Redesigning vassalage

[Sinapus]

No. If you pull your hand out of the puppet, will it come back to life? You killed it already. Cities near to your borders will join you, the rest will rebel and join nearby countries.

What if you did something like what was done to Japan and Germany after World War 2? E.g., hold it for awhile, and then re-establish it's government and effectively let them go.

Okay, Germany was a bit more complex since it was divided into two nations during the Cold War... Hm. That might be a bit more complex. Japan is more straightforward since they effectively capitulated, were occupied and became independent later. (1952, if Wikipedia is correct.)

 

[Sonereal]

What if you did something like what was done to Japan and Germany after World War 2? E.g., hold it for awhile, and then re-establish it's government and effectively let them go.

Okay, Germany was a bit more complex since it was divided into two nations during the Cold War... Hm. That might be a bit more complex. Japan is more straightforward since they effectively capitulated, were occupied and became independent later. (1952, if Wikipedia is correct.)

Look at North Korea which was, at first, just another Soviet puppet but even with the fall of the USSR, it's still there.

Instead of the cities just straight revolting, there should be a massive revolution penalty with rebels asking for the country they want to join to join the war so they can spawn as guerillas for that nation.

 

[Iceciro]

Let me tell you - I want this feature so badly right now. I have 70!!! cities on a Gigantic map and maintenance hurts badly, but I don't want to let the territory fall into enemy hands or raze the cities (because someone will just come drop a pioneer on the spot and I'll have the same problem). I'd love to make a puppet state to hold these spots, or even turn them over to someone I can trust... but no...

 

[StormLord-711-]

I think the idea put in the OP is pretty solid, with some minor disagreements I have about it. I would love to see the vassalage system revised to be better. The three types of vassal in the OP are basically already in vanilla BtS, although the game doesn't distinguish between them quite that much.

A) Like I think a couple people have mentioned, I think that there should be a difference between a puppet state and a capitulated vassal. I think the best way to do it would be this:

• Have a capitulated vassal be similar to how it is now. The vassal will not be dead, and will try to break free later if it doesn't like you. Alternatively, you could willingly let it go. There should be some kind of incentive for that, perhaps in Revolutions, or maybe capitulated vassals could be more temporary in nature like it was mentioned- ideas?
• Make it possible to turn cities that you conquer into puppet states (and let new cities that you conquer be added on to old puppet states). I think the idea in the OP would fit this exactly- puppet states should effectively represent you.
  
  Spoiler :

  This ability of carving out puppet states was apparently present in this mod.

B) I think the idea for Protectorates in the OP is great the way it is, and complete.

C) I originally didn't think that colonies should be able to make war on their own, but now that I think about it, I like the idea. (But I hope the OP didn't mean that Colonies didn't have to be at war with their master's enemies- I wouldn't like that, and I don't think that would be realistic.) Some colonies invaded natives in the New World against their master's wishes, so I think this is reasonable and would effectively represent their autonomy.

I think that another type of vassal could use the same system as colonies. If a section of your empire doesn't like you, you should be able to let it break away and be autonomous (and it would have the exact same vassal mechanics as colonies). This ability is already present in the Revolutions mod, but it only happens when you suffer a revolt. I think that you should also be able to do it voluntarily with whatever cities you like so that you don't have to keep undesired cities. If this idea were incorporated, then I think a better name for Colonies would be Autonomous States. (There are many autonomous states in the world today that many aren't aware of. I think that the Commonwealth of Nations would fall under this category, as well as other places such as Hong Kong).

-----------
This gives me an idea that might or might not work: what about trading vassals? I think that this ability could be present, as well as the ability for one civ to demand another to release vassals. This is also realistic in my opinion.

-----------
So to tie it up I think there should be:
1) Capitulated States, which are civs that surrender to you and are still alive
2) Puppet States, which you conquer but let someone else administer
3) Protectorates, just like in the OP
4) Autonomous States, made by either forming a colony or giving a section of your empire autonomy

 

[os79]

Only reason I support this is because it is an alternative to what I really, really want:

I really really want AIs to ACTUALLY capitulate to me when they realize they have very tiny odds against me and would benefit from being my vassalage (or whatever other lesser type rank under me).

