Vassals and breaking the rules

[RedFury]

I know people have ranted about this before, but Firaxis really should do something about the way Vassal agreement have the potential to cancel out any other deals or contracts that may be in place.

As an example - I went to war with Mehmed. I was kicking his butt. He had a bunch of gold so I took a peace deal - 18 gold per turn and one of his cities. This obviously started the 10 turn peace treaty with 18 gold per turn coming my way (this was early days so that was a LOT of money!)

Next turn .. Mehmed friendly vassals to Justinian. Now this didn't bother me as I knew they were friendly and the possibility had crossed my mind. I wanted to attack him again later, so that made my life difficult, but still fair. What *really* annoyed me was that when he vassals, the 10-turn peace treaty along with my 18 gpt deal disappeared. Thats right - cancelled. He stopped paying me 18gpt 1 turn into the contract because he became somebody else's vassal.

Is it just me .. or is that just plain wrong?

 

[Sisiutil]

Not necessarily. You had the opportunity to finish him off or make him your vassal and passed. By placing himself under the protection of another civ, he can now thumb his nose at you. And consider this: on the one had, you lost the 18 GPT, but on the other hand, you can now declare war immediately.

I can't say for sure, but this behaviour strikes me as historically accurate (not that Civ is exactly known for being so). If you become someone else's vassal, they aren't likely to be happy with you paying tribute to someone else. They would want that for themselves.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Not necessarily. You had the opportunity to finish him off or make him your vassal and passed. By placing himself under the protection of another civ, he can now thumb his nose at you. And consider this: on the one had, you lost the 18 GPT, but on the other hand, you can now declare war immediately.

I can't say for sure, but this behaviour strikes me as historically accurate (not that Civ is exactly known for being so). If you become someone else's vassal, they aren't likely to be happy with you paying tribute to someone else. They would want that for themselves.

Friendly vassal deals are trades, like a tech or resource. That any OPTIONAL trade can supersede a forced treaty in this game is very questionable. Probably a bigger problem is that an AI bribed out of war with another AI can be bribed right back into it one turn later.

 

[RedFury]

Not necessarily. You had the opportunity to finish him off or make him your vassal and passed.

I never had the chance to vassal because he wouldn't capitulate. I did, however, opt to take peace which of course allows the possibility of friendly vassaling (without the master needing to get involved in a war.) I stated that I was aware of this possibility, but I needed a break from the WW and my SOD was gonna take ten turns to get down to the other part of his empire anyways.

By placing himself under the protection of another civ, he can now thumb his nose at you. And consider this: on the one had, you lost the 18 GPT, but on the other hand, you can now declare war immediately.

I disagree strongly here. Like TMIT said, its a 10-turn contract, and an optional trade with a third party should *never* result in that contract being violated. History schmistory, its about consistent and sensible gameplay mechanics.

I can't say for sure, but this behaviour strikes me as historically accurate (not that Civ is exactly known for being so). If you become someone else's vassal, they aren't likely to be happy with you paying tribute to someone else. They would want that for themselves.

I take your point, but as I stated above, imo historical accuracy should take a backseat to sensible, consistent and non-frustrating gameplay.

edit: another way of looking at my argument is that, if you're talking about realism, there is nothing to stop me breaking the peace treaty after 1 turn, re-attacking Mehmed and forgoing the 18 gpt. Now, in the real world you would think this would bring about some consequences, diplomacy with other civs would certainly take a hit, even to the point where some of them may oppose you militarily. The point is, in the real world I *could* still take that option. In Civ 4 however, I cannot. Why? simply because its part of the game rules.

The same should go for the AI, game circumstance should be independent of the fact that there is a game rule which should be adhered to.