I want to cancel the vassal states, damn it!

[Nakar]

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

Why that's right, I suppose I would. I'm the master. I won. I get to do whatever I want with my vassal. They survive by my sufferance of their continued existence. If they get themselves into a hole, it's up to me to decide their fate. I don't owe them jack. Other than fixing exploits, I see no reason that it shouldn't work like this. I don't like having somebody's notions of honorable political behavior forced on me like that. If I wanna screw my vassal over, let me. Maybe nobody will capitulate to me thereafter, but as it stands that may as well be better than taking them on.

 

[GoldenWheels]

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.

No, I dont' believe they will either, LMAO. Is that was I was trying to do?

Not about making it more or less difficult for me...fun and realism is the idea.

Of course this is only the fifith time ive explained that to you. I'll assume six won't be the charm. Thanks.

 

[yavoon]

No, I dont' believe they will either, LMAO. Is that was I was trying to do?

Not about making it more or less difficult for me...fun and realism is the idea.

Of course this is only the fifith time ive explained that to you. I'll assume six won't be the charm. Thanks.

I explain my POV, and ur upset that it doesn't coincide w/ urs? I've already stated that realism isnt what I'm after and ur mad that I am somehow not responding to ur call for more realism?

weird.

 

[yavoon]

Why that's right, I suppose I would. I'm the master. I won. I get to do whatever I want with my vassal. They survive by my sufferance of their continued existence. If they get themselves into a hole, it's up to me to decide their fate. I don't owe them jack. Other than fixing exploits, I see no reason that it shouldn't work like this. I don't like having somebody's notions of honorable political behavior forced on me like that. If I wanna screw my vassal over, let me. Maybe nobody will capitulate to me thereafter, but as it stands that may as well be better than taking them on.

it doesnt work though because of the AI. take this out of the AI's hands and put urself against a human opponent. a human opponent would just tell u to **** urself and be done w/ it. because its the AI though u can't leave giant loopholes for abuse open.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Why that's right, I suppose I would. I'm the master. I won. I get to do whatever I want with my vassal. They survive by my sufferance of their continued existence. If they get themselves into a hole, it's up to me to decide their fate. I don't owe them jack. Other than fixing exploits, I see no reason that it shouldn't work like this. I don't like having somebody's notions of honorable political behavior forced on me like that. If I wanna screw my vassal over, let me. Maybe nobody will capitulate to me thereafter, but as it stands that may as well be better than taking them on.

They tried that in civ 3... So what if we're at peace, my soldiers will march right up to your city gates/across your lands, what are you going to do about it?
Or the game wining, take an empire in 1 turn. (stacks of tanks sit right outside your good friend's cities, and then you attack all thier cities in one turn.

Very bad idea, its OK with Human players who know each other, but not AIs

And let me tell you ... if they are your vassal or capitulation, you DIDN'T win. As WWI+II proved, you can't Truly Win a war until your troops have entered All of their cities and Disarmed all of their troops.

If they are your Vassal/Capitulation, you have 'Gained the advantage' but the "game" is not over.

If you want to do "what ever you want" to them then either declare peace (you can do whatever you want 10 turns later) or just keep attacking them. [or a Cease-Fire: the absolute best, just a way of letting them know we aren't going to wipe you out just yet.]

Actually Cease-Fire is probably the Best Relationship if you want realism, because that's what all real civs are in all the time. The President of the US Could order US Troops In Germany to start Razing Cities, and there would be no magical force stopping them... The troops would almost certainly disobey, but that would just be another layer of realism to put in. I'm sure you would Love to have 80% of your troops defect to an enemy power/become barbarian everytime you change civics. (or just spontaneously start attacking each other every 50-150 years under Hereditary rule... every 20-50 years under Despotism)

A way for the Master to extricate themselves would be good, but it should be difficult (like I said Peaceful Vassals only, 10 turn period and you must be in peace to initiate it.) And of course they should have an option to renegotioate, ie Keep it permanent as long as they throw in an extra 40 GPT.


