No Vassal States in WOTM please

[EEO]

I have a problem with the way vassals are implemented: an AI that you are friendly with for some reason thinks that it's ok to vassal my opponent. It's as if they didn't care of the relation with me? What is the point of having relations in the game if they can be circumvented in this way? If the AI that vassals my opponent is not prepared to declare war on me, why would he defend my opponent against me?

Don't get me wrong: I like the concept of vassals. I really like Warlords (Great Generals, Unique Buildings etc). I just don't like the way the vassal states is implemented, and I would welcome at least one WOTM to be played without the feature (that would enable me to go for a true diplomatic victory).

Very interesting discussion. I would say that:

The concept of Vassals is a good one as well in terms of game play as in its realistic part, because it adds the possibility of capitulation for AIs. But the implementation of the concept suffers two majors deficiencies:

(1) It should not permit an AI to make another AI vassal, if the candidate master has good relations with a third civ (especially the player) at war with the candidate vassal. That 's what Erkon pointed out.

(2) If it happens that a civ at war becomes vassal, the opportunity of peace should be offered to all opponents of the new vassal. That's what Cas pointed out.

Just a last remark for Erkon: a "true" diplomatic victory should be realized without any conquests, from my point of view

 

[DaviddesJ]

(1) It should not permit an AI to make another AI vassal, if the candidate master has good relations with a third civ (especially the player) at war with the candidate vassal. That 's what Erkon pointed out.

I quite disagree. There's nothing wrong with an AI that is very friendly to me saying, "This beaten-down civilization has agreed to be my vassal. I expect, of course, that you will cease your war against him now that he is my vassal, since you and I are such good friends."

If you want to choose to war against your friend, that should be up to you. But there's no reason the friend shouldn't accept the offer of vasselage.

 

[EEO]

There's nothing wrong with an AI that is very friendly to me saying, "This beaten-down civilization has agreed to be my vassal. I expect, of course, that you will cease your war against him now that he is my vassal, since you and I are such good friends."

If you want to choose to war against your friend, that should be up to you. But there's no reason the friend shouldn't accept the offer of vasselage.

I see your point. It makes sense for me, provided the new master and vassal are also in good relations. Otherwise, I am not so sure: "So what ? You choose to protect my worst enemy by accepting him as your vassal. And you tell me you are my friend and you are not his friend ... I don't believe a word of it ..."

The decision of accepting or not the vassal should be function of the three relationships.

 

[DaviddesJ]

I see your point. It makes sense for me, provided the new master and vassal are also in good relations. Otherwise, I am not so sure: "So what ? You choose to protect my worst enemy by accepting him as your vassal. And you tell me you are my friend and you are not his friend ... I don't believe a word of it ..."

If he's your worst enemy, it's for one of two reasons. Either he's committed aggressive and unfriendly acts against you, in which case, you should be relieved that your friend is going to vassalize him and prevent him from bothering you in the future. Or, it's because you're a warmonger and an opportunist, and saw a chance to gain at his expense, in which case, why shouldn't your friend be equally opportunistic and seize the chance to have a useful vassal?

 

[EEO]

If he's your worst enemy, it's for one of two reasons. Either he's committed aggressive and unfriendly acts against you, in which case, you should be relieved that your friend is going to vassalize him and prevent him from bothering you in the future. Or, it's because you're a warmonger and an opportunist, and saw a chance to gain at his expense, in which case, why shouldn't your friend be equally opportunistic and seize the chance to have a useful vassal?

Yes, it is not easy to determine the borderline between an unfriendly act and an acceptable act between two friends in competition ... I tend to say that preventing me to complete my conquest by accepting the vassal looks like unfriendly... but, OK, it's near the borderline.

 

[ewokimpi]

When you are at war with a AI and it vassals to another AI, you should have the option to continue the war against the vassal/master combo or declare peace. This simple change would make vassals fine, IMO.

cas

I agree that this would improve the implementation of vassal states. It certainly would make the game easier.

Where I disagree with much of the forgoing discussion is the notion that vassaling is unpredictable. What I've seen suggests that many/all? instances are highly predictable.

If one carefully monitors what is available for trade in peace negotiations, you can see when vassaling first becomes a term your opponent can offer. In other words, check each turn to see if the AI you are defeating would offer to capitulate to you.

The first turn in which you see that they will, then you have a choice: accept their capitulation now, or play on.

If you play on, it becomes likely that the AI you are defeating will vassal to another power. Who will they vassal to?

If they are mutually friendly, or perhaps pleased, with another power, and that AI is in good shape, then it is likely they will vassal to that power.

Or, if there is another power(s) at war with the AI you are defeating, then if you do not accept their capitulation, then it is likely they will soon capitulate to their other enemy.

