Vassal States ruining war

[Mr. Civtastic]

{playing on Monarch}

Ok, maybe not ruining war, but making it extremely frustrating. Almost every game Ive played in where ive gone for a military win, when Im attacking another civ, they vassel with a big civ, then I have an instant two-front war. I would estimate this happens at least 8 out of 10 times for me. I understand that this has happened in history (the example that always pops in my head is the China joining North Korea in the Korean War) but not nearly as often as it has been happening in my civ games. And its not just the Vassel States happening all the time, its the circumstances...my last game I had Cupac who was FRIENDLY towards me and the same religion as mine take Hannibal (who was a different religion) as a vassel.

Vassel states has almost completely changed the way wars play out in Civ 4 because of their far-too-often occurance. The only luck Ive had with military campaigns is by taking a very strong early UU and rushing (praet, war chariot). Otherwise, forget about it.

Discuss.

 

[AriochIV]

I think it's a good change. I enjoy playing the ruthless conquerer, but it's reasonable to expect that aggression will sometimes get you in more hot water than you bargained for.

Granted that playing on Monarch or higher, this may introduce a significant difficulty factor.

 

[Elhoim]

I think that the main problem is when you have a vassal and he is attacked by a civ, you attack it in return. So you are labeled as the agressor by other civs, when the one who initiated the war was the other one...

 

[Cereal Box]

If you don't like it, just turn vassals off.

 

[StarWorms]

Well you are pushing for world domination. In real life if that happens, civs will ally against you. Although vassalage is different, it's a good compromise. Having said that, the civs I have attacked have only asked to become my vassal (which I decline).

 

[Robotron 2084]

The whole vassal thing seems NOT THAT much playtested AT ALL.

AI nations having agreed to become a vassal to another AI "master" nation are
able to ask you to join in a war on their future master, BEFORE you
get informed of them having become vassals.

Just to get this right:
they ask you to join a war against their enemy, then they
declare becoming a vassal to this VERY SAME enemy and YOU
get to fight BOTH of them!!!
And all this is happening in 1 (!) turn.

THIS IS JUST CRAZY!!!

You'll surely patch this up SOON, Firaxis, won't you???

 

[flamingzaroc121]

Originally posted by AriochIV

Granted that playing on Monarch or higher, this may introduce a significant difficulty factor.

i thought that to but then i played a game on settler and the same thing happened (although i won the war with ease)

 

[Robotron 2084]

Firaxis'-vassal to-fix-list:

1. see my post above
2. vassals have to share the same diplomatic relations as their master.

And please include some popups informing the player of possible
diplomatic modifiers concerning diplomatic actions, as you can't access the
diplomatic relations chart when you are negotatiating with another civ BEFORE you either agree or diagree to their proposals (join in a war, stop trading etc.).

 

[Elhoim]

And please include some popups informing the player of possible
diplomatic modifiers concerning diplomatic actions, as you can't access the
diplomatic relations chart when you are negotatiating with another civ BEFORE you either agree or diagree to their proposals (join in a war, stop trading etc.).

You should try pressing F4.

But what I find annoying is the "You attacked our friend!" modifier, when friend should be when having friendly relationships and not somewhat pleased. Also is hard to define the "worst" enemy of a civ.

 

[Moxx]

The AIs should check if they vassal another civ what type of wars will they get into. If the wars involve friends then they shouldn't vassal. 95% of the time a friendly civ (like +10) will not declare war on you. However I've already seen this happen many times in the few games I've played and its quite annoying to have your 1 friend vassal a target then start a war with you.

I also REALLY hate how AIs will vassal another (not war time) and then the MASTER will give all their tech to their little guy only to have the little guy break the vassalage 10 turns later. I already have a hard enough with keep up with tech on Emperor only to have the AI abuse the system to fill up on tech. I've seen little 1-2 city AI's keep ahead of me in tech this way.

I know I can turn it off but it a neat idea and has made a few games pretty neat and I wish some of these small points would be fixed.

 

[dh_epic]

This behavior seems to make sense to me. If someone offers to become my vassal, I'd be foolish not to accept. It gets me closer to victory, and gives me access to free resources.

You're saying the AI should care less about winning?

 

[Commander Bello]

This behavior seems to make sense to me. If someone offers to become my vassal, I'd be foolish not to accept. It gets me closer to victory, and gives me access to free resources.

You're saying the AI should care less about winning?

I don't own WL myself, but from the descriptions in this thread I'd think the problem is as follows:
Nation A is at war with you
Nation B is friendly to you

Now, A is going to become B's vassall, and because of that, B enters the war against you.
This is unlogical, unless B gets more from the vassalage than from still being your friend (in most cases, wars should come with quite some costs due to troops, changed production and so on, so that vassalage will have to be very good to be better than good relations).
Even if B recognizes better benefits from accepting the vassalage and thus declaring war to you, the player should be notified about this:
"We expect more gain from helping our new vassal than from staying friends with you!"

