vassals can refuse to give stuff

[lulu135]

I was under the impression that you could demand what you wanted from vassals and they either had to give it to you or you could go to war with them. But there seems to be problems with this:

1) It only seems to work for physical resources (Iron, Uranium, etc). If I want gold or tech it won't let me declare war if they refuse.

2) Even with the physical resources, it only works if it isn't red to start with. It seems if they really don't want to give it, they just make it red. The mouse-over popup says "Surely you must be joking"

Is this really how it was intended? If so it seems to nullify the usefulness of vassals since you still can't get anything useful from them.

 

[bugmenot18]

With techs it's by design but reding out resouces is really bad. Why should you make colonies in that case if they don't want to feed your corps? Also you should be able to force them out of state property and mercanteism.

 

[Zeek]

Yeah, I really don't understand why vassal's have so much say in trade relationships with their masters. A vassal's only options should be:

A) Give master he wants.
B) Declare independence, and be immediately put at war with master.
C) There is no C.

Being a Vassal is not a two way street. Anything a vassal is allowed to keep is done out of the goodness of their master's heart. If a master abuses their vassal (one sided trades, constant demands), the vassal should hate the master and become more likely to declare independence and end up at war with their master. Conversely, treating a vassal well should make them like their master more, decreasing chances of declaring independence.

 

[lulu135]

With techs it's by design

I wonder what the justification is for this? I should be able to demand whatever I want from my vassal. He's lucky I let him live.

If it's a game balance issue to prevent vassals from being too useful, they could balance it by only allowing you to demand something once every 10 turns like with any other civ.

 

[Kronoz]

Yeah, I really don't understand why vassal's have so much say in trade relationships with their masters. A vassal's only options should be:

A) Give master he wants.
B) Declare independence, and be immediately put at war with master.
C) There is no C.

Being a Vassal is not a two way street. (...)

I agree with you completely. This should be fixed.

 

[jkp1187]

This is one of the very few things I've felt could be improved in the vassal system as it is now.

If I want another instance of iron, even though I already have three, I should be able to at least demand it from a vassal. (And I mean a situation where I don't have a corporation that uses iron -- for some reason, the game lets you ask for it then.)

I suppose it's meant to help players who don't realize that they already have iron, for instance, although the pop-up window should tell them how many instances of that resource they already have.

 

[Cabay Jet]

It does already tell you how many resources you haven't traded off yet. Let's say you have 4 dye and have traded 1 of to a foreign civ, if you mouse over dye in the trade window it'll say:

"Dye
[player name] has 3"

 

[Auren]

Vassels shouldn't be required to give tech or gold it would just make the game too unbalanced towards the master. As it is now the vassel system gives a way for a larger power to exert a large amount of influence over a smaller. It also allows a smaller power to avoid destruction(with the hopes of growing, or a change in situation to the point the vassel can become independent. This even more true in BTS with colonies.

Vassels should on the other hand be required to give any resources to master that the master wants or needs. If want uranium from my vassel I should be able to demand it even if I have it. Currently a vassel must give up a resource if it is demanded, BUT often the resource can be red in the trade screen and the human player cannot even ask for it. This seems like a bug. I think fixing this and allowing a master to demand any resource without any significant diplomatic hit would be just the right change to balance vassels from thier implementation in warlords.

 

[jray]

If I want another instance of iron, even though I already have three, I should be able to at least demand it from a vassal. (And I mean a situation where I don't have a corporation that uses iron -- for some reason, the game lets you ask for it then.)

I've noticed the same odd behavior, not just from vassals but from all AI opponents. I'm guessing that they're hording corp-required resources hoping they'll get the HQ, and when someone else gets the HQ, they sigh and say "Well, at least now maybe I can trade it for something good." This definitely doesn't make sense with vassals or other podunk civs that have no chance of actually founding a corporation though.

 

[jray]

Yeah, I really don't understand why vassal's have so much say in trade relationships with their masters. A vassal's only options should be:

A) Give master he wants.
B) Declare independence, and be immediately put at war with master.
C) There is no C.

I agree too! And there's nothing more frustrating than gifting your vassal all the prereqs for a tech so he can research it for you, only to have him refuse to trade it for years. And not only that, but he could trade it to our rivals! (I've never seen that last bit actually happen, but AFAIK there is no game mechanism in place to prevent it).

 

[sdwillie]

Yeah, I really don't understand why vassal's have so much say in trade relationships with their masters. A vassal's only options should be:

A) Give master he wants.
B) Declare independence, and be immediately put at war with master.
C) There is no C.

Being a Vassal is not a two way street. Anything a vassal is allowed to keep is done out of the goodness of their master's heart. If a master abuses their vassal (one sided trades, constant demands), the vassal should hate the master and become more likely to declare independence and end up at war with their master. Conversely, treating a vassal well should make them like their master more, decreasing chances of declaring independence.

You're suggesting in gaining a vassal you should get all the benefits of having taken them over completely with none of the cost, other than a slightly smaller gain toward domination.

You also equate "vassal" and "slave." They aren't the same thing (unless you believe that since all apples are fruits then all fruits are apples), especially in a feudal system. Vassals rights may have been limited, but they still had rights. Your A, B and C describe a slave state, not a vassal state.

 

[RedMad]

To be fair, if you consider that it's either vassalage (slave state) or total destruction as an outcome from the war you've had with this person, then I don't think it's so unbalanced. If you don't want to be the equivalent of a slave state, then maybe you should've tried harder not to lose the war!

 

[KrikkitTwo]

If you want a Slave state, then you shouldn't have ended the war.

The Vassal Should give access to All resources you request, but not to their commerce/hammers [they get the benefit of their Wonders/techs/gold]