Has anyone ever had a vassal revolt? I've never, in all my time playing VP, had a single occurrence in which one of my vassals rebelled and declared war on me to try and re-secure it's independence.
New Beta Version - Feb. 9th (2-9)
- Thread starter Gazebo
- Start date
- Status
civplayer33
King
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 965
Oh, and the Master apparently also gets Happiness directly from his Vassals...that's ridiculous, IMO; it isn't even listed in the Vassal Overview and should just be removed, I think.
civplayer33
King
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 965
I've seen one in the past but that's a long time ago...it's another reason why I proposed the "liberation war" thing.
Noticed this as well. Has something been modified on purpose in that regards?
Rekk
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2017
- Messages
- 2,725
If you want a larger challenge, play standard speed - standard map size. Less has gone into balancing other game speeds and difficulties, so scaling values etc. aren't where they should be for these settings. Feeling bored in the mid-game before discovering that you aren't winning as much as you think you are is less of an issue when the entire game takes 2/3 as long.
Last edited:
JamesNinelives
Emperor
What do you mean? Does their relationship modifiers towards you give you clues as to where their unhappiness comes from?
Going off the wiki at least, the conditions on them being able to 'declare independance' seem pretty limiting.
"Declaring independence from a master requires:
- Vassalized for a certain amount of turns.
- One of the following conditions:
- Vassal has more cities than the master proportionally when vassalage started.
- Vassal has more population than the master proportionally when vassalage started."
Edit: On a different point,
Certainly trying different map and game settings if a good idea if you want more of a challenge. The games I play on Epic speed and Huge map size feel a lot better balanced than they did when I started playing VP though. I don't know if that's just general balance improvements or what, but there have been very noticeable improvements IMO.
Last edited:
kenneth1221
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2016
- Messages
- 202
I'm skeptical that those conditions will ever be met in a snowball game. On the flipside, I'm not sure how I'd feel about a vassal constantly rebelling and having to be put down. As of now I think vassalization basically means the vassal civ is out of the game, at least in my limited experience.
civplayer33
King
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 965
If that's in the wiki then the wiki is wrong, see below.
Those are not the actual conditions; the conditions are:
1. Vassal for x turns (it's 75 Turns on Epic but I believe it scales with game speed, so 50 on standard)
2. One of the following conditions are fulfilled by the Vassal's team:
a) 60% or more of Master's team Cities and Population (reflecting the Vassal approaching the Master's Empire size)
b) 75% or less number of Cities than when Vassalage started (meaning the Master allowed too many of their Cities to be captured)
c) 300% or more of Vassals Population compared to the Vassal Population when Vassalage started (reflecting the Vassal growing to four times their original size)
Personally I don't think these should be changed and so far, at least for Vassals gained in Medieval in my games, condition 1 and 2c will eventually be fulfilled; however, they should trigger liberation attempts more often, which is where my liberation war idea comes in.
JamesNinelives
Emperor
Thanks for your correction! I should have made it clear I wasn't sure how accurate my information was.
Those still seem fairly strict though? The first one is fine. The second one I assume is designed to ensure that the master is protecting the vassal properly. If you've lost 75% of your cities since you were vassalised isn't too late for rebelling to have a meaningful impact though? The third one might happen eventually, but wouldn't it take a very long time?
I'm not trying to shoot down the idea of wars of liberation (I like that you can use that as a casus belli in Civ 6). It seems to me that loosenings the requirement for rebelling would achieve the same goal in a simpler way though.
Those still seem fairly strict though? The first one is fine. The second one I assume is designed to ensure that the master is protecting the vassal properly. If you've lost 75% of your cities since you were vassalised isn't too late for rebelling to have a meaningful impact though? The third one might happen eventually, but wouldn't it take a very long time?
I'm not trying to shoot down the idea of wars of liberation (I like that you can use that as a casus belli in Civ 6). It seems to me that loosenings the requirement for rebelling would achieve the same goal in a simpler way though.
SuperNoobCamper
King
I think you are actually forgetting one important thing about this whole vassal discussion, for a civ to accept vassalage it has to lose a war with a significant war score that it prefers existence under the rule of a master to getting wiped out.
If you can beat another civilization in a war with such a high war score you deserve these benefits which are pretty similar to a puppet city anyway except for the WC votes, with the constant hassle that you leave another civ alive that can and will hassle you in passing WC resolution, spy on you and even use GG to steal your land and take your CS allies.
I pretty much never accept an AI peace proposition with capitulation if i can wipe them out of the game for the aforementioned reasons.
