Should the Vassal system be re-worked in the next patch?

[Brad55]

So the other day I was ripping through Catherine's land to the south of me when, to my surprise, Gilgamesh decides to declare war on me. A few seconds later a message pops up informing me that Catherine has vassalized herself to the Sumerians even though they weren't in the war to begin with.

This is highly unrealistic and a big pain in the arse. In my opinion, a civilization should only be able to become a vassal state to the civ (or civs) that are attacking it and not to some distant non-participant.

What do you think?

 

[jkp1187]

Nonsense. This is perfectly reasonable behavior -- and gives a stronger AI power a mechanism to intervene to save a weaker power under attack from a stronger enemy.

 

[trafficlight]

Why shouldn't you just go to peace then? That makes more sense to me. The stronger power is still "protecting" the vassal by forcing peace.

 

[mudphud]

There are some aspects to the vassal system that I think should be changed but what you describe is reasonable. Cathy ran to Gilgamesh to ask him to save her in exchange for her becoming his vassal. Of course I agree that this can be annoying but I think it is a reasonable design.

What annoys me is when my vassal won't trade with me but goes and trades with my worst enemies. Sure I can tell him what to research but then he won't share it with me. (Don't know if this has been changed in BtS since I just started it)

 

[Goodgimp]

Why should the war cease due to vassalization? That hasn't been the way it's worked historically, and gameplay wise it's no different than an AI player asking/paying another AI player to intervene and declare war on you. I see the offer of vassalage as the ultimate "payment" for intervention in the war.

If the AI player is significantly weaker, then signing for peace should be easy. If they're significantly stronger, than what's to stop them from just declaring war on you anyway?

As long as the AI is calculating appropriate factors into their agreement to take on a vassal (which I thought was added in a Warlords patch), then I think the current system is fine. They should take into consideration their relationship with who their potential vassal is at war with, and weigh ths costs of declaring war on you.

 

[Dnomal]

I think a few extra binuses would be great.

Like all trade routes with vassals grant and extra 50% gold to you, and a vassal can't trade with nyone else.

OR

If you have mercantilism you can still have trade routes with vassals.

OR

Being able to "fully incorporate" vassals if your relations with the leader are very good.

OR

Being able to take control of a vassal's military in times of war.

 

[mudphud]

Being able to take control of a vassal's military in times of war.

You can give them targets to attack which they often will if able.

Another thing I think would be great even though it wouldn't change the game is that when I talk the vassal they should be kissing up to me. A vassal shouldn't be rude to his lord.

 

[Yzman]

I never understood why all of the dialog is pretty rude, even when they are friendly with you. Its not just vassals.

 

[Putchuco]

Germany is under heavy fire in WWII by the Russians and the US (mainly...), and then decides to vassalize to Italy?? Or China?

What sense that does make? None to me.

I would think you need a STRONG bind to a Civ you want to vassalize to, e.g.:
- close location and somewhat friendly relationship, possibly defensive pact
(NOT halfway around the world and to just about anyone)
- same religion and good relationship
- if you're on your own you surrender to the winning opponent to prevent your people from being annihilated

Those make sense to me.
I must confess I stop playing a game where sudden unpredictable, undefendable, unavoidable and game-changing events ruin the whole flow, e.g. someone surrendering to some other civ they have no relationship with.

 

[greggbert]

Germany is under heavy fire in WWII by the Russians and the US (mainly...), and then decides to vassalize to Italy?? Or China?

Well Israel is a vassal of the US and it's half way around the world. Cuba became a vassal of the USSR. It's quite common actually.

 

[MrFrodo]

If you are going for a conquest victory do you have to take out your vassals too? How about their land mass for a dominatino victory?

 

[magichj]

Personally I think that a vassal should not be allowed to not trade something with you. It is absolutely absurd that I can tell them what to research, but then they can say they do not want to trade it with me.