I can see the Civ AIs' boards now, talking about the 'Capitulation Exploit'..
"It's not fair because the Human players aren't programmed to deal with it properly"
"Well I think Firaxis really blew it here, I mean its so easy to survive now, just offer the Human players a Capitulation, and you don't need to worry about thier cheats anymore"
"Well maybe with the Patch Firaxis will come out with an improvement for Civ's Humans"

 

[wolfigor]

At the moment we have 2 type of vassalage:
Pacific: agreement between two states for temporary (10 turns) protection
Capitulation: this is the one that blownup in the game, it should be similar to an unconditional surrender (like Germany after WW2).
But it seems that Fireaxis see it in a different way ... not very clear to me.

I think that to keep the gameplay simple, Vassalage for Capitulation has some big problems in single play:
- the master's diplomatic relation with everybody else suffers far too much for accepting a vassal
- it's possible to declare war against the vassal to hurt the master
- the master has no way to change the arrangment in future (to some extent only the vassal can)
- too few "pressure" points for the master against the vassal

In an ideal world (or better civ implementation) there should be different levels of vassalage-peace threaty, with possibility to smoothly move from one to an other:

0. no diplo relation / truce / peace threaty / war

1. open border I: only for commerce and pacific units (missionaries, workers, settlers), 10 turns renewable

2. open border II: as it is now

3. mutual defence: as it is now

4. alliance: similar to defence, but doesn't break down after declaring war, 10 turns renewable

5. protection: the master agreed to protect the vassal and have a tigher integration, similar "pacific" vassalage now, the vassal must vote for you in UN elections, you get bonus and malus at diplo relations according to the vassal's diplomatic relationships, the master see all the vassal territory and science targets, implicit open borders, 10 turns renewable.

6. vassal (protectorate): pact that can be a result of a war, but can also be a move from protection.
The vassal giveup its diplomatic relations (that remain frozen until the pact is cancelled) and inherit the master's diplo relations.
The vassal cannot wage war independently (but can suggest war/peace to the master).
The master can pretend (vassal cannot refuse without war) resources, technologies, and GP.
The master can suggest what strategy to use (defend this down, retreat from this town, attack here), the vassal may or may not follow.
30 turns renewable.

7. unconditional surrender: only as a result of a war. The vassal giveup its diplomatic relations and cannot wage war/peace independently.
The master can pretend resources, technologies, GP, conversions, civics, towns (only once, and only for max 25% of population).
The master can impose the strategy to use (vassal cannot refuse).
Only the master can choose to cancel this pact.

Ok, so far so good, but there shall be a way to cancel these pacts (especially 6 and 7).
The way to cancel is to propose (in time of peace) to change the agreement from the current "level" to a an other one.
The move of one level can be smooth and has no direct diplo malus between the two contractors.

Every pact can be broken in special conditions even before their natural end (e.g. before 10 turns); but an earlier cancellation will bring heavy diplomatic malus with all civs due to your untrustworthiness.
For example A has a pact (any) with B.
C is a very strong civ and decleare war on B.
A can decide to cancel the current threaty.
A will get diplomatic malus vs B (very heavy) and vs all other civs.
The diplo malus will be calculated according to:
- type of pact (the higher the level the higher the malus)
- diplomatic relations between A and C (small malus if friendly, large malus if bad)
- cumulated duration of the pact (the longer the pact the higher the malus)

Honouring the pact will give a small (+1) relation bonus with all civs.

naturally there are a lot of details to work out, but a similar system (if the AI can understand it) will give many more options in diplomacy, making in CIV diplomacy a more interesting part pf the game to play.

 

[wolfigor]

I can see the Civ AIs' boards now, talking about the 'Capitulation Exploit'..
"It's not fair because the Human players aren't programmed to deal with it properly"
"Well I think Firaxis really blew it here, I mean its so easy to survive now, just offer the Human players a Capitulation, and you don't need to worry about thier cheats anymore"
"Well maybe with the Patch Firaxis will come out with an improvement for Civ's Humans"

LOL
You are perfect right!

 

[GIO888]

Why would you want a 1 city vassal? conquer them.

Vassals are for domination games, I don't bother with them otherwise!

 

[GoldenWheels]

I explain my POV, and ur upset that it doesn't coincide w/ urs? I've already stated that realism isnt what I'm after and ur mad that I am somehow not responding to ur call for more realism?

weird.

yeah, im totally upset and mad. Practically frothing.

Weird indeed .

 

[yavoon]

yeah, im totally upset and mad. Practically frothing.