That would make for both realistic and gameplay convenience.

Sometimes, in history a civ is so aggressive and just want to take everything. But the conquered civ didn't want to be utterly destroyed so they gave up and became the winner's prize, so to speak. Of course there were a very small percentage of winners who ignored the losers' plea, but they were in minority and are considered villains of history anyway. Otherwise, the winners who received and accepted capitulations today turn out to our honored civs.

So why not the same for this game? Plus, it would relieve me of the annoying necessity of clicking on civ's name and see if it is ready to capitulate or not. Not always, though. There can be some cases of stubborn "last man standing" civs, though .

 

[Sonereal]

So to tie it up I think there should be:
1) Capitulated States, which are civs that surrender to you and are still alive
2) Puppet States, which you conquer but let someone else administer
3) Protectorates, just like in the OP
4) Autonomous States, made by either forming a colony or giving a section of your empire autonomy

See, the capitulated states idea is missing something for me still. Why use the puppet state if you could just force capitulation? That's why I came up with the idea for Unconditional Surrender which is like capitulation except it only lasts 25-100 turns and the AI must give you any tech, gold, or resources you ask it too. As a caveat, unconditional surrender forces the loser to let go of all his vassals and puppets because on a Gigantic map which will have possibly several dozen puppets, this feature would be pretty awe-inspiring as civil wars break out throughout the world.

But you can't force it to go to war for you and it can unconditionally surrender to other people it's at war with. I think this idea would work perfectly with Coalitions if they're ever included.

Besides, puppet states should be the same civilization it was before, only with different civics of course.

 

[Killtech]

well, the OP wasn't actualized so far, so what is the current plan on this topic?

as i see the ideas in the OP i'm a bit sceptical.

so puppet states is the new name for vassals? except that they disappear when freed? so there'd be no france after germany forced them to capitulate and had to let them go when the allies came? nor could poland exist after the downfall of soviet unition. lol, it'd become partially russian and partially german, just like at beginning of WWII. i'd rather suggest some kind of revolution within puppet sates where leaderhead might change as should the attitude to other civs.

if you want to make puppet states more based on reality then there should be following rules:

• puppet states can only be found out of occupied cities. most dominant culture will determine the civ that will be the puppet state (if available).
• puppet states effectivly expand your empire. so they have to cost maintenance, though not as much as you'd need for maintenance if you keep the cities.
• puppets have exactly the same policy as you have as said in the OP.
• puppet states that are freed can either become free states or be integrated into existing civs. this depends on the culure they are founded: if they're founded on the culture of a civ that already exists, they are likely to join this civ. (all their culture is converted to thas civs culture - e.g. East Germany culture is converted to german culture and all cities are turned to germany). or they become independent states after a revolution (leaderhead change?) e.g. Poland, Hungary or Czechoslovakia at the end of the Soviet Union.
• puppets can be attacked through espionage and even freed from their master with sufficient gold/espionage. causes a revolution within. the revolution leader is likely to accept a protectorate from the nation who freed them

what i lack are true (unconditional) capitulated states:

• when civs capitualte they go into this state. (you do not need to occupy their cities)
• they are effectively your vassals but only for a limited amount of turns. after that they get more and more autonomy until they are completely free.
• no upkeep cost or anything.
• for a certain amount of turns you can demand anything from them.

protecturates:

• protectorates pay tribute. but they should not be better then puppets so:
• protectorates do not share master diplomacy completely: if master declares war on someone they do not follow! they only share all peace agreements with master.
• protectorates cannot declare war themselves except for civs that are at war with master. others can declare war to them but they also always declare war to the master too.
• they can end wars on their own.

colony:
hmm... kind of protectorate that shares resources?
alternatively instead of paying a tax to the master it could give all gold + beakers income to the master, share resources (master also has colony resrouces, but not the other way around). colony cities have a reduces maintenance for cities. as for diplomacy: same status as protectorate except for the tax. greatest problem: colonies share techs (everything the master has the colony gets too). also other states trade alliance against master if colony and master relations are not good enough. there is also a diplomatic penalty that arises if the colony has enough own culture and/or population. thus colonies will inevitably want independence after a time.

