serious flaw in vassal system ?

[lukep]

i think there is a serious bug in the vassal system.

i was warring isabella with bismark as ally when she vassalize to the latter.

I did not see any message but the next turn bismark attack me. This is totally

illogic and there should at least exist a warning, or probably a negocation for
peace.

Worse bismark was below me in ranking.

 

[Cam_H]

lukep,

Are you playing with the 2.08 Warlords Patch installed? They made several changes to the behaviour of the Vassalage system. I've not struck such a predicament since the installation of the patch.

Then again - maybe you were just backstabbed by Bismark?

 

[Mutineer]

NO that actially intended behaviour.
I suspect Bismark may be below in points, but has simular military power.
So, He acsepted Isabella as vassal and automatically declared on you.
Vassal system has is falts, but this is not one of them.

 

[Bhruic]

Are you sure? I thought the normal behaviour when you had multiple people fighting some was if they ended up Capitulating to one of their attackers, everyone got hit with some enforced peace. You only end up with the "war" scenario if you end up Vassalizing (not Capitulating) someone who is at war with others.

Bh

 

[Sisiutil]

I believe the way it works is this:

If you have other civs as allies attacking another civ, and the defending civ becomes the vassal of one of its attackers, all other allied civs are automatically at peace with the vassal.

If, however, the defending civ becomes the vassal of a civ with which it is not at war, then that civ basically becomes its ally and is automatically at war with any and all civs attacking the defending civ.

The key here, really, is whether or not another, non-involved civ in the second scenario is ready and willing to go to war against the attacker(s). The main determiners there are (a) diplomatic attitude and (b) military power. If you're strong enough and/or the other stronger civs like you enough, they'll basically let you pummel the defending civ into a greasy spot on the pavement.

This was the case in the most recent (Kublai Khan) ALC game, where I was more than twice as powerful as the next closest civ. This allowed me to slap Mansa Musa silly for several turns even though he was prepared to capitulate to just about anybody.

 

[Kietharr]

I don't know exactly how it works. In my last game I had beaten down rome before 1AD and was half way through Huyana by 1000AD, I forced him up into a few marginal tundra and ice cities while I changed my focus to Kublai Khan for 100 years. Then, right before wiping out the mongols he vassalized to HC, who declared war on me despite my military being probably 100x the size of his and him being pleased to me. I wiped out Kublai then took the Incan capital and all but 2 of his ice cities. Then he vassalized to Napoleon who also declared war, who had about 7 cities total sitting on my southern border. His military is also many times weaker than mine. After finishing the incans I work on the french, get them down to 1 city in 10 turns when he vassalizes to Bismark who ALSO declares war! Luckily my army was massive and getting bigger from whipped units in conqured lands, and I hit domination limit after the french cities came out of revolt.

I just don't understand why they chained the wars on me like that, considering I had a military 2x as big as all of them combined and was pleased or cautious with all of them.

 

[Sisiutil]

I don't know exactly how it works. In my last game I had beaten down rome before 1AD and was half way through Huyana by 1000AD, I forced him up into a few marginal tundra and ice cities while I changed my focus to Kublai Khan for 100 years. Then, right before wiping out the mongols he vassalized to HC, who declared war on me despite my military being probably 100x the size of his and him being pleased to me. I wiped out Kublai then took the Incan capital and all but 2 of his ice cities. Then he vassalized to Napoleon who also declared war, who had about 7 cities total sitting on my southern border. His military is also many times weaker than mine. After finishing the incans I work on the french, get them down to 1 city in 10 turns when he vassalizes to Bismark who ALSO declares war! Luckily my army was massive and getting bigger from whipped units in conqured lands, and I hit domination limit after the french cities came out of revolt.

I just don't understand why they chained the wars on me like that, considering I had a military 2x as big as all of them combined and was pleased or cautious with all of them.

As I recall, the AI will only absolutely 100% NOT declare war on you only when it's "Friendly". I have "Pleased" civs declare on me all the time, often when they're weaker. The power graph has an effect, but so do other factors like the AI leader's programmed disposition towards war, lack of defenses in nearby targets, and the RNG to boot.

 

[lukep]

I believe the way it works is this:

If you have other civs as allies attacking another civ, and the defending civ becomes the vassal of one of its attackers, all other allied civs are automatically at peace with the vassal.

if that was the case that would be ok, but that was not the case here.

If, however, the defending civ becomes the vassal of a civ with which it is not at war, then that civ basically becomes its ally and is automatically at war with any and all civs attacking the defending civ.

that is ok, even if offering a choice immediatly for peace would be logic (we are backed by someone powerfull). here you have to wait 10 turns

The key here, really, is whether or not another, non-involved civ in the second scenario is ready and willing to go to war against the attacker(s). The main determiners there are (a) diplomatic attitude and (b) military power. If you're strong enough and/or the other stronger civs like you enough, they'll basically let you pummel the defending civ into a greasy spot on the pavement.

This was the case in the most recent (Kublai Khan) ALC game, where I was more than twice as powerful as the next closest civ. This allowed me to slap Mansa Musa silly for several turns even though he was prepared to capitulate to just about anybody.

@Mutineer.

if turning a long time ally in an ennemy without warning is the intended behaviour, it is a major flaw in my book

and yes, i have latest patch (mac version)

 

[Sisiutil]

if turning a long time ally in an ennemy without warning is the intended behaviour, it is a major flaw in my book

and yes, i have latest patch (mac version)

Not in mine. As I mentioned, you need to have certain iron-clad assurances, like a "Friendly" status and, when at peace, a defensive pact to guarantee you won't get . To my mind, that potential for back-stabbing is part of the appeal of the game, because, well, it happens. Nations with "friend and ally" status with ancient Rome, for example, used to routinely turn on Rome if it they saw what looked like an opportunity to get out from under their yoke, only to be very apologetic and subservient when the Republic or Empire reasserted itself.

I don't think the takeaway here is that the vassal system is broken. I think the takeaway is that unless a civ is "Friendly", you can't count on them. "Pleased" makes them less likely to turn on you, but it's no guarantee, and if they see an opportunity and they're inclined to be aggressive (Napoleon, in your situation, being a good example of this), then you need to watch out.

 

[lukep]

Not in mine. As I mentioned, you need to have certain iron-clad assurances, like a "Friendly" status and, when at peace, a defensive pact to guarantee you won't get . To my mind, that potential for back-stabbing is part of the appeal of the game, because, well, it happens. Nations with "friend and ally" status with ancient Rome, for example, used to routinely turn on Rome if it they saw what looked like an opportunity to get out from under their yoke, only to be very apologetic and subservient when the Republic or Empire reasserted itself.

I don't think the takeaway here is that the vassal system is broken. I think the takeaway is that unless a civ is "Friendly", you can't count on them. "Pleased" makes them less likely to turn on you, but it's no guarantee, and if they see an opportunity and they're inclined to be aggressive (Napoleon, in your situation, being a good example of this), then you need to watch out.

we can agree to disagree then

the backstabbing i dont mind, that is part of the game indeed.
but in those circumstances, no.

one army would never ally with its previous ennemy to turn on those they have fighted with, when the former enemy is so weak (2 cities left). at least not without warning. In history, the ones changing sides were auxilliary civs much weaker than main contenders. And winners may fight between them, but after the other side is finished.

Note that if Bismark had backstabbed me without vassaling Isabella, then that would have been a different matter, and one i would have accept gracefully.

Same for someone not involved in the previous brawl vassaling her and going in the fight to protect spain.

 

[DaveMcW]

Could you attach a save from the turn before?