Poll: Should conquering a capital break vassalage?

[LifeOfBrian]

In my games, I've sometimes come across a scenario where I conquer a capital (and perhaps some other cities as well), but I cannot force capitulation by the enemy because the enemy is either a vassal or a master to a vassal. So I've been thinking that this might be something the community would want changing so that if you conquered a vassal's capital, it would immediately stop being a vassal (the real-life logic behind this would be that its master failed in protecting them), and if you conquered a master's capital, it would immediately stop being a master to all its vassals (the real-life logic behind this would be that if they're not strong enough to protect themselves, they aren't strong enough to protect their vassals). I look forward to your votes and replies!

 

[looorg]

I don't know. It will be very geography dependent. Vassals might then be screwed cause you/they got forward settled and have direct "enemy" border access with the capital of some future enemy etc. The AI in that mind seems to have gotten a bit better at suggesting global liberation in the congress and to "escape" vassalage by pledging with some other super power to peace out with you. Not sure dropping that just cause one city falls is enough. Even if it's the capital. They could still then have a "large" (relative speaking) empire that just drops for nothing.

 

[Circe]

Losing territory is one of the possible justifications for ending vassalage already, but it seems like the AI won't do so if they're in a bad situation, even if their master isn't defending them. With the rare exceptions of when a vassal is actually prosperous, I never see them end, and even my own vassals tolerate maximum taxes and terrible relations so long as they're weaker and smaller. I think they should be way more aggressive about ending vassalage, and have some boosts to the likelihood of making that choice when, for example, a hated master is at war, or progressively growing with a master's negative warscore.

I also think masters ought to be responsible for their vassals' warscores in some way. Currently you can demolish a vassal and get 100 warscore but you can only peace with the master and they're totally off the hook for it.

 

[azum4roll]

In my game capitulated vassal Portugal did revolt against their master Spain, who let them go. And then Portugal immediately voluntarily vassalized to Mongolia on the same turn. None of them were in any danger situation.

 

[Fluffball]

I voted yes for both master and vassal as this seems like a reasonable pesumption. I assume in the case where someone had multiple vassals if you take one vassals capital only that vassal is released which would also add more options for wearing down big warmongers.
I would also say that if a vassal has been 'liberated' they should become the vassal of the 'liberator' also which pans out with a lot of what happened in WW2 where Germany's 'allies' and conquered vassals (France) swapped sides when invaded by the Allied nations.

 

[LifeOfBrian]

Thanks for the replies & votes, everyone!