both are cheesey and I'm glad in vassalage they dont let u do something that cheesey. if u dont want to have to defend ur vassals dont fricking take vassals. if u could dump ur vassals at a whim it'd just make the game that much dumber.

See IMO it should be basically a one time option with penalties steep enough that you really have to think about whether or not to do it. That gives the players a choice and more strategy without tying the master to a relationship that is generally worthless. I get saying "well don't do it then"....but if its a feature that people are going to AVOID....why even put it in? Vassals was pimped as a big addition to the game...not eactly living up to the hype.

(also, you seem to miss my point...it's not about wanting to defend them or not or any individual offshoot of the main Q--all of which are solvable IN GAME easily--it's about not having any option to break a vassalage as a master when you DO have an option to break a peacetime vassalge after a time period. Makes no sense. It would actually make more sense if it was the other way around, but to have one one way and one the other....pretty silly.)

As far as peace/re declare being cheesy...i somewhat agree...but considering a ten turn peace treaty could account for a LONG time depending on the era you're in, it really is pretty true to the real world, and a valid tactic. One hundred or five hundred years between wars really isn't unrealistic. Even 23 years for that matter.

 

[yavoon]

See IMO it should be basically a one time option with penalties steep enough that you really have to think about whether or not to do it. That gives the players a choice and more strategy without tying the master to a relationship that is generally worthless. I get saying "well don't do it then"....but if its a feature that people are going to AVOID....why even put it in? Vassals was pimped as a big addition to the game...not eactly livign up to the hype.

(also, you seem to miss my point...it's not about wanting to defend them or not or any individual offshoot of the main Q--all of which are solvable IN GAME easily--it's about not having any option to break a vassalage as a master when you DO have an option to break a peacetime vassalge after a time period. Makes no sense. It would actually make more sense if it was the other way around, but to have one one way and one the other....pretty silly.)

As far as peace/re declare being cheesy...i somewhat agree...but considering a ten turn peace treaty could account for a LONG time depending on the era you're in, it really is pretty true to the real world, and a valid tactic. One hundred or five hundred years between wars really isn't unrealistic. Even 23 years for that matter.

its not about unrealistic, its about cheesey. and I dont want vassalage to be another abusefest. if its hard to decide whether or not to take a vassal, thats a GOOD thing not a BAD thing.

 

[Yakk]

A Vassal state is something like a Territory or Province.

What maybe should be done is that Vassal states are not allowed to conduct diplomacy with other states while they are your Vassal. All inter-nation deals must be made through you.

Picking up a Vassal that some other nation really really hates should hurt your diplomatic status somewhat -- but another nation shouldn't be allowed to declair war on your Vassal. They should be forced to declair war on you.

 

[GoldenWheels]

its not about unrealistic, its about cheesey. and I dont want vassalage to be another abusefest. if its hard to decide whether or not to take a vassal, thats a GOOD thing not a BAD thing.

Oh, it's about "cheesey". I see. Excellent point. Carry on then.

IMO, due to the rigidity of the wartime vassal situation...it isn't hard at all to decide what you should do....as wartime capitualtion locks you into an virtual eternity of masterhood with little to no benefit and many drawbacks....theres very few situations when it is worth the effort at all. Going for a quicker domination victory is about the only one I can think of. Other than that...pretty much all negatives. Not much of a decision at all.

But when you throw the cheez in there, that changes everything.

 

[catorulz]

A Vassal state is something like a Territory or Province.

What maybe should be done is that Vassal states are not allowed to conduct diplomacy with other states while they are your Vassal. All inter-nation deals must be made through you.

Picking up a Vassal that some other nation really really hates should hurt your diplomatic status somewhat -- but another nation shouldn't be allowed to declair war on your Vassal. They should be forced to declair war on you.

Excellent suggestion. I don't like the idea of a vassal arrangement being that easy to break given the cheese factor of the get a vassal, regroup, cancel vassal and finish off former vassal scenario. I do like the idea of having more control of the capitulated vassal. Maybe they do their own research and make their own money but you get some portion of each (if they research a tech that you don't have, your research time is cut in half when you research it). Diplomacy should go through the master. Enemy nations could say, "We like you but hate your vassal so no trade" or "May we trade X for Y with your vassal?"