Either way, you can predict what's going to happen... it just probably won't be something that makes you real happy!

In WOTM4 I got burned by AI's constantly vassaling to Asoka. Then when it was Asoka's time to be conquered, I began to watch what peace terms were available each turn. Oh, and Hannibal was also at war with Asoka.

When I first saw that Asoka would be willing to capitulate, I then calculated
that he could vassal to Huayna Capac, with whom I reeeealy did not want to be at war, or to Hannibal. And of course, if I accepted Asoka's capitulation, then I'm at war with Hannibal.

At the time, I was not ready for a two front war, so I proposed peace without capitualtion. This was accepted. A couple of turns later, Asoka became Hannibal's vassal. I then proceeded to prepare a two front war with Hannibal, with my center of mass oriented towards him.

All the above became predictable, as long as I checked each turn to see if capitulation was available a negotiable term (not red).

One possible exception to above is when your opponent offers to capitulate to you in the interturn (when the AI's are moving). Maybe it could happen that you reject the offer during the interturn, and then the AI vassals to another power during the interturn, and there you are, at war with an AI you did not plan for.

I'd be interested in knowing about other possible exceptions.

cas' suggestion avoids the above fussiness of checking peace terms every turn, as it would always allow you to get out of an unplanned war. Perhaps checking peace terms every turn is better game play, though.

 

[Erkon]

Just a last remark for Erkon: a "true" diplomatic victory should be realized without any conquests, from my point of view

Fair point! I should have been more careful with my wording. What I meant was a diplomatic victory without relying on my own votes. BTW, playing a Warlords session without conquests? What a strange concept (j/k), thanks for the comments.

 

[Erkon]

Thanks for all the comments, I appreciate the response.

I don't see how turning off Vassals would give MORE options for the player.

When you attack an opponent, you want to wipe him out (or capitulate to you), yes? Else you'll have unhappiness in your conquered cities ("we want to rejoin our motherland". Now, due to the possibility that my opponent may be vassaled by my best friend, it will be rather stupid to attack a weak AI. So, I don't have that option any longer. I'm not sure I manage to formulate my thoughts as clearly as I want...

to add to my statements, I think a human would vassal himself to a superior civ in order to fend off an aggressor, if given the option...so I don't see how that is a problem.

You have that option. Just click "resign"

I understand Erkon's frustration (and Htadus's) but I don't think Vassal States should be disabled in the WOTMs. I guess because I disagree that it makes the game more "random." It's actually fairly predictable that if an AI is getting beat down and there's someone out there that they could offer to vassalize themselves to, that they will do so. I see it as just one more thing you need to take into account in your planning. And of course vassalization can work greatly to the human player's advantage as well.

Yes, it is predictable that the weak AI will vassal to a stronger AI, but can you predict to which AI? Is it the one with highest power? Or the AI with best relation to the victim? Or the AI that is attacking the victim?

I even think that the occasional XOTM game should have complete fog of war: Settings of landforms, barbs, number of rivals etc. should be listed as "for you to find out".dV

That would be great!

 

[Erkon]

Where I disagree with much of the forgoing discussion is the notion that vassaling is unpredictable. What I've seen suggests that many/all? instances are highly predictable.

You don't know to whom the victim will vassal to, so I think there is a element of unpredictability.

If one carefully monitors what is available for trade in peace negotiations, you can see when vassaling first becomes a term your opponent can offer. In other words, check each turn to see if the AI you are defeating would offer to capitulate to you.
...
I'd be interested in knowing about other possible exceptions.

Perhaps we could ask the HOF team to add that to the event history? Having to look at the capitulate option each turn adds to the micromanagement of the game, which to me is a sign that something is not right...

You're reasoning is based on that the victim will agree to capitulate to the player in the same turn as another AI. Is this always the case? What if the victim can capitulate to an AI several turns before you?

Thanks for the comments, and I will keep this in mind in my next WOTM.

 

[Lexad]

I think vassals are fine. If there's someone who can vassalize you prey if you beat it too hard, you should take it into account preemptively - make him stop trades with prey, declare war on prey - or gather extra forces for possible enlargement of conflict. You can't predict from which corner a barb will jump also, but that's not the reason to abolish barbs from GOTMs or write threads describing how unpredictable those barbs can be and that this should be fixed by a patch

 

[DaviddesJ]

It sounds like adding "Civ will become your vassal" to the Civ4lerts part of the HOF mod would be useful.