If you can beat another civilization in a war with such a high war score you deserve these benefits which are pretty similar to a puppet city anyway except for the WC votes, with the constant hassle that you leave another civ alive that can and will hassle you in passing WC resolution, spy on you and even use GG to steal your land and take your CS allies.
I pretty much never accept an AI peace proposition with capitulation if i can wipe them out of the game for the aforementioned reasons.
tu_79
Deity
I think the easiest way to nerf vassals is to increase their maintenance cost. This way, if you want to have more than one vassal and maintain your growing army, you must increase taxes, which may result in revolts.
JamesNinelives
Emperor
Does that actually happen though? I'm getting the impression that it's pretty rare, and that they need to meet the conditions that civplayer33 listed.
tu_79
Deity
Can't say. I never have more than 2 vassals, and I have never touched the taxes. In these conditions, the vassals never revolted.
But. Suppose that you must raise taxes if you want to have some spare coin to give to your soldiers. That would trigger the revolt thing that we never witnessed.
JamesNinelives
Emperor
Not if they can't revolt because they don't meet the requirements.
SuperNoobCamper
King
Btw taxes hurt their economy so even if it makes them discontent and their opinion is more in favor with revolting it actually makes it harder for them to revolt 
While I agree with certain aspects of the arguments presented, realize that I've debated equally as hard in the past for domination victories to become a consistently viable option alongside the other victory conditions. It is generally in a much better place now with regards to happiness, pop, # of cities, etc., but of course it's not perfect and will continue to be adjusted.
I'll present some feedback from my first game on this version, an emperor domination win using Japan on standard/continents.
I went authority/fealty/imperialism/autocracy and had a slower start due to my perfume monopoly pulling me into the top part of the tech tree, away from walls/barracks (also my bonus marble) and my protection pantheon bonuses. I had to acclimatize myself really quickly to the new tribute system because there was no accessible neighbors nearby, leaving me to rely on city states to prop me up -- connecting ivory for early war elephants is a boon. The tribute change has increased the dynamic in terms of contemplating which city-states to conquer vs leaving as tribute farms: I like it! I founded with Orders / Hero Worship and reformed with Crusader Spirit. This was also my first time utilizing Inquisition (to my pleasant surprise) as Inca and America had neighboring religions, netting me some nice gold as I conquered. The first action occurred when China (tradition) was attacked simultaneously by the Inca and America, allowing me to mobilize and swoop in to vassalize her once their wars subsided. Inca (tradition) was vulnerable after the war, so he couldn't put up too much resistance once I had established position outside his capital. America (authority) refused to capitulate and succumbed shortly after, although his capital had great defensive positioning backed by a decent army, but Japan's power spike is a hell of a drug... I also had Great Wall, so these wars were quick and decisive. By this point I have canon's online and also grabbed Himeji, so Babylon (tradition), who was friendly/afraid of me before/during my conquests, was a pushover. Here's a shot of the landscape containing all the captured capitals throughout my impenetrable empire.
I took some time to assemble more navy and allow my troops to cross the ocean with aim on Portugal (tradition). Casus Belli was active after the first vote, and Rome grew tired and unsatisfied with simply preying on city-states -- it'd been a while since I had a game where both main continents had their majority swallowed by 2 of the 8 players, so that was nice to see (we even had DoF and a DP).
Boudica unfortunately suffered a historically accurate fate, though all was not lost, as just as I declared on Maria, the city-state of Balkh (who had taken Truro while allied to Rome) switched allegiance to Portugal, letting me revive the Celts and allow me better foothold for my inevitable invasion of Rome.
Maria was annihilated, and I'd now gained impactful land with another vassal in the Celts. I took time in order to establish ground and upgrade my super Samurai, although I could've probably just pushed immediately onto Rome with my happy sitting at 54 on turn 252 (with perma golden ages). Twenty five turns later, and after grabbing a few autocracy tenets under the belt, I backstab Rome with my happiness sitting comfortably (check out the citadels lol).
Although I dominated culturally throughout the game because Japan, I never had huge tech leads and I found there to be good balance tech wise between civs. Other than opposing capitals, I puppeted everything I conquered, and only ever had one moment in the mid-game where I received a rebellion notice for a couple turns. I'd say having the ability to complete a dom victory around 275 turns is not ideal, but at the same time I was playing well with great infrastructure, dominant religion, most wonders, big policy lead, etc., and if I moved to deity and accomplished the same feat, then I'd have issue. I don't necessarily know if increasing puppet happiness should occur again, but tweaking vassal happiness and yields sounds like a great starting point for more tweaks. I have a few more shots and observations from this game regarding vassals, which I'll get around to posting for @HeathcliffWarriors in the diplo thread.