Anything else obviously not only causes confusion but frustration as well.

 

[Tonifranz]

Well, from reading these forums, even if I don't have Warlords yet, it seems to me that if the civ A which you're at war with voluntarily became a vassal to civ B, and that you're at peace with civ B, then you would be automatically be at peace with civ A. However, if civ B was also at war with civ A, and civ A capitulated (not voluntary) to civ B, only then would you be at war with civ B.

So maybe the civ B, in accepting the capitulation of civ A in war, purposely backstabbed the player?

 

[CharmzOC]

i would definitly have to agree that vassals are ruining the fun of war. because i usually am on the offensive so i keep a standing defence army and then make an attack group in excess. but whats happening is that i kepp ending up at war with previously close friends. So i need an army large enough to take on the world, which, if i had one, i would use to do just that. Also the whole Vassal thing isnt very well done becvause in the case of capitulation you are usually able to kill them and if you get a vassal peacefully it is usually not worth the added maintenence. Its a great idea that wasnt to well done.

 

[cymru_man]

Well, from reading these forums, even if I don't have Warlords yet, it seems to me that if the civ A which you're at war with voluntarily became a vassal to civ B, and that you're at peace with civ B, then you would be automatically be at peace with civ A. However, if civ B was also at war with civ A, and civ A capitulated (not voluntary) to civ B, only then would you be at war with civ B.

So maybe the civ B, in accepting the capitulation of civ A in war, purposely backstabbed the player?

It works the other way around. If a avassal capitulates, then the vassal accepts the war-peace relations of the master. So if CivA and CivB are attacking CivC, which capitulates to CivA, then CivB is automatically at peace with CivC.(assuming CivA and CivB are at peace).

On the other hand, if a CivA is at peace with CivC, but CivB is at war with CivC, and CivC offers himself freely as a vassal to CivA, then CivA will attack CivB when he accepts.

I don't think it's a problem as long as the AI takes fully into account what it is doing when it accepts that vassalage from CivC.

 

[LuvToBuild]

You are at war with Civ A and Civ B is your buddy. You attack Civ C and have them on the ropes. Civ C vassals itself to Civ B for survival. Civ B should not be at war with you automatically that same turn. There should be a one turn delay in which Civ B comes to you and immediately demands you accept a ceasefire with Civ C. If you don't comply, THEN you are at war with Civ B. Why would that have been hard to implement?

 

[Elhoim]

i would definitly have to agree that vassals are ruining the fun of war. because i usually am on the offensive so i keep a standing defence army and then make an attack group in excess. but whats happening is that i kepp ending up at war with previously close friends. So i need an army large enough to take on the world, which, if i had one, i would use to do just that. Also the whole Vassal thing isnt very well done becvause in the case of capitulation you are usually able to kill them and if you get a vassal peacefully it is usually not worth the added maintenence. Its a great idea that wasnt to well done.

The main benefit from vassal is that you can set they research to zero and drain their coffers. Sell them a resource for Gold per Turn. Then enter the screen again and sell another one, as he will have more GPT to trade. Repeat until he has nothing. You can get 50 GPT from each vassal this way, and also it gives you something to do with your excess resources.

 

[Tonifranz]

It works the other way around. If a avassal capitulates, then the vassal accepts the war-peace relations of the master. So if CivA and CivB are attacking CivC, which capitulates to CivA, then CivB is automatically at peace with CivC.(assuming CivA and CivB are at peace).

On the other hand, if a CivA is at peace with CivC, but CivB is at war with CivC, and CivC offers himself freely as a vassal to CivA, then CivA will attack CivB when he accepts.

I don't think it's a problem as long as the AI takes fully into account what it is doing when it accepts that vassalage from CivC.

Hmm. Well, I was wrong. Well, thanks for correcting me. But a peaceful capitulation resulting in automatic war is fine, since the AI knows that in accepting it, they would be at war if the vassal is at war with a third civ. In accepting it, they are purposely going to war with the civ at war with their new vassal. I think it's fine.

 

[BlackJAC]

Maybe it's just me, but isn't that a good thing? Lets be honest, the AI sucks donkey's ass when it comes to warfare and needs all the help it can get. 1v1 the human player is always going to come out on top, even against a larger civ, thus it makes things a little more even. The AI may have the numbers but you have the brains and savvy to kick the AI's arse 99.9999999999/100 times

 

[dh_epic]

I find it weird that players can be so offended when the AI pulls the kind of move that human players pull ALL THE TIME.

"What? I thought we were friends?!"

People really have trouble making the cognitive leap from being the backstabber to being the victim. They really can't make the connection.