1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Vassal States ruining war

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by Mr. Civtastic, Aug 4, 2006.

  1. Xavier Von Erck

    Xavier Von Erck Warlord

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Messages:
    144
    Hey retards who are complaining about Vassalage...

    France, World War 2.

    Shut up. When a civ is militarily defeated, they will join with whomever has subjugated them. Just like in real life when France went Vichy and fought with the Axis. What whiners, oh no, more diplomacy options I can turn off if I don't like! Someone call 911, because the Wahmbulance is out of control.

    I feel sorry for Firaxis having to deal with gamers like some of those in these threads, I just hope they don't read here and take anything seriously.
     
  2. NP300

    NP300 Prince

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    402
    Location:
    North America
    But Vichy France did not fight with the Axis and refused to join the Axis alliance.
     
  3. Slateman

    Slateman Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Messages:
    6
    Location:
    Geelong, Australia
    In a recent game i had, Greeks and I(mongols) were at war with Stalin. After a few years of war it was obvious Stalin was losing badly so he capitulated to me. This caused the Greeks to also sign peace as we were friendly. Stalin saves his civ by doing this. At least in this senario vassalage seems to be working as intended.

    Good relations with the civs you are not at war with seems to be all the more important.
     
  4. Todd Hawks

    Todd Hawks Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    228
    Dude, at least get your facts straight when whining about other's whining. This isn't about being subjugated by the winner, it's about becoming vassal to an unrelated third faction. So in your case, France wouldn't "join" the Axis but instead become a vassal of, say, Italy which would immediately declare war on Germany despite being friends. And now tell us again how that is a good thing.

    I don't mind if it works as in the post above, that's exactly the way it should work.
    GalCiv 2 has a similar problem, but there at least Italy doesn't declare war on Germany... to stay with the example above.
     
  5. Dida

    Dida YHWH

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,425
    So, if you are at war with CivA, and friendly with CivB, and CivA becomes vassal of CivB, you will be automatically at war with both CivA and CivB???? This doesn't seem to make sense. CivB is the master here, and the whole vassallage should take the diplomatic stance of the master, which means, quite the opposite, you should be automatically at peace with both CivA and CivB.
    But, of course, if you continue to attack CivA despite it being a vassal of CivB, then they will both declare war on you.
     
  6. drkodos

    drkodos Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,861
    Location:
    Renting-a-tent
    Yes.

    Everything sucks.


    Nothing is as good as it could be.
     
  7. DrewBledsoe

    DrewBledsoe Veteran QB

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,634
    Location:
    Cheering For Mr Sanchez
    Vassalage can result in some very stupid situations....

    I'm fighting a tiny India, who only has 5 cities left, and I would have given them peace after capturing the 2 adjoining my territory (but ok the AI can't know this so I'll let that go). I capture the 2 I wanted, was just about to give them peace, when suddenly they vassal to Mongol land, who declare war on me....

    Now I'm of a good standing world wide, so with just a few tiny tech and gold bribes, Greece, Viking, and Carthage declare on Mongols. But it didn't stop there, because Viking had Inca as a voluntary vassal (when Inca had 78% of land and 55% of pop of Viking, so go figure), and Greece had Arabia as vassal,so they all too are at war with Mongol, and India..

    India lasted 3 more game turns before being destroyed, and Mongols lost half of their empire, while I basically sat and watched, and got "+4 - our mutual struggle " modifiers with most of the rest of the world.

    So India by vassaling guaranteed their destruction, and Mongols by accepting them guaranteed theirs.

    It almost felt like I was using an exploit, but to me that's the problem with vasalge, the AI isn't clever enough to understand when its a positive move, and when its assisted suicide...
     
  8. LuvToBuild

    LuvToBuild Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    564
    Location:
    Evansville, IN
    I agree except that I think that when CivB takes CivA as its vassal, it should automatically come to the player and demand a ceasefire or else. This is good for the player AND the AI. The player then decides if he wants to continue or risk having a powerful AI run up his unprotected hiney. Its good for the AI because they don't HAVE to be immediately at war with the player.

    I don't think having the vassal automatically assume the relations of the master would be the best approach and here's why. Let's say you have your forces just about ready to strike the last city of CivA in your next turn. They go throw themselves at the feet of CivB in the meantime and suddenly your forces are ejected from CivA's territory because of the forced peace. If given the option, you could have finished CivA off and then redeployed against CivB. Forcing a peace wouldn't be much better than forcing a war, especially if the forced ten turn peace treaty comes into play.

    I would agree that CivA becoming a vassal of your best buddy CivB isn't too much of a stretch. It does suck but such is life. I'm sure similar things have happened in history. I think the gripe is with the fact that you are FORCED into a war with your best buddy. For those that disagree, what would prevent the player from exploiting this aspect? You vassal yourself to your enemies buddy in order to get them at war with each other. It might be difficult but it doesn't sound impossible.
     
  9. KHSOLO

    KHSOLO Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    148

    How exactly can you turn this on and where pls?
     
  10. suspendinlight

    suspendinlight Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    Messages:
    446
    Location:
    Urbana, IL
    Just keep trading them resources. Every time you trade a resource to them, they will instantly have more GPT to trade to you and you can keep doing this until their science rate is at zero.
     