coalitions:
works similar vassal system but is voluntarily and temporal and strictly bound to a war against someone. coalition leader make all diplomatic dacisions but his coalition partners can put forward requests like make peace to X. of course denying requests makes bad relations with all coalition partners. same happens when someone just leaves the coalition.
also in peace talks coalition partners share the reparations: i.e. if defeated civs trades tech for peace all coalition partners get this tech. if trading peace is only possible if defeated civ agrees to free all conquered cities. coalition partners do not die as long as they are part of a coalition. (e.g. france does not die if completly destroyed in WW2). if coalitions succeeds all cities are freed to their righteous civ. (thus france gets all cities back). a coalition succeeds if the war it was founded for is over by a) destroying the enemy, b) defeated enemy trades for peace.

 

[Sonereal]

what i lack are true (unconditional) capitulated states:

• when civs capitualte they go into this state. (you do not need to occupy their cities)
• they are effectively your vassals but only for a limited amount of turns. after that they get more and more autonomy until they are completely free.
• no upkeep cost or anything.
• for a certain amount of turns you can demand anything from them.

That's kinda like my idea for unconditional surrender except of one problem: Can they be the "vassal" of several civilizations at once like that? Say Civ A is at war with B, C, and D.

B beats it pretty bad, takes a few cities and sets up a puppet state, so A offers Unconditional surrender so now, CivA and B have a say, 50 turns peace treaty or deal and during this time, Civ A has to give B anything A demands but A is still at war with B and C. This should prevent really stupid things like a world war with several uncoordinated superpowers from all ending their war when the loser capitulates to one of the winners, leaving the others without anything decent.

coalitions:
works similar vassal system but is voluntarily and temporal and strictly bound to a war against someone. coalition leader make all diplomatic dacisions but his coalition partners can put forward requests like make peace to X. of course denying requests makes bad relations with all coalition partners. same happens when someone just leaves the coalition.
also in peace talks coalition partners share the reparations: i.e. if defeated civs trades tech for peace all coalition partners get this tech. if trading peace is only possible if defeated civ agrees to free all conquered cities. coalition partners do not die as long as they are part of a coalition. (e.g. france does not die if completly destroyed in WW2). if coalitions succeeds all cities are freed to their righteous civ. (thus france gets all cities back). a coalition succeeds if the war it was founded for is over by a) destroying the enemy, b) defeated enemy trades for peace.

Coalitions though do last throughout peace time however like NATO has but that gives me several ideas.

Say there are six civs (A-F). Civ A and B at both at war with D but B is weaker than A so they ask to join A's coalition.

1. So, the AB coalition is at war with D so B needs some help so what it does is asks for E and F to join the war so now, there's a new coalition (DEF). F was at war with C however and now, C is at war with DEF and is vastly outnumbered so now, C wants to join AB so now we have ABC vs DEF.

2.DEF is losing the war badly and since D is the leader, it's the one making the decesion of to continue the war. Eventually, E is completely occupied (but not out). F is dong ok and has taken a few C cities. D however knows it can't win the war or is doing badly himself so immediately, it sues for peace.

Now, if possible since this was coalition on coalition, there should be a few peace options.

A.) Statues Quo: War has lasted a long time and neither side is winning by a big enough margine to warrant a huge treaty so things pretty much revert back to the norm and everybody gets their cities back.

B.) Demands: The Coalition Leader demands that all cities taken by its coalition and cities returned.

C.) Unconditional Surrender: The Losers capitulate to the winners and are forced to give up their lost cities and return cities. All tech that the winners have are given to all the winners, all the combined gold of the losers are divided evenly among the winners, and if possible, the losers aren't allowed to start wars of aggression for a set amount of time and are not allowed to increase the size of their military by more than 10% of the moment it lost the war.

And maybe the losers who weren't completely annexed can get back their lost cities after a long time (except of course if those cities are turned into puppets/vassals).


Not saying that all four must be optimal for the AI to join the coalition though except if the AI is stronger than the coalition leader, it should ask the leader to either A.) Trade places or it should B.) Leave which could lead to a domino effect if another AI just joined because its neighbor joined.