Also, if you are at war with someone and they vassilize to someone you are currently at peace with. You should be at peace with both parties by default after the vassilization takes place. At the very least be given the option of what you'd like to do.

 

[The Navy Seal]

A few tweaks but nothing major. I think it's pretty good now as it is.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Personally I think that a vassal should not be allowed to not trade something with you. It is absolutely absurd that I can tell them what to research, but then they can say they do not want to trade it with me.

Also, if you are at war with someone and they vassilize to someone you are currently at peace with. You should be at peace with both parties by default after the vassilization takes place. At the very least be given the option of what you'd like to do.

1. They should NOT have to give you anything but resources (and possibly civics changes and 'stop trading with') research should be theirs

2. If someone voluntarily vassalizes your victim, they understand it means going to war with you... your victim just bribed them into the war.

It is pretty good as is, the only problem is resource refusal

 

[TheLastOne36]

what annoys me more is how hatty vassalized to surya just because she only had 4 cities. (she never got more, and she never went to war, she was surrounded and landlocked with no place to expand) No war, it's just becuase she was small...

 

[GrandWazoo]

2. If someone voluntarily vassalizes your victim, they understand it means going to war with you... your victim just bribed them into the war.

I disagree, it means that you are not dealing directly with your victim anymore but with his new master. You have the choice to continue the war against both or to stay at peace with the other guy. It sounds logical as it is.

 

[GrandWazoo]

what annoys me more is how hatty vassalized to surya just because she only had 4 cities. (she never got more, and she never went to war, she was surrounded and landlocked with no place to expand) No war, it's just becuase she was small...

Again, sounds logical for a small nation to seek protection from the bigger one.

 

[TheLastOne36]

i understand that if the nation is as small as monaco, but on scale of the map, the country would've looked more like Austria or something with the bigger country to scale would've been the size of former yugoslavia.

 

[Kalimakhus]

What is really strange about someone who decided to go to war against you after being bribed into it with gaining a vassal? What choice you should have here?

The master is strong but maybe not enough to dwo you in normal circumstances. But you are already in war and having your victim as a vassal means that this vassal can't make peace with you unless his master make peace first. It is an opportunity to take you down or at least to hamper your progress and send you a punch of turns back. If this is not a normal behavior I don't know what would be.

 

[ezwip]

The vassal system is out of whack. Alot of people here have made some good point. My experience with it is right along the same path. Two nights ago I was kicking major butt with a major tech lead. Everyone liked me except the Chinese, but I didn't care he was on the other side of the map.

A few turns later I notice everyone is p'd off. These are friendlies that I have been sharing technology with anytime they asked. All of a sudden they hate me and 3 of the major powers are vassals to the Chinese. They never asked for help, nor did they even need it. I still can't figure it out they were all the same size as he was. Then he pushes right past me to take the tech lead. I was forced to rush a navy, travel to the furthest point on the map, and raise his coastal cities. Of course it was full blown world war from then on out. So much for the cultural victory.

Last night I'm stuck on an large island fighting with Brennus. At the start of the war he's the major super power and I've only got 3 cities, that kind of suck. I declare and manage to take the first town. His capital is now right in front of me, so I juke towards it and he moves his units in. I sweep over and hit another lightly defended coastal town. Now, I'm going for peace right away because he can smoke me if he wants to. He accepts, the next turn he's a French vassal, WTH??? Now my trading partner owns him. What started out as a lame attempt to push my border back against Brennus results in the French being on top and on the bottom of me. Then, and this is what truly amazes me... Shaka freaks out because that's just what Shaka does he can't play well with anyone... he's also a vassal of the French. He's declared war on me while I'm at peace with the other two and is using their territory to attack me. The cultural boundary is pushed all the way up on my city. So they can attack me, but I can't even attack their stack!

I love the game but that's a bit much, and I would like one of the technologies to be prozac that I can trade with Shaka. He's a raving lunatic.