  11. MacBalt

    MacBalt Learnéd Fool

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Location:
    Tucson, Arizona
    Except when it might be to the "friendly" AI's advantage to pull a very human-like "sneaky bastard" type move and use the excuse to declare war and "run up his unprotected hiney" regardless. Honestly I'm not sure the problem here is that the AI is acting improperly or that it is just too stupid to be as effective at being a sneaky bastard as most human players. :satan: :p
     
  12. Lars_Domus

    Lars_Domus Say No 2 Net Validations

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2005
    Messages:
    448
    Location:
    Norway
    They pulled this stunt on me once: My main goal for the time was to subjugate Spain. I had gone to war to take Madrid, which was the Holy City of Hinduism, the absolutely largest religion in that game (of 7 civs only Asoka and I had a different religion.) I took Madrid quite painlessly, and converted to Hinduism, to get rid of my last negative modifiers with Augustus. I now had like 10+ with him, or something, and for me that's quite sick. However, Spain's cultural borders were strangeling Madrid, so I pressed on, only to have Isabella become a vassal of Rome. Augustus had quite the advantage on me on the power graph, so I thought "Oh dear! This will get ugly!" Of course, for this Isabella had to die, so I doubled my efforts against Spain. I kept careful watch towards Napoleon's borders, which was the only place Roman troops could attack from, without sailing all the way around the globe in their little boats. I also bribed Shaka to go to war against the Romans. Ten turns later, Isabella capitulated to me! Augustus immediately sued for peace. He wound up hating my guts for the rest of the game (this scenario played out around 1100 AD) but he never declared war on me again. For his trouble Shaka wound up capitulating to Augustus :nya: The point of the story is, though, I have no doubt Augustus could have crushed me if he'd tried. He was simply to stupid to see the opportunity. I hired Shaka to just annoy the Romans - he was a minor player after all. I had no idea he would keep them completely preoccupied.
     
  13. GIDS888

    GIDS888 King

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    Messages:
    782
    Location:
    England South
    I love Vassal States - real spice to the game, man, you can't just go around roughing up anyone and anywhere you fancy now, you have to take a good look at who's Kissa**ing who and why.

    Personally, I only accept capitulation as vassal terms - anything else is wa-ay too complex for my fragile little mind.
     
  14. LuvToBuild

    LuvToBuild Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    564
    Location:
    Evansville, IN
    Why do they need to use the Vassal State as an "excuse" though. Why not just do that while the player is preoccupied? Some of the AI's already pull off "sneaky bastard" attacks in vanilla if they see you are overextended or they suddenly change religion and relations go south. Besides, if someone wants to suffer sneaky bastard attacks all the time, they should go play MP. I'm sure they'll get plenty.

    I haven't run into this situation yet but I suspect I will soon enough. I will concede that it changes the game quite a bit but I'm not convinced that it's in a good way. Fostering relations for a PA will now require a great deal more thought. It will be harder now because you will have to convince your potential PA partner to attack the same civ. If they are on good terms with them, they probably won't. This pretty much means you can't either because if you do, your target will vassal themselves to your PA prospect and then all bets are off. If you are attacked but fight off the invader and have him on the ropes, you might find him vassaling himself to your buddy and then your buddy picks a fight with you. See where this sort of thing is going? For all of those who think its a good thing, think twice. You just haven't been screwed yet. Vassals should either be the way I suggested, or they should be like DP's where you can't sign them during wartime. The only wartime vassalage available would be to someone you are at war with, which would end the aggression by others who might have attacked you as well.
     
  15. MacBalt

    MacBalt Learnéd Fool

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Location:
    Tucson, Arizona
    :agree: Case closed as to the AI's strategic stupidity -- at least in these kinds of situations.

    It's not so much wanting to suffer these attacks, it's just that it might be more realistic (and fun) to have an AI that could pull off such human-like moves in a smarter way. Anyway, one could play MP or one could just turn off vassal states -- same difference really.

    Actually, it all sounds pretty realistic to me. At least, these kinds of betrayals are common in the annals of human history. (Even betrayals that are strategically pretty stupid are far from rare, come to think of it.:coffee:) You are right in at least one respect though: it does make going the PA route much more difficult... maybe too much more difficult, but I suspect it will take a lot more playing time to get a real handle on the gameplay situation.

    I'm not ready to say it is a "good thing" yet, but neither am I as convinced as you seem to be that it is a bad thing. Conquering the world by military force still seems to be far less difficult in Civilization 'the game' than it has been in world history. I tend to lean toward changes like this that attempt to more accurately reflect the true costs, risks , and uncertainties of going to war -- so long as the changes toward "realism" do not come at the expense of good gameplay. For me, the jury is still out on vassal states -- and probably will be for some time.
    :beer:
     
  16. bennos76

    bennos76 Grand Poobah

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2003
    Messages:
    100
    Location:
    Sydney

    That would be nice, 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."