Something is still off.
I'll present some feedback from my first game on this version, an emperor domination win using Japan on standard/continents.
I went authority/fealty/imperialism/autocracy and had a slower start due to my perfume monopoly pulling me into the top part of the tech tree, away from walls/barracks (also my bonus marble) and my protection pantheon bonuses. I had to acclimatize myself really quickly to the new tribute system because there was no accessible neighbors nearby, leaving me to rely on city states to prop me up -- connecting ivory for early war elephants is a boon. The tribute change has increased the dynamic in terms of contemplating which city-states to conquer vs leaving as tribute farms: I like it! I founded with Orders / Hero Worship and reformed with Crusader Spirit. This was also my first time utilizing Inquisition (to my pleasant surprise) as Inca and America had neighboring religions, netting me some nice gold as I conquered. The first action occurred when China (tradition) was attacked simultaneously by the Inca and America, allowing me to mobilize and swoop in to vassalize her once their wars subsided. Inca (tradition) was vulnerable after the war, so he couldn't put up too much resistance once I had established position outside his capital. America (authority) refused to capitulate and succumbed shortly after, although his capital had great defensive positioning backed by a decent army, but Japan's power spike is a hell of a drug... I also had Great Wall, so these wars were quick and decisive. By this point I have canon's online and also grabbed Himeji, so Babylon (tradition), who was friendly/afraid of me before/during my conquests, was a pushover. Here's a shot of the landscape containing all the captured capitals throughout my impenetrable empire.
Spoiler :
Spoiler :
Spoiler :
Spoiler :
Yeah, gold stealing is still wonky. I was getting pillaged left and right, with a counter-spy present, and I had one of my vassals steal 17k off me (95% of my reserve)
Spoiler :
Last edited:
civplayer33
King
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 965
You misunderstand; the condition is met if they have 75% or less number of Cities than when Vassalage started, so, in a realistic scenario where they have 8 Cities after you've "conquered" them, losing 2 of those would be enough to meet the condition (or 1 if they had 4 upon Vassalization). Also see below (you don't want to make Vassalage too unattractive for the Master). I guess a reduction in the 2c criterion to 250% may be acceptable, but I really wouldn't go any lower than that, since the Vassal already reaches the 2c criterion in pretty much every pertinent game as long as they've been vassalized early enough (Medieval or Renaissance).
Well right now the maintenance cost seems to equate about a 15% tax rate, which I think is high enough; you don't want to make having Vassals a nuisance, because, as SuperNoobCamper points out, then nobody will accept that option, but instead just wipe them out instead.
I agree that Vassalage should give decent benefits, but equating it to puppeting all those Cities is massive hyperbole...
- the Vassal doesn't generate any Unhappiness for you, unlike Puppets
- he doesn't cost you any Gold, but actually boosts your GPT (at least if you put taxes at 15% or greater), which again is unlike Puppets who are actually a significant Gold sink
- he gives you Science, Culture and Faith like a Puppet does, which can be significantly increased with the Iron Fist tenet (even with my nerfing suggestions this would still be more than Puppets give)
- he produces his own army to protect himself and aid you in war (unlike Puppets who don't and who also don't contribute to supply) and even gives you free military units upon entering a new Era (though I perhaps would remove that)
- currently he actually boosts your Happiness, though I advocate for removing that
- he provides you with a "safe" trading partner, even when you are sanctioned and thus also boosts Growth in your Cities, as it's much easier to make your Culture Influential with him (Tourism bonus) and represents a valid Franchise-target for your Corporation even when you're sanctioned
- he votes for you in leader proposals (I only advocate for removing the certainty IF he is not Content)
- he boosts your Votes in multiple ways (more easily adopting your Religion due to the spread bonus, adopting your Ideology automatically, certain policies, tenets and Techs give you votes for Vassals and Diplomats, of which you get a free one per Vassal)
- you can use him easily as a "buffer" against powerful opponents as that opponent capturing his Cities does not increase the opponent's Warscore with you
and other benefits I haven't mentioned...so yeah, it's ridiculous to say that a Vassal is only as beneficial as puppeting all his Cities while wiping him out.