But then again, my idea is probably too complicated/complex to add to a mod.

 

[Killtech]

i think that is a bit too complicated.

my thinking is following: in the game all this won't matter much so no need for too much complication. but there are some key problems the redesigned vassalage program can solve. one thing is that usually there is some strong civ that declares war on you or you on them. after some time it will bring some minor civs up against you. but then you can just make peace with that main enemy and keep the war against the smaller civs that were his 'war allies' against you until you vassalize them. coalitions are ment to prevent the weak to become vassals that quickly because you either trade peace with them all or none - but can't just keep punching the weaker while you make peace with the stronger. also coalitions allow presumably minor civs to join forces and become dangerous for large empires. this is why i think coatlitions are important.

as far as it comes to how long they should last my position is only as long as the war lasts! no longer or all you get is the old vassal system just renamed and with minor tweaks. however defesnive pacts must be changed to work correctly with coalitions: e.g. in case of one of the pact partners is attacked the other does not just declare war against the aggressor but also there is a coalition created both sides join. who leads the coalitions must be predetermined when the pact is signed. however note that is this case if A has a def. pact with B and B has one with C then it also implies that A has a pact with C: e.g. you get a defensive pact situation exactly like the NATO.

and it's better if all is kept simple: you can only be in one coalition (or one defense pact group).

as for unconditional surrender: if someone capitulates to a coalition ALL coalition partners have the same rights in terms of what they can demand. however the capitulated state is administrated under the control of the coalition leader. but capitulated states, other then puppets have their own diplomacy and do not automatically follow their master into wars (they have protectorate status). why? well germany didn't follow the US into the many wars it fought... in korea, suez, libanon, kongo, vietnam...

something i forgot earlier: coalitions differ from vassal system in terms of diplomacy: each coalition partner still keeps his own diplomacy! they still can declare wars to other nations individually (the coalition do not follow the war dec). however everyone declaring war against a coalition member declares war to the whole coalition. only the wars lead by the whole coalition cannot be ended by the members individually.
[TAB]what i'm not sure about is how to make wars of member states to wars of the whole coalition (not only in defensive situation). i suppose the coalition leader should decide over that. so maybe the wars of the leader are just understood as the common wars of the coalition while memeber states can still have their private wars. of course they still have the option to ask the coalition leader for military help and thus expand the war to the whole coalition if the leader accepts.

EDIT:
summing up about coalitions:
[TAB]coalitions form naturally from defensive pacts or by bringing in war allies (this is split into three options: he joins under your leadership, you join under his or just the old way without any coalition. option 2 is only available if you are no part of any other coalition/defensive pact group. option 1 is only for a coalition leader or if you are in no coalition/defensive pact group. option 3 is only an option if conditions of 1 or 2 are not met. however it is unlikely someone will accept such a proposal).
[TAB]coalitions work as defensive pacts between all colation members. peace and war declarations of the leader are valid for all coalition members (but not his war status - i.e. the wars the leader had before the coalition remain his private problems). coalition members are not allowed to trade peace with civs that the leader is at war at. coalitions end when leader has no wars left. that the major part and sound rather simple but effective.
[TAB]as for peace talks of a coalition leader: if the leader demands anything for peace he must(!) request all cities to be freed for all coalition partners first. acquired techs and maps are gained by all partners. gold trades... split among parters according score but its ok if just leader would takes it all (easier to implement and not that important). capitulations: leader takes capitulated as his protectorate for at least n turns but all prior coalition members (only those who were part of the coalition at that time) can demand any tech, resource, gold(?), trade peace (but now war), cancel trade with any non prior coalition member for this n turns.
[TAB]inter coalition diplomacy: all member can ask leader for peace with a specific civ if they want to make peace with them. can trade leadership from leader (leader will never go for it if stronger). can leave coalition - need to talk to leader for that. suffers a diplo penalty to all coalition members for that ('you left us alone!'). each trade with leader automatically selects a 'remain in coalition' on the member side thus leader will have to pay a higher price for techs acquired form coalition partners. the 'remain in coalition' enforces someone to stay at least for 10 turns in the coalition (works like other trades). however this allows to trade something for staying in a coalition for partners. evidently the leader cannot leave his coalition and minor civs will never accept to take control of a coalition.
[TAB]diplomatic relations to coalition members: half is taken from the attitude towards you, and half is taken form the attitude of the arithmetic average to the coalition members where the leader counts double.