Remember Prima Nocte in Braveheart? You should be able to do pretty bad things to the capitulated vassal and there be nothing they can do (except attempt to revolt and kill you). I think of the capitulated vassal relationship as that of an unconditional surrender.

 

[yavoon]

Oh, it's about "cheesey". I see. Excellent point. Carry on then.

IMO, due to the rigidity of the wartime vassal situation...it isn't hard at all to decide what you should do....as wartime capitualtion locks you into an virtual eternity of masterhood with little to no benefit and many drawbacks....theres very few situations when it is worth the effort at all. Going for a quicker domination victory is about the only one I can think of. Other than that...pretty much all negatives. Not much of a decision at all.

But when you throw the cheez in there, that changes everything.

so besides winning the game quicker u see little benefit? ok.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

A Vassal state is something like a Territory or Province.

What maybe should be done is that Vassal states are not allowed to conduct diplomacy with other states while they are your Vassal. All inter-nation deals must be made through you.

Picking up a Vassal that some other nation really really hates should hurt your diplomatic status somewhat -- but another nation shouldn't be allowed to declair war on your Vassal. They should be forced to declair war on you.

As is it is fine, the AI just needs to realize what a Vassal is... Let them declare war on your Vassal as long as they Realize that will mean War with you.

A vassal is not a territory, a Territory is a City you Conquered that has a lot of foreign culture. (that is where Prima Nocte applies... which is why those people have an extra dose of unhappiness)

As it is it is similar to a 'Semi-Permanent Alliance' If the master had some way of eventually extricating themselves from Vassals, DURING PEACETIME, they could be improved.

As it is a Capitulation has two uses, if you are being Peaceful, it allows you to eliminate a potential threat quicker, and gives you UN votes. If you are being Militaristic it gets you closer to Conquest/Domination Quicker.

As long as the AIs understand it, they'll be fine.

 

[Zetetic Apparat]

But he wont get your protection because if anyone dangerous attacks him you'll just break it and let him die. [Ed. Fixed quite a lot.]

Unless you want to keep the benefits of the vassal or get vassals again in the near* future.

*By near, I mean quite near, not the 6000 years that the Civ III AI would hold a 2 turn war against you.

 

[GoldenWheels]

so besides winning the game quicker u see little benefit? ok.

Um...yeah. Cuz thats what I said right?

Your "point" was it was a tough decision as you had to weigh the benfits/drawbacks, and that that was a good thing....unless (as i already said in the previous post to yours...sheesh) you're going for a quicker domination victory, there is very little benefit. Once I pick a victory condition, I try to stick to it unless i have to switch. If you are going for domination, it is a benefit, and I said nothing about how big or little a benefit that aspect was. But there's very little thought in the process right now. Domination...its worth it. Otherwise...nope.

But, you know...it's so "cheesey" anyway. Thats obviously reason enough for you. Even though that aspect is easily solvable in game in a realistic fashion (as i have pointed out NUMEROUS times) rather than leave a fun option out of the game. Lets just not do that. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[yavoon]

Um...yeah. Cuz thats what I said right?

Your "point" was it was a tough decision as you had to weigh the benfits/drawbacks, and that that was a good thing....unless (as i already said in the previous post to yours...sheesh) you're going for a quicker domination victory, there is very little benefit. Once I pick a victory condition, I try to stick to it unless i have to switch. If you are going for domination, it is a benefit, and I said nothing about how big or little a benefit that aspect was. But there's very little thought in the process right now. Domination...its worth it. Otherwise...nope.

But, you know...it's so "cheesey" anyway. Thats obviously reason enough for you. Even though that aspect is easily solvable in game in a realistic fashion (as i have pointed out NUMEROUS times) rather than leave a fun option out of the game. Lets just not do that. Makes perfect sense to me.

I dont believe ppl will stop taking vassals just because of ur whining. I think it offers decent risk/reward. I feel like I'm arguing w/ the upgrade ppl, when a part of the game becomes difficult and hard decisions need be made they all want the easy way out. in this case, just let me cancel my decision.