BiteInTheMark
Deity
I am not the warmonger guy, but often I vassalize oppenents late in the game cause I want to take them out, if they annoy me too much with useless DoW. Every yield you gain without increasing your policy or tech costs is welcome, but I wouldnt call it significantly in any way, unless you go for Autocracy. I think often its less than 5-10% of my science/culture even with 2 vassals. Cause.... you have to devastatly beat them and often only a ruin is left from their former empire.
I also dont understand why you have to pay partly the maintenance of your vassels units but on the other hand can rise taxes up to 25% making your vassal unhappy, but without any consequence, till some weird requirements are fullfilled.
Theoretically, you can note the amount of pop the vassal have at the start and know exactly when they can revolt and simply run all the time with full 25% without any consequence.
I would suggest a change from this system.
Yes, this is an absolutly weird benefit, why should a slaved empire "give" happiness to its master, makes no sense for me. If you are a warmonger, the game punishes you with unhappiness by doing too long conquests and having too many cities conquered but on the other side you get happiness from vassals which only can be aquired by war and in most time beeing a warmonger. Punishment warmonger on one side but also giving you an advantage for beeing a warmonger is totally weird.
I also dont understand why you have to pay partly the maintenance of your vassels units but on the other hand can rise taxes up to 25% making your vassal unhappy, but without any consequence, till some weird requirements are fullfilled.
Theoretically, you can note the amount of pop the vassal have at the start and know exactly when they can revolt and simply run all the time with full 25% without any consequence.
I would suggest a change from this system.
- At the start from the vasselage, you gain a set amount of points for this vassal.
- Your vassal cant revolt, till this amount of points are depleted.
- Benefits for the Master: Gain 7% of vassals
culture, 
science, 
gold / +20% tourism to vassal / trade routes count like the influence over the vassal is maxed / steal one of the WC votes of your vassal
- Additional, the master can change the amount he gain from the vassal with the tax regulation. Each step increase the amount by 3% for , but also changes the depletion of the points. With zero increase (7% base), the points slowly increase, but not over the starting value. With one step above (10%), the points are stable. Any higher values decrease the points faster and faster, till the points are depleted and the civlization can revolt.
- step 4 and 5 of taxation also steals 1 more WC vote from your vassal
- Positive modifiers (trade, same religion, etc.) can decrease the depletion of the points (or increase the rise), negative modifiers (other religion, not defended, etc.) increase the depletion (or slow the increase).
- Vassal benefits: tech and policy cost discount, if the vassal is behind the master / trade routes count like the influence to the master is maxed
I am not the warmonger guy, but often I vassalize oppenents late in the game cause I want to take them out, if they annoy me too much with useless DoW. Every yield you gain without increasing your policy or tech costs is welcome, but I wouldnt call it significantly in any way, unless you go for Autocracy. I think often its less than 5-10% of my science/culture even with 2 vassals. Cause.... you have to devastatly beat them and often only a ruin is left from their former empire.
Yes, this is an absolutly weird benefit, why should a slaved empire "give" happiness to its master, makes no sense for me. If you are a warmonger, the game punishes you with unhappiness by doing too long conquests and having too many cities conquered but on the other side you get happiness from vassals which only can be aquired by war and in most time beeing a warmonger. Punishment warmonger on one side but also giving you an advantage for beeing a warmonger is totally weird.
I also dont understand why you have to pay partly the maintenance of your vassels units but on the other hand can rise taxes up to 25% making your vassal unhappy, but without any consequence, till some weird requirements are fullfilled.
Theoretically, you can note the amount of pop the vassal have at the start and know exactly when they can revolt and simply run all the time with full 25% without any consequence.
I would suggest a change from this system.
This way you have it self in the hand, be generous and your vassal will be content with your lead even till the end of the game. But if you are greedy, he can revolt relativly quickly. If you didnt plant to have the vassall forever, squeeze him out and then take the rest.
- At the start from the vasselage, you gain a set amount of points for this vassal.
- Your vassal cant revolt, till this amount of points are depleted.
- Benefits for the Master: Gain 7% of vassals
- Additional, the master can change the amount
- step 4 and 5 of taxation also steals 1 more WC vote from your vassal
- Positive modifiers (trade, same religion, etc.) can decrease the depletion of the points (or increase the rise), negative modifiers (other religion, not defended, etc.) increase the depletion (or slow the increase).
- Vassal benefits: tech and policy cost discount, if the vassal is behind the master / trade routes count like the influence to the master is maxed
Your proposed system doesn't allow for the vassal to grow in strength so they can declare independence (the original intention), instead it's all up to the master's behavior. I don't think human vassals would like that kind of system.
- Status