 

[Sonereal]

i think that is a bit too complicated.

In hindsight, it was. I'm one of those people who's idea become more complicated the more tired I become.

my thinking is following: in the game all this won't matter much so no need for too much complication. but there are some key problems the redesigned vassalage program can solve. one thing is that usually there is some strong civ that declares war on you or you on them. after some time it will bring some minor civs up against you. but then you can just make peace with that main enemy and keep the war against the smaller civs that were his 'war allies' against you until you vassalize them. coalitions are ment to prevent the weak to become vassals that quickly because you either trade peace with them all or none - but can't just keep punching the weaker while you make peace with the stronger. also coalitions allow presumably minor civs to join forces and become dangerous for large empires. this is why i think coatlitions are important.

That's the biggest reason I like this idea.

as far as it comes to how long they should last my position is only as long as the war lasts! no longer or all you get is the old vassal system just renamed and with minor tweaks.

I think that it should last into peace time if there's a mutual threat to the coalition still. So, in-game, tiny neighboring civilizations might form coalitions to ward off a potential invader from picking them off one by one.

however defesnive pacts must be changed to work correctly with coalitions: e.g. in case of one of the pact partners is attacked the other does not just declare war against the aggressor but also there is a coalition created both sides join. who leads the coalitions must be predetermined when the pact is signed. however note that is this case if A has a def. pact with B and B has one with C then it also implies that A has a pact with C: e.g. you get a defensive pact situation exactly like the NATO.

Agreed.

and it's better if all is kept simple: you can only be in one coalition (or one defense pact group).

Agreed.

as for unconditional surrender: if someone capitulates to a coalition ALL coalition partners have the same rights in terms of what they can demand. however the capitulated state is administrated under the control of the coalition leader. but capitulated states, other then puppets have their own diplomacy and do not automatically follow their master into wars (they have protectorate status). why? well germany didn't follow the US into the many wars it fought... in korea, suez, libanon, kongo, vietnam...

Exactly because that would get very confusing after a while.

something i forgot earlier: coalitions differ from vassal system in terms of diplomacy: each coalition partner still keeps his own diplomacy! they still can declare wars to other nations individually (the coalition do not follow the war dec). however everyone declaring war against a coalition member declares war to the whole coalition. only the wars lead by the whole coalition cannot be ended by the members individually.
what i'm not sure about is how to make wars of member states to wars of the whole coalition (not only in defensive situation). i suppose the coalition leader should decide over that. so maybe the wars of the leader are just understood as the common wars of the coalition while memeber states can still have their private wars. of course they still have the option to ask the coalition leader for military help and thus expand the war to the whole coalition if the leader accepts.

I think the Axis in Hearts of Iron 3 had a nice system. Axis members were able to declare limited wars which didn't bring in the whole alliance but then issue a call of arms.

EDIT:
summing up about coalitions:
coalitions form naturally from defensive pacts or by bringing in war allies (this is split into three options: he joins under your leadership, you join under his or just the old way without any coalition. option 2 is only available if you are no part of any other coalition/defensive pact group. option 1 is only for a coalition leader or if you are in no coalition/defensive pact group. option 3 is only an option if conditions of 1 or 2 are not met. however it is unlikely someone will accept such a proposal).

You know what? This system actually makes sense. Ruthless AI love to call in war allies but it's usually useless since you can annex them one-by-one and end a war early with one. So instead, you ask them to join your coalition.

Option 3 should probably be stricken except when asking your puppets or maybe colonies to go to war with someone else.

coalitions work as defensive pacts between all colation members. peace and war declarations of the leader are valid for all coalition members (but not his war status - i.e. the wars the leader had before the coalition remain his private problems). coalition members are not allowed to trade peace with civs that the leader is at war at. coalitions end when leader has no wars left. that the major part and sound rather simple but effective.

