[POLL] How should a master's capitulation impact their vassals?

[Recursive]

I'm feeling dissatisfied with the current mechanic (masters cannot capitulate) so I'd like to get community thoughts on how else we could handle this.

Note: This is for situations when a master suffers crippling defeat in war and would ordinarily capitulate, not minor concessions.

I've come up with some alternative solutions in the poll choices (which are self-explanatory). Make your choices!

My personal preference is "capitulated vassals transfer over, voluntary vassals are liberated" as that seems the most logical to me.

Note that a master can still choose to liberate vassals that they acquire.

 

[Rekk]

What exactly are the differences between voluntary and involuntary vassals?

 

[Stalker0]

I say the vassals are liberated. If the new master wants to subjugate them, then put in the work!!!

 

[Melchizedek]

I voted for all vassals to be liberated. However, my second choice would actually be one not listed here: voluntary vassals are transferred over, but capitulated vassals are liberated. It seems more likely to me that a voluntary vassal looking for protection would want to continue the arrangement with a new lord than that conquered people's wouldn't avail themselves of a chance at freedom.

Of course, the best solution of all would be to give vassals a choice of responses, but presumably that would be difficult new code.

 

[Rekk]

I voted for all vassals to be liberated. However, my second choice would actually be one not listed here: voluntary vassals are transferred over, but capitulated vassals are liberated. It seems more likely to me that a voluntary vassal looking for protection would want to continue the arrangement with a new lord than that conquered people's wouldn't avail themselves of a chance at freedom.

Of course, the best solution of all would be to give vassals a choice of responses, but presumably that would be difficult new code.

If the former voluntary vassal is still looking for a protector, then they can start offering deals to a new leader once they are liberated.

 

[TwoPodRay]

Is it possible to have double layer to vassals?

As in Conqueror-Master-Vassal? (Conqueror rules both Master and Vassal and Master rules only Vassal)

If not, I think Master's vassals should be liberated.

 

[Rosete]

I would like that when a civ is facing imminent defeat, their master-vassal relationship would break apart, allowing either of them to be vassalised.

For example: A is master of B.

During war between A and C, if A is losing too badly, B would break free because they see their master losing badly, allowing A to be vassalised with enough war score.

And

During war between A and C, A is neither losing or winning, but B is losing badly. B would break away because they don't think their master can protect them, allowing B to be vassalised by C.

 

[dostillevi]

Agree with immediate liberation but with the following:

1. Former vassals are liberated into a state of war with the conqueror, but immediately evaluate peace and then voluntary vassalization with the conqueror. If the former vassal had been in forced vassalage, they should have a positive diplomatic modifier with the civilization that "freed" them, although that might not always be enough to prevent further war (you can't assume the intentions of a player). Former voluntary vassals should have a negative diplomatic modifier.
1a. If the former vassal desires independent peace or vassalage, it immediately makes an offer to the conqueror to end the war regardless of any cooldowns or diplomatic timers. Unlike a normal capitulation, if vassalage is offered in this way it is treated as voluntary, regardless of the original type of vassalage that was held with the conquered civilization.
1b. If the former vassal wants to continue the war, they do so automatically. The conqueror could of course press on with the war against the former vassal and force capitulation later.
2. Each former vassal evaluates the above decision independently of the others.

 

[dostillevi]

I would like that when a civ is facing imminent defeat, their master-vassal relationship would break apart, allowing either of them to be vassalised.

For example: A is master of B.

During war between A and C, if A is losing too badly, B would break free because they see their master losing badly, allowing A to be vassalised with enough war score.

And

During war between A and C, A is neither losing or winning, but B is losing badly. B would break away because they don't think their master can protect them, allowing B to be vassalised by C.

This seems workable, and I think both scenarios can be handled with the same logic:

Start with a diplomatic overture from B to C offering peace in exchange for breaking away and declaring war on A. C can either accept or refuse peace, and if refused, B independently decides whether to remain at war with C and also declare war on A. This would have to be carefully balanced though, because otherwise vassals would just give up all the time. I think an offer of peace to C could also include an offer of vassalization (switching sides), but this would depend very much on whether B thinks C would be a good master and normal vassalization logic supports it. I don't think there should be a scenario where B gains freedom while remaining at peace with A. All of this needs to happen only in overwhelming circumstances, otherwise vassals would be rebelling all the time.

In scenario 1, following the breakaway of the vassal, C can then separately press for A's capitulation.

 

[dostillevi]

This is all relatively complicated to implement though, since you have to build for an AI or a human in any possible combination of conquerors, vassals, and conquered civs. This also would need to account for teams, locked teams, and situations where multiple parties are involved in the war at once (who does the former vassal communicate with when two civs are doing the conquering?) What about if a vassal wants to become the vassal of a third party not involved in the war? It would be pretty neat to see a third party enter a war to claim the former vassal of a conquered civilization.

