Vassal States suggestion

[DroopyTofu]

No. I wish you could do that, but no.

 

[stee]

Well there is somthing they can do for to improve it

 

[Skell Jell]

I have an question.

If I am playing, can I agree to become the vassal of someone else somehow.

IE: Im losing and I would like to become a vassal of the person in first. Is there a way I could press a button that says "become vassal of other player? something like that.

Yes You can but it is very hard to. You must be very small CIv or be less than half of the area of the other CIV.

 

[stee]

So then what would you do, go to the diplo screen and you can request to be the vassal of the other person?

 

[Skell Jell]

I guess so. Sometimes it doesn't really work at all.

 

[DroopyTofu]

I don't think you can become a vassal. In the Diplo Screen, Vassal State/Capitalation never show up; not even redded out. I don't think it is an option at all

 

[Skell Jell]

You can but it very hard to.

 

[Turquoiside]

You can but it very hard to.

No, humans can't be vassals in Single Player. Unless can't in-game become a vassal to an AI.

 

[Skell Jell]

I guess so but you can make vassals

 

[Sims2789]

I think deducting 10% commerce from a vassal could pretty much cripple them. I would also hate an automated tax escalator as it removes a potential strategic option from the player, and could result in a situation were a vassal can not afford to build enough units to defend itself.

Hopefully in Civ 5 the relationships between vassal states, their masters, and other civs will get a good overhaul with far more diplomatic options available, but that would need a better AI first. For the time being though, demanding surplus gold per turn from vassals is the only way to go with BTS.

It'd be nice if vassals could revolt during wartime if their master is losing.

 

[Joshua368]

It'd be nice if vassals could revolt during wartime if their master is losing.

They can, if their master's population/land area falls low enough for it to hit their 50% mark.

 

[Kranden]

This could be fun but there would need some balancing.

First higher taxes would increase chance of rebellion and war.

Second you can only tax so high based on their population compared to yours. If your vassal only has 2 cities and you tax him at 90% he is pretty screwed.

 

[Fezfez]

i don't vassalize.....ever....unless my foes are down to 1-2 island cities that i don't bother to take...

Same here, don't know why to bother with vassals. The time that I accepted vassalage I mostly regretted it. I'd rather destroy the civ then to take them in and have alot of prob with em later on.

 

[Skell Jell]

Good strategies

 

[Joshua368]

Good strategies

Thanks but we don't really need positive reinforcement here. You don't need to make whole posts just to say you agree with what someone already said. You need more purpose!

 

[cairnsy44]

One of my biggest complaints about Vassal's is the huge diplomatic hit you take from having them.. "We're worried about your vassals being rivals to our empire" or something like that. Because of that I've stopped taking them unless I have no other choice.

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[Solomwi]

This could be fun but there would need some balancing.

First higher taxes would increase chance of rebellion and war.

Second you can only tax so high based on their population compared to yours. If your vassal only has 2 cities and you tax him at 90% he is pretty screwed.

Why introduce rules to limit strategic choice? As it stands, if I want to use a small vassal as an revenue stream, I can do that and incur the costs that go along with that: choking the vassal's growth and/or having to bear the cost of defending it, since I'm keeping it from supporting its own army, and if it were to be overrun, I'd lose my revenue stream. If, on the other hand, my focus is on growing my vassal into a strong ally, I can do that by not extracting revenue from it, foregoing some benefit now in the hopes of a greater benefit down the road. I can also implement a policy anywhere between the two extremes of 0% and 100%. This is the kind of choice that makes the game what it is, but by limiting the amount of tax I can extract from my vassal, whether in the game as it exists or under the OP's proposed changes, it reduces the richness of choices available to me, the player.

Besides, a vassal is supposed to be "pretty screwed," i.e., at the mercy of its master's plans, whims and desires. It's part of what the vassal gives up for protection, either from outside threats or outright destruction at the hands of the putative master.