Vassal States - Tell me about them?

[King Flevance]

I am hoping someone will give me the pros and cons of vassal states.

-Tell if you like them why or why not.
-Pros and cons to being a vassal and the pros and cons to being the master.
-How many vassals do you normally get in a game?
-How often do you vassal yourself?
-What is the best thing about vassals?
-What is the worst thing about vassals?

That's it really. Mostly just your opinion or playstyle. I am trying to scope how vassals work exactly and I do not have warlords. Thanks for any replies.

 

[Tee Kay]

Vassal State (Diplomatic Option)
Warlords expansion introduces a new diplomatic option called Vassal State. Vassal states is like an "asymmetric alliance." Basically, one civilization serves as the master in the relationship and collects tribute from the weaker, vassal nation.

There are two ways to acquire a vassal state:

During peacetime, after discovering Feudalism, a civilization may voluntarily become a vassal. The vassal (NOT the master) is given the option to renew the relationship after 10 turns.
A vassal relationship that arises during wartime is referred to as Capitulation. It differs from the peacetime arrangement in that the vassal can't break the relationship unless a) it grows to more than half the size (land and population) of the master or b) loses more than half the territory it owned at the time the agreement was created.
There are some notable benefits to being a master:
The master enjoys complete freedom of movement in the vassal's territory, including the ability to heal normally in the vassal's territory and use fortifications owned by the vassal. The master can also investiage any vassal city.
The master can demand any resource from a vassal, even those that the vassal is using. The vassal has the right to refuse the demand but if they do they two states are immediately at war.
The master's people enjoy increased happiness. Those in the vassal empire suffer decreased happiness.
The vassal can't make war or peace on its own. It immediately adopts the master's war and peace relationships.
Half of the vassal's territory and population count towards the master's domination victory AND score.
Some costs of vassal agreements include:

Having vassal cities will incur higher maintenance cost for your own cities.
Other civs may like you a little less when you have a vassal.

You only really needs vassals when going for domination or diplomatic victory (vassals always votes for you, unless they built the UN). But then again, the only occasions you can get other civ to be your vassal is either when they are very weak and have close borders with you, or when you're at war with them and they only have a few cities left, in both cases you could probably wipe them off the map outright. In a few cases if an AI which is friendly with you (but with a lower score than you) is at war with another AI, they may submit to you as a vassal for the duration of the war.

Another benefit of vassal is when you're trading resources, your vassal is willing to give something like 40 gpt for something like corn or wheat. With the extra money you may be able to max science while still have the money left to upgrade several obsolete units.

Personally though wouldn't rate vassals very highly. I guess the trick is to know when it is best to vassalise and when it is best to obliterate a rival civilization.

 

[General Failure]

But then again, the only occasions you can get other civ to be your vassal is either when they are very weak and have close borders with you, or when you're at war with them and they only have a few cities left, in both cases you could probably wipe them off the map outright.

This is not true. In my last game and several other games I have played, I got an AI offer to be my vassal when he was half a world away on another continent. I have also had AI capitulate to me with a dozen cities left and a decent military with which to offer resistance.

However, you should be careful accepting vassals. The way it is currently implemented, it's sort of...odd. Vassals can drag you into unwanted wars. Example:
Me (CivA) is at war with CivB. The war is going badly for CivB and he is about to lose. CivB then vassalises himself to CivC (instead of capitulating to me) and suddenly I find myself at war with not only CivB, but also CivC. This is odd, because CivC should weigh all the options before accepting a vassal. CivB is all but destroyed and has little to offer as a vassal. CivA and CivC have been good buddies all through the game. CivA is also considerably more powerful than CivC. Why then does CivC accept CivB as a vassal, when he knows full well that CivB is about to be destroyed and more importantly: his long time friend and powerful neighboy is now his enemy?

Still vassals can have their use. I once vassalised the Ottomans, who were on a single continent all by themselves. Their economy wasn't much to speak off, and they weren't up to date with techs, but they had a lot of happiness resources which certainly came in handy. Plus, with their large population, I got lots of votes in the UN!