 

[Erkon]

I think vassals are fine. If there's someone who can vassalize you prey if you beat it too hard, you should take it into account preemptively - make him stop trades with prey, declare war on prey - or gather extra forces for possible enlargement of conflict. You can't predict from which corner a barb will jump also, but that's not the reason to abolish barbs from GOTMs or write threads describing how unpredictable those barbs can be and that this should be fixed by a patch

Lexad, my experience is that you can't take anything in account preemptively. Does the relation between the prey and the aggressor really matter? And since you make peace with the prey, you will have to restart the war with both parties which leads to penalties in relations with friends with the prey/your former ally. This is in essence my criticism to the implementation of the feature and why I would like to play at least one WOTM with the feature disable. OTH as many posts have pointed out, I could just accept the reality and adjust my playing style (which to me leads to diplomatic in Vanilla, conquest in Warlords, perhaps as it was intended from the beginning ).

 

[Lexad]

Luckily, we can play each month a GOTM with vassals disabled
You can't take into account random, but you can find out at what relations/power or land retios your prey will be willing to become a vassal and whether he will accept, and then plan your campaign accordingly, leaving enough cities for prey to be unwilling to vassalize or checking that your prey will likely become vassal to your powerful warmongering neighbour and get extra troops/fortify border/abstain from attacking. It make you develop your knowledge of the game, which is good IMO.

 

[Gyathaar]

Reading this thread it looks like not everyone understands how automatic peace and war with master/vassal happens..

Target capitulate to another civ:
- you end up in peace with both
- the civ it capitulate to has to be at war with the vassal

Target becomes a peaceful vassal to another civ:
- you end up in war with both
- the master and vassal need good relations with each other
- master must have cities near the vassal
- the master must be "willing" to go to war with you

 

[DaviddesJ]

Reading this thread it looks like not everyone understands how automatic peace and war with master/vassal happens..

Target capitulate to another civ:
- you end up in peace with both
- the civ it capitulate to has to be at war with the vassal

Target becomes a peaceful vassal to another civ:
- you end up in war with both
- the master and vassal need good relations with each other
- master must have cities near the vassal
- the master must be "willing" to go to war with you

Right.

The latter makes perfect sense. Essentially, the master is saying he's willing to declare war on you to protect the vassal.

The former is slightly problematic, because you should have the option to declare war on the civ who's intervening against you. Rather than have all of your forces magically teleported out of enemy territory, with nothing you can do about it.

 

[ewokimpi]

Reading this thread it looks like not everyone understands how automatic peace and war with master/vassal happens..

Target capitulate to another civ:
- you end up in peace with both
- the civ it capitulate to has to be at war with the vassal

Thanx, I did not know this.

It sounds like adding "Civ will become your vassal" to the Civ4lerts part of the HOF mod would be useful.

This would be cool.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It sounds like adding "Civ will become your vassal" to the Civ4lerts part of the HOF mod would be useful.

Or even better, having the HOF mod add a dialog asking if you want to remain at war when an enemy vassalizes/capitulates to someone else.

 

[EEO]

Reading this thread it looks like not everyone understands how automatic peace and war with master/vassal happens..

Target capitulate to another civ:
- you end up in peace with both
- the civ it capitulate to has to be at war with the vassal

Target becomes a peaceful vassal to another civ:
- you end up in war with both
- the master and vassal need good relations with each other
- master must have cities near the vassal
- the master must be "willing" to go to war with you

Thanks for the clarifications, Gyathaar !
Where does this detailed information come from ? As I never saw an article mentioning it, I wonder if you got it directly from the source code ...

Nevertheless, my feeling about

"the master must be willing to go to war with you" (in the case where target becomes a peaceful vassal to another civ)

is that the master is clearly more likely to will to go to war in 2.08 version (probably due to Blake's modifications).

Although I appreciate Blake's improvements, I think that, in this particular case, AI should be more inhibited especially when in good relations with the player ...

 

[Denniz]

It sounds like adding "Civ will become your vassal" to the Civ4lerts part of the HOF mod would be useful.

We'll try adding this in the next version of the HOF Mod.

Or even better, having the HOF mod add a dialog asking if you want to remain at war when an enemy vassalizes/capitulates to someone else.

We have tried not to modify game play except to fix some bugs (usually exploit bugs). I don't think this qualifies. It works the way Firaxis made it work. It may be annoying but everyone has to deal with the same thing.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

We have tried not to modify game play except to fix some bugs (usually exploit bugs). I don't think this qualifies. It works the way Firaxis made it work. It may be annoying but everyone has to deal with the same thing.

OK fair enough.

btw, at the risk of hijacking the thread, any chance of adding an option to the HOF mod to disable the 'do you want to declare war' dialog that pops up every time you move a unit to the same tile as an AI unit in neutral territory? I find that dialog somewhat irritating, and ISTM unnecessary, as the proportion of times that the answer is "yes" is miniscule, and on those few occasions it's only a couple of extra mouse clicks to go into the diplomacy window to declare war before moving the unit anyway.