 

[AndreyK]

I think that complication is not needed, vassals just should be set free.

 

[usadefcon1]

At -80 warscore vassals are set free, seems simple enough

 

[Fluffball]

I chose master's vassals are all liberated as it seems like the simplest option.

 

[Recursive]

What exactly are the differences between voluntary and involuntary vassals?

Voluntary vassals can leave on their own after 10 turns.

If the former voluntary vassal is still looking for a protector, then they can start offering deals to a new leader once they are liberated.

Agreed.

Is it possible to have double layer to vassals?

As in Conqueror-Master-Vassal? (Conqueror rules both Master and Vassal and Master rules only Vassal)

If not, I think Master's vassals should be liberated.

Possible, but prohibitively difficult to code. The options I've suggested can be done relatively easily with existing code.

 

[Recursive]

Agree with immediate liberation but with the following:

1. Former vassals are liberated into a state of war with the conqueror, but immediately evaluate peace and then voluntary vassalization with the conqueror. If the former vassal had been in forced vassalage, they should have a positive diplomatic modifier with the civilization that "freed" them, although that might not always be enough to prevent further war (you can't assume the intentions of a player). Former voluntary vassals should have a negative diplomatic modifier.
1a. If the former vassal desires independent peace or vassalage, it immediately makes an offer to the conqueror to end the war regardless of any cooldowns or diplomatic timers. Unlike a normal capitulation, if vassalage is offered in this way it is treated as voluntary, regardless of the original type of vassalage that was held with the conquered civilization.
1b. If the former vassal wants to continue the war, they do so automatically. The conqueror could of course press on with the war against the former vassal and force capitulation later.
2. Each former vassal evaluates the above decision independently of the others.

I like the idea of a positive diplo modifier for forner capitulated vassals and a negative diplo modifier for former voluntary vassals. Could have the positive one increase the odds of voluntary vassalization.

Voluntary vassalization is evaluated every turn automatically. If going with liberation, I think it's easier to simply put the vassals at peace. If the master wants to go to war and force them to capitulate, they can do that.

 

[stii]

I think while it often makes sense for vassals to transfer over it is awkward often enough that they should all just be liberated. Having an AI powerful enough to get vassals in the first place to be your vassal is enough of a reward. If you let them transfer over it is hard to imagine a situation where the games doesn't just end on you gaining multiple vassals like this unless it is a really huge map.

 

[notaspambot]

My preference is to simply just liberate the vassals upon capitulation. Vassals can already demand independence on their own initiative if they want to. The winning civ here should also be already at war with the former vassals here anyway, so it's not as if forcing a few more capitulations on already weaker targets should be all that difficult. And if it can't, well, maybe it didn't deserve those extra vassals in the first place.

 

[dostillevi]

If going with liberation, I think it's easier to simply put the vassals at peace. If the master wants to go to war and force them to capitulate, they can do that.

Is there a cooldown on war when this peace is set (I don't think there should be, immediate war deccs should be allowed), and is there a warmonger penalty for declaring war on the former vassals?

If the latter is true, I don't like the idea of peaceful liberation. There's no reason a conqueror should incur extra warmonger penalty because some people they were at war with suddenly were forced into peace. Likewise, a vassal that wants to remain at war shouldn't be penalized by declaring war on the civ that just conquered their former master.

I have a strong distaste for forced changes in war status - in this case, I'm the aggressor and I'm at war with some people, and then because I triggered a particular gamestate (master capitulation), suddenly I'm no longer at war with a bunch of people I was at war with formerly? Let's preserve the game-state and then have options for it to change. Having an automatic change to peace creates weird scenarios like refusing to accept capitulation because I want to also conquer the vassals but don't want to incur penalties or have my units pushed off of vassal territory etc.

 

[Rekk]

I have a strong distaste for forced changes in war status - in this case, I'm the aggressor and I'm at war with some people, and then because I triggered a particular gamestate (master capitulation), suddenly I'm no longer at war with a bunch of people I was at war with formerly?

On the other hand, when you normally enter peace with a master, you're forced into peace with the vassal as well.

I think, if you want some of the vassal's cities, take them before making peace.

 

[dostillevi]

On the other hand, when you normally enter peace with a master, you're forced into peace with the vassal as well.

Yup, because that logically makes sense - when you make peace with the master, the vassal is going along with their master's political stance. When you make peace with one independent enemy while you're at war with two, you aren't forced into peace with the second. Why should that change because the second was formerly a vassal of the capitulating civilization?