I like it.

as for peace talks of a coalition leader: if the leader demands anything for peace he must(!) request all cities to be freed for all coalition partners first. acquired techs and maps are gained by all partners. gold trades... split among parters according score but its ok if just leader would takes it all (easier to implement and not that important). capitulations: leader takes capitulated as his protectorate for at least n turns but all prior coalition members (only those who were part of the coalition at that time) can demand any tech, resource, gold(?), trade peace (but now war), cancel trade with any non prior coalition member for this n turns.

Techs are actually very important, and so is gold but its evenly, split among the ones who weren't completely occupied, or split it based on score. All pretty annoying to deal with I bet except for the "evenly" one.

inter coalition diplomacy: all member can ask leader for peace with a specific civ if they want to make peace with them. can trade leadership from leader (leader will never go for it if stronger). can leave coalition - need to talk to leader for that. suffers a diplo penalty to all coalition members for that ('you left us alone!'). each trade with leader automatically selects a 'remain in coalition' on the member side thus leader will have to pay a higher price for techs acquired form coalition partners. the 'remain in coalition' enforces someone to stay at least for 10 turns in the coalition (works like other trades). however this allows to trade something for staying in a coalition for partners. evidently the leader cannot leave his coalition and minor civs will never accept to take control of a coalition.

I think the diplo penalty should be bigger if you leave during a war but other than that, it sound nice.

diplomatic relations to coalition members: half is taken from the attitude towards you, and half is taken form the attitude of the arithmetic average to the coalition members where the leader counts double.

Probably a tad complicated (just a tad) but not bad nonetheless.

 

[Killtech]

I think the diplo penalty should be bigger if you leave during a war but other than that, it sound nice.

a coalition ends at the ends when it's at peace and turns into a defense pact. otherwise you are dragged into each single new war of the leader. alternatively you need to change the mechanic that determinate which wars are made into wars for all coalition members.

 

[Sonereal]

a coalition ends at the ends when it's at peace and turns into a defense pact. otherwise you are dragged into each single new war of the leader. alternatively you need to change the mechanic that determinate which wars are made into wars for all coalition members.

But if a coalition member declares war, doesn't the defensive pact cancel anyway?

 

[fireclaw722]

I see coalitions as when someone declares war on a group, one country leads their full militarial effort, effectively making things much easier for the coalition(A temporary Permenant Allaince, if you will[oxymoron, I know]).

[TAB]-How that could work in civ, is that one person is elected Coalition-Leader(A, for short) by the other nations in the coalition(B, C, and D). A temporarily gains B, C, and D's armies and tries to use them to defeat the 'common-enemy'. While the war is being fought, B/C/D can build their own units for defencive purposes or can choose to give them to A. At the end of a war, the coalition is desolved, B/C/D regain their armies, and the 'common-enemy' is split into puppet-states(puppet for each of the coalition members).

[TAB]-But let's say A wasn't doing such a good job in the war and B/C/D were losing their homelands, they get a pop-up asking them of these options:
-Elect new Coalition-Leader(A new coalition-leader is elected, simple as that)
or
-Leave Coalition(The Human/AI will make peace with the 'common-enemy', regain control of thier army and drop the Allaince with the coalition memebers)
or
-Join enemy, and help defeat the failed coalition(the human/AI who chooses this would regain their territories, regain control of their armies, change sides, and form a coalition with the 'common-enemy')


EDIT:
[TAB]-As for Unconditional-Surrender, the 'common-enemy' is demilitarized(made a puppet); and occupied by the coalition; the coalition stays intact for this and cannot declare war an each other; a coalition member can leave, breaking off part of the puppet(creating a new puppet, of the same country); If a member leaves then he suffers a diplomatic penalty with the other coalition members.

This is all I have, for now...

 

[Tomcat1962]

Maybe this has been posted/asked before and/or it's the wrong mod sub-forum, so please forgive me in this case...

Is it possible or would it be a great deal to make it possible to ask/give orders to an allied state not only to attack any known cities of countries you are at war with, but also any known barbarian city?

regards

 

[Sonereal]

I see coalitions as when someone declares war on a group, one country leads their full militarial effort, effectively making things much easier for the coalition(A temporary Permenant Allaince, if you will[oxymoron, I know]).