    Yeah, I think it's fine too, so long as your former buddy AI civ truly realises that this is what it's signing up for (and I guess we'll never know unless a Firaxis programmer wants to enlighten us). So effectively, your buddy has decided to stab you in the back, in exchange for the benefits he gets from his new vassal. If this is what is truly happening behind the scenes, then that's fantastic. The AI is behaving like a good human player would!

    Now, I've never actually seen the AI ask me to call off a war with someone, but seeing as it's an option for the human player, presumably it's an option for the AI as well. So, to go back to the first point:

    "Civ B comes to you and immediately demands you accept a ceasefire with Civ C."

    Your buddy, Civ B, can actually do this any time it likes, vassals or no vassals. Similarly, at any time it likes (and particularly when you have it on the ropes) Civ C can ask Civ B to declare war on you, vassals or no vassals. However, as Civ B is initially you're buddy, it's not going to look very favourably upon the request unless there is a significant sweetener thrown into the pot.

    So, when you're at war with Civ C, and in a desperate clutch for survival Civ C offers vassalage to your buddy Civ B (and who better to try and turn against you than your best friend), immediately resulting in you being at war with both of them, you could conceive of the events actually occurring as follows:

    1) Civ C pleads with Civ B to declare war on you, offering all sorts of standard incentives.
    2) Civ B is your buddy, and tells Civ C to go jump in the lake.
    3) Civ C offers vassalage to Civ B in exchange for joining the war against you.
    4) Civ B is tempted, it could have a lot to gain, but it's response to Civ C is 'We just don't like you enough".
    4) Civ C crawls and pleads some more, and eventually befriends Civ B.
    5) Civ B contemplates asking you to call off your war with Civ C, but seriously, what's in it for them?
    6) In a final desperate bid for survival, Civ C again offers vassalage to Civ B.
    7) Civ B knows this will mean war with you. It has contemplated just asking you to call off your war with Civ C, but it would have nothing to gain. Civ C's offer of vassalage is just too tempting, and (considering that you're empire is starting to get a bit too big for its boots anyhow) Civ B decides that the best way to start this war is to surprise the pants off you.

    Now it may not reflect the course of human history particularly well, but that's exactly the sort of thing I would enjoy doing to another player.

    However, in the case of a forced vassalage (Civ C is at war with you AND your buddy), I totally agree that the new vassal should adopt the status of it's master. It has no choice.

    Now what would be really interesting to see would be a statement along the lines of:

    "Greetings friend of the empire. Would you believe, Civ C has just offered me vassalage if I declare war on you? As luck would have it, my advisors have just informed me that several of my nukes are already targetted at your cities!? Who would have thought? Now I'm sure you have PLENTY of good reasons why I should reject such an outageous offer..... don't you? I'm all ears?"


    What does everyone think?
     
  17. andrewlt

    andrewlt Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    473
    Reading comprehension ftl.
     
  18. MacBalt

    MacBalt Learnéd Fool

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Location:
    Tucson, Arizona
    I love it. How delightfully nefarious. If the AI were to listen to that kind of advice warmongering would become truly scary!:spear: :scared:
     
  19. LuvToBuild

    LuvToBuild Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    564
    Location:
    Evansville, IN
    :rotfl: Now that's just too much!

    Well you both make good points and I know I've been championing the cause of the OP. Myself, I'm not much of a warmonger so it probably won't affect me much. I just feel as though Firaxis sold this as something to enhance the gameplay for warmongers and from what I'm reading, it tends to have the opposite effect unless you consider being at war with the whole dang world at once an "enhancement". It was my understanding that the goal was to give warmongers a way to defeat a weak civ and gain something from them without completely conquering them. It doesn't seem to work out that way since instead of offering capitulation, they run to your strong buddy (not that I necessarily blame them, I probably would too :mad: ).

    It certainly does bring a whole new aspect to the game and I suppose it does give the AI a "sneaky bastard" way of declaring a war on you that it might not otherwise do given it's original programming. I just think the warmongers out there are going to start running into this enough that Firaxis will see a need to disallow peaceful vassalages during wartime in the same way they disallow DPs during wartime. I mean, let's face it. That's what this is in a sense, except that the stronger civ gains something from the weak civ that it wouldn't gain by agreeing to a DP. Realistic? Yeah I suppose. But I still think it's going to drastically affect other styles of play that aren't necessarily warmongering. We are supposed to favor gameplay over realism, right? ;)

    Maybe they should just make some further options in the game setup that a person can check. If you like how they are, leave it be. If you don't, check "Don't allow peaceful vassalage during wartime". If you don't like them at all, check the current option of "Don't allow vassal states".
     
  20. MacBalt

    MacBalt Learnéd Fool

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Location:
    Tucson, Arizona
    You have too. It's ended up being a pretty good discussion, imho. :thumbsup:

    Maybe so. Another concern will come once players have figured this out well enough to find a way to use it to their advantage (in an unrealistic or unfair way) ...especially if it becomes too predictable.

    You may be right about it affecting other styles of play too. It is a concern that needs to be watched at this point. In any case, I agree with you completely about the gameplay comment.:)

    That would be nice. I hope that the default settings -- whatever they might end up being -- would be tested enough not to have any gaping holes/exploits though.
     

Share This Page