General Failure

 

[Bushface]

Pros ? None, except a little happiness and a few votes in the U.N. if diplomatic victory is enabled.
Cons ? (1) You pay more for city maintenance. (2) The vassal is weaker than you. so won't be of value and can be an easy target for other civs. (3) The vassal may refuse to talk to you, in which case you can't influence his actions. (3) Even if he will talk, you may not have any spare resources to sell him at an inflated price. (4) He may not have any resources you haven't already got: in that case, can you demand his so that you can possibly trade the extra, or even sell it back to the vassal ? Haven't tried this, and shan't, because now I always refuse offers of vassalage.

 

[Willem]

Pros ? None, except a little happiness and a few votes in the U.N. if diplomatic victory is enabled.

You neglect to mention that you'll always have an automatic ally in case of a war, with it's own troops that you don't have to build or command yourself. And 50% of a vassal's lands and population adds to your own in a domination win, making it much easier to win that way. You also don't have to wipe every civ off the map for a conquest victory, just vassalize them all. As well, you always have a reliable trading partner. Also, vassals add to your power score so belligerent civs will be less likely to atack you out of the blue.

As for number 2 in your cons, that's not necessarily true. I've had civs capitulate who still had a fairly formidable military, especially after I had stopped kicking their butt for awhile.

 

[King Flevance]

Does anyone ever vassal themselves?

 

[voek]

Does anyone ever vassal themselves?

I think this can't be done.

 

[King Flevance]

I mean as in become the vassal to another country. I kind of worded it odd. How often do you actually choose to become a vassal?

 

[voek]

As I read your words (become a vassal) my reply remains te same. I don't think it is possible for a human player to become a vassal of a AI civ (besides using World Builder).

 

[Tatran]

Be careful with vassals.
They can initiate a world war within a few turns.

 

[King Flevance]

As I read your words (become a vassal) my reply remains te same. I don't think it is possible for a human player to become a vassal of a AI civ (besides using World Builder).

WTH.... I wish Firaxis would treat the AI and the player the same in more circumstances.

In regards to your post Tatran, does it seem the vassal concept brought more war into the game? By alot if so?

 

[Tatran]

@King Flevance
The picture was probably an extreme result of a capitulation.
Every one was at least annoyed with Mehmed.
Team Saladin/Bismarck declared war on him and he capitulated.

 

[Crighton]

My own personal experience is thus:

-A buffering Vassal can be usefull, if you can get him between you and someone stronger that you might not want to take on, more the better. The gimp can absorb most of the punishment (because really, who cares what happens to a capitulated vassal anyway?)

-The vassalization concept provides one heck on af incentive for an un-involved Civ to join the losing side of a war and potentially bring your advance to a halt.

And a final thought . . . don't take a guy as your vassal if he's already pissed off everybody else in the game. Agreeing to protect the jerk (Ramses you know I'm talking about you) only aggravates and alienates the remaining powers from you.

 

[Willem]

WTH.... I wish Firaxis would treat the AI and the player the same in more circumstances.

Why would you want to become a vassal anyway, it's a signal that you're weak. Plus with 50% of your land and population adding to a civ's score, you're just helping yourself lose the game. Being a vassal means being a loser, something you want to avoid in the game.

In regards to your post Tatran, does it seem the vassal concept brought more war into the game? By alot if so?

Not necessarily by alot, but it does add more. One thing you're more likely to encounter now are wars on two or more fronts, as a civ's vassal will automatically be at war with you.

 

[King Flevance]

This is merely a reflection of how I view the concept Willem. Not really aiming for anyone directly with any of this, just everyone in general that is still reading. I appreciate all the info you guys are passing out.

Why would you want to become a vassal anyway, it's a signal that you're weak. Plus with 50% of your land and population adding to a civ's score, you're just helping yourself lose the game. Being a vassal means being a loser, something you want to avoid in the game.

So it is just a handicap gameplay element for the AI. As it makes them the only people "stupid enough" to become one. Which means the game doesn't have strength in another element to make being a vassal an actual strategy more than simply a forfeight. Why is it in the game if it can not be used in a more balanced gameplay?

-How much does religion play a role in the AI's ability to vassal as in same religion as you?
What relationship do you have to have with an AI before they will vassal? (Cautious, Pleased, etc.)
-How much does military force play a role of vassalage probability? Do you have to outnumber them by x2 or near that?
-How much does technolgy play a role in it by itself?
-I know all of these play a role but which are the most important to aim for?

Playing against another human it is impossible to scope answers for these questions. So adding a concept like vassals in would make it harder to gauge if you should vassal or bully. Against AI you sort of are able to predict it a little bit. But this could also be a way to make a game that is not going very well for the player hand the player more options.