Weird indeed .

well I see we aren't discussing anything real anymore.

 

[GoldenWheels]

well I see we aren't discussing anything real anymore.

Were we before? Hard to say in retrospect. Im having such a tough time keeping my temper in check after all.

If you like it the way it is, thats certainly fine, and as a good a reason as any. I've simply pointed out that any "cheesey" issues could simply (and rather easily) be dealt with in game, eliminating all cheesey aspects, while adding flavor, realism and dimension to a decidely (as of now) one dimensional game feature. I myself think it would add a neat option, a real world option. All I've ever argued, and it has yet to be refuted in any substantial sense.

Personal opinion and preference I am perfectly willing to accept.

 

[yavoon]

Were we before? Hard to say in retrospect. Im having such a tough time keeping my temper in check after all.

If you like it the way it is, thats certainly fine, and as a good a reason as any. I've simply pointed out that any "cheesey" issues could simply (and rather easily) be dealt with in game, eliminating all cheesey aspects, while adding flavor, realism and dimension to a decidely (as of now) one dimensional game feature. I myself think it would add a neat option, a real world option. All I've ever argued, and it has yet to be refuted in any substantial sense.

Personal opinion and preference I am perfectly willing to accept.

I dont think ur way eliminates cheesiness.

 

[GoldenWheels]

I dont think ur way eliminates cheesiness.

Thats cool man. I do, and I think it does a damn good job of it, as I have explained.

 

[Princip]

taken from another thread thought it would be better suited here maybe

Originally Posted by Princip
heres a crazy idea
how about being able to build your vassels UU so say you are Greece and Russia is your vassel you can build cossacks?
do you think this would be possible without upsetting the balance? there doesn't seem to be too many good positives to having a vassel state does there?

Deer_Coke extends..

I like this idea, it extends the usefulness of actually having a vassal state.

I think the idea of vassal states was great, but the current implementation makes them basically useless. You only seem to get a vassal state if the empire is so weak that it begs you to help them in a time of war, or if you've almost destroyed another empire in a war so that it capitulates to you. The ability to produce the specialist unit from that empire would be a great boost to the whole vassal aspect in that game, making them more desirable and useful.

On top of that I'd like to see any tech developed by the vassal become yours as well, vassal states should be much more useful and desirable on the path to world domination.

what do you think?

 

[jayeffaar]

In light of that statement, I think further problems exist with AI when it capitulates. Not only things like resources need to be available for demand by the victor, but techs as well. In one of my games, Zulus had 1 city left (their capital) and offered capitulation to me together with 1 tech. They still had 3 techs I didn't, so I thought once they capitulated to me, I'd be able to demand those as well ... I was wrong. So not only I couldn't declare war on them - I couldn't even demand, or trade for, the techs I needed!

You know, just because the game doesn't work the way you thought it did (but it does work as documented in the manual) doesn't necessarily indicate a problem with the game. If you had understood the rules, you could have made an informed decision about what to do.

 

[Distraction]

You know, just because the game doesn't work the way you thought it did (but it does work as documented in the manual) doesn't necessarily indicate a problem with the game. If you had understood the rules, you could have made an informed decision about what to do.

True, but the design of the system is very strange and poorly implemented at this time.

 

[Gunner10]

You know, just because the game doesn't work the way you thought it did (but it does work as documented in the manual) doesn't necessarily indicate a problem with the game. If you had understood the rules, you could have made an informed decision about what to do.

I'm sorry, jayeffaar, but that is one of the dumbest comments in this thread.

Maybe in your culture/country/village rules are followed blindly and are never to be questioned, but one of the most important points of this forum (and this web site) is to collect fresh ideas from people on what is currently working (in Civ games) and what is not, and how things could maybe be improved. Rules are made by people, so people can change the rules if it makes sense to.

Hopefully, Firaxis's attention has been caught by the number of people questioning current vassal state rules and the latter will be amended with the next Warlords patch.

 

[Bluetooth]

I voted for Babylon, Sumeria, Assyria, Egypt, Carthage, Arabia, India, China and Japan, I see I missed Mongolia. Of course I want the Mongolians as well.

 

[mechaerik]

lolwut? I think you got the wrong thread, because this is about vassals and is almost 4 years old.

 

[Willem]

Oh damn, another thread necro.