Eh.

-How that could work in civ, is that one person is elected Coalition-Leader(A, for short) by the other nations in the coalition(B, C, and D). A temporarily gains B, C, and D's armies and tries to use them to defeat the 'common-enemy'. While the war is being fought, B/C/D can build their own units for defencive purposes or can choose to give them to A. At the end of a war, the coalition is desolved, B/C/D regain their armies, and the 'common-enemy' is split into puppet-states(puppet for each of the coalition members).

I liked that at first but then Killtech came up with an idea that's much better. Coalitions aren't UNs, if you don't like the guy leading, you can either leave or ask to switch places if you're stronger.

The only point of Coalitions is to prevent cases where World Wars are ended when one nation grabs the chance to demand capitulation from the losing nation. Also, the idea of the common enemy being split into a puppet for each coalition member isn't fun since it's easier to use the conquered cities to create a puppet like it's done in Conqueror's Delight.

-But let's say A wasn't doing such a good job in the war and B/C/D were losing their homelands, they get a pop-up asking them of these options:
-Elect new Coalition-Leader(A new coalition-leader is elected, simple as that)
or

No. Again, the only option should be to leave.

-Leave Coalition(The Human/AI will make peace with the 'common-enemy', regain control of thier army and drop the Allaince with the coalition memebers)
or

At a major diplo penalty.

-Join enemy, and help defeat the failed coalition(the human/AI who chooses this would regain their territories, regain control of their armies, change sides, and form a coalition with the 'common-enemy')

No. No. No. No. No. No.

That's really poor gameplay wise since it creates a snowball effect that's pretty annoying.

EDIT:
-As for Unconditional-Surrender, the 'common-enemy' is demilitarized(made a puppet); and occupied by the coalition; the coalition stays intact for this and cannot declare war an each other; a coalition member can leave, breaking off part of the puppet(creating a new puppet, of the same country); If a member leaves then he suffers a diplomatic penalty with the other coalition members.

1. My idea for "demilitarized" is that the nation is not allowed to increase the size of its military by more than 10% for a while (10% going by the size of its military by war's end)

2. As for the idea of having parts broken off or the country being split, no. Again, the conquers can create the puppets already as they go. All in all, Unconditional Surrender should imply a heavy loss of international strength but not a lost of independence. The doesn't become a puppet except its lands already occupied by the enemy (if they choose to create puppets in the first place).

 

[StormLord-711-]

All in all, I think the coalitions aren't a bad idea, but I think we will want to keep the mechanics simple to make it easier to add, and especially to make it easier to teach the AI and keep it fun for the human. I like the idea of coalitions basically being defensive pacts that are not dissolved when one member declares war (like in Rhye's and Fall of Civ). This has the effect where if civ A in one group declares war on civ C, when C's ally D declares war on A, A's ally B will declare war on D (making C declare war on B), which causes a world war. Hope you could follow all that. (Basically, if one member of a group declares war on a member of another group, everyone in the two groups declare war on each other.) In my opinion, this changes everything.

I like some of the ideas of making coalitions a little more than just modified defensive pacts, but I don't think we'll want to make too many rules for them either.

 

[Sonereal]

All in all, I think the coalitions aren't a bad idea, but I think we will want to keep the mechanics simple to make it easier to add, and especially to make it easier to teach the AI and keep it fun for the human. I like the idea of coalitions basically being defensive pacts that are not dissolved when one member declares war (like in Rhye's and Fall of Civ). This has the effect where if civ A in one group declares war on civ C, when C's ally D declares war on A, A's ally B will declare war on D (making C declare war on B), which causes a world war. Hope you could follow all that. (Basically, if one member of a group declares war on a member of another group, everyone in the two groups declare war on each other.)

I like some of the ideas of making coalitions a little more than just modified defensive pacts, but I don't think we'll want to make too many rules for them either.

Sometimes, being simple is better.

 

[Sonereal]

I just thought of this while playing through my current game. Could it be made so that the AI vassal doesn't ask its master to annex it so that way, puppets or vassals aren't being created (or rebels given independence as the case may be) and then reassimilated a dozen turns later (with tons of free units as well)?