What if being a vassal had its benefits too? How did Firaxis not calculate this in for the player as well as the overall gameplay hence the AI?

Not necessarily by alot, but it does add more. One thing you're more likely to encounter now are wars on two or more fronts, as a civ's vassal will automatically be at war with you.

How early do you usually see these types of war on a huge map?

 

[slowcar]

i play a game on the world24 map atm, only king because its fairly hard to win a map that huge by domination.
i declared war on 9 civs in a row (europe is really crowded so you kind of have to) and 5 of them became vassal of the chinese just short of being destroyed. The first time it was a big shock because china had a SoD nearby and caught me off guard, later on it was only annoying because i could not finance any chinese cities i may have concquered due to the large distance.

it was also fun to meet montezuma who had vassalized washington and huyana capac, he was the king of north- and south america.

after china declared for the 5th time (ramses became vassal) i managed to get some other parties to declare on wang kong (also chinese vassal) and thus on china. pretty much fun to have a 9 vs 5 situation with you in the middle of it.

i rarely accept vassals, most of the time they only annoy you and cost a lot of money.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

^^Vassals who haven't been practically obliterated make great buffers between you and a possible aggressor as well as a possible target. If a civ has to pass through hostile territory to get to you, they may be weakened (even if only a little) by the time they get to you. Plus you can always counter their attack inside your vassals territory without fear of having them rape your improvements if you lose a unit. Send more mounted units into the buffer zone and keep a decent defensive stack on your borders.

 

[Willem]

Why is it in the game if it can not be used in a more balanced gameplay?

Why do you presume it's not balanced? Get Warlords and play a few games before you make that judgement.

What relationship do you have to have with an AI before they will vassal? (Cautious, Pleased, etc.)

Any relationship if you beat the crap out of them and force them to capitulate.

-I know all of these play a role but which are the most important to aim for?

I can't really comment on your other questions since I've only acquired vassals through capitulation.

How early do you usually see these types of war on a huge map?

That depends on the game. Vassals states are possible with Feudalism, so they can only start appearing then. Or you might have all peaceful AIs in the game and never see any.

 

[BenniusCaesar]

Me (CivA) is at war with CivB. The war is going badly for CivB and he is about to lose. CivB then vassalises himself to CivC (instead of capitulating to me) and suddenly I find myself at war with not only CivB, but also CivC. This is odd, because CivC should weigh all the options before accepting a vassal. CivB is all but destroyed and has little to offer as a vassal. CivA and CivC have been good buddies all through the game. CivA is also considerably more powerful than CivC. Why then does CivC accept CivB as a vassal, when he knows full well that CivB is about to be destroyed and more importantly: his long time friend and powerful neighboy is now his enemy?

It doesn't sound right. I thought if someone became a vassal it had to immediately give up all it's foreign wars and entaglements and adopt the same peace/war relations as its master?

 

[King Flevance]

Still speaking in general towards everyone:

Why do you presume it's not balanced? Get Warlords and play a few games before you make that judgement.

I am going soley off of what I find out here. What is their balancing factor?

In regards to my earlier quoted post of Firaxis treating AI/human the same, I am merely looking at the fact that the game is "designed for multiplayer play". However, if 10 people are playing a game, no one can vassal? Seems like signals got crossed somewhere. No, I don't play online alot. But I would be willing to vassal in some of my games rather than simply start a new game because I don't like my position. This could be used as a tool for people that are trying to bridge over to the next difficulty level.
Like say you are trying out Emperor for the first time. (That's my current tough spot.) I could choose to vassal and buy me more time and get some benefits out of the deal myself. But with this current system it seems being a vassal is only a drawback. (The weak get weaker and the strong get stronger)I am aware that they can "un-vassal" from you but if that is a problem why not just finish them off anyways? I am just trying to figure out what vassals have added to the game besides extra expansion that is not as good as regular expansion of your own empire from what I can tell.

It seems to me that you're better off just destroying other civs than vassaling them 75% of the time. But I don't doubt that my view may be scewed by collective information of other players. As to buying the game, I probably won't for a while as it is. I don't see it offering much with everything I am digging up about it. That is why I started this thread to try and get a "players view" of the vassal concept.

I can't really comment on your other questions since I've only acquired vassals through capitulation.

Has anyone ever acquired one in any way but this?