Vassel states

[chavezbg86]

I liked the idea when I first heard it but it seems like it might be flawed. I also play Rome Total War a lot and there's an option where the other guy becomes a protectorate. And from what Ive seen, its impossible to actually get the computer to agree to that.

Any chance that this vassalage system will actually be reasonable or will computers just decide to fight to the death. One thing Ive noticed is that for ceasefire treaties they never even give up towns which for me saves a bunch of trouble. I think that in order for it to work, there needs to be a reasonable situation where the computer will give up.

Also, if you do have a vassal state and decide to give up on expanding your military and such, would the vassal rise up and declare independence? It makes sense that it would. I think itd be a great new addition. Ideally youll get all their resource benefits along with hopefully some wonder bonuses (???). I just worry that maybe the computer will always decide to fight it out to the end.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well I think that for ity to be GOOD a few things are required

A reason for a Human player to become a Vassal State rather than fight to the death... possible reasons are
1- You get to share in the win
2- You can cease the Relationship at a later point
(2 implies that you still have some control over your own units and cities.. so perhaps it really is just like a protectorate... they get a bit of tribute and get to control your foreign relations.)

A reason must also exist for a Human player to take a Vassal State rather than finish them off
...basically less combat wasted
...less maintenance costs

A reason must then exist for a Human player to finish them off instead of taking a Vassal
....no chance of future rebellion
....I get to manage output



So my thoughts/hopes are
1. ***Vassal pays some tribute to the Overlord***(probably cash)
2. Vassal's foreign relations are the same as the Overlord's (They cannot offer Open Border/Peace/declare War, the Overlord does that for them.. this also means that anyone who declares war on you declares war on the Overlord... so you might not Want a Vassal that everyone hates)
3. ***Overlord gets 'Domination credit' for Vassal's Land***
4. Vassal gets 'Victory bonus' to points if Overlord or one of its Vassals Wins
(although if a Vassal is about to Win the Space Race they should probably declare independence one turn before the ship is complete)

Research=NOT shared (any more than normal trading)
Wonders... I'd lean in favor of NOT shared (you want that city, take it before you offer them Vassalage)

*** confirmed

 

[meatwad4289]

Well I think that for ity to be GOOD a few things are required

A reason for a Human player to become a Vassal State rather than fight to the death... possible reasons are
1- You get to share in the win
2- You can cease the Relationship at a later point
(2 implies that you still have some control over your own units and cities.. so perhaps it really is just like a protectorate... they get a bit of tribute and get to control your foreign relations.)

A reason must also exist for a Human player to take a Vassal State rather than finish them off
...basically less combat wasted
...less maintenance costs

A reason must then exist for a Human player to finish them off instead of taking a Vassal
....no chance of future rebellion
....I get to manage output



So my thoughts/hopes are
1. ***Vassal pays some tribute to the Overlord***(probably cash)
2. Vassal's foreign relations are the same as the Overlord's (They cannot offer Open Border/Peace/declare War, the Overlord does that for them.. this also means that anyone who declares war on you declares war on the Overlord... so you might not Want a Vassal that everyone hates)
3. ***Overlord gets 'Domination credit' for Vassal's Land***
4. Vassal gets 'Victory bonus' to points if Overlord or one of its Vassals Wins
(although if a Vassal is about to Win the Space Race they should probably declare independence one turn before the ship is complete)

Research=NOT shared (any more than normal trading)
Wonders... I'd lean in favor of NOT shared (you want that city, take it before you offer them Vassalage)

*** confirmed

Reason to havea vassal
-Spare Army that you canforce upon ur enemies. altohugh not direct, you control a larger army.
-By Forcing a country to become a vassal state it demonstrats your power to other world leaders, perhaps causing them to rethink demanding tribute, or perhaps..letting them know your armies are over stretched..
-influx of money

Reasons not to..
- Rebellions
-10 turns and they can leave vassalage
-whiel under vassalage they can use your protection to build a large army(outdoing yours) and CRUSH you and force you into a vassal state..

 

[Mewtarthio]

I think it'd be neat if the Vassal couldn't just cancel the relationship: He'd either have to get the Overlord to give him freedom in the trade table or declare war on the Overlord.

 

[Watiggi]

I do hope that the Vassal States give tribute at least in the form of gold per turn. If you can get several Vassals which bring in about 10-20 gold per turn each. Then that would be a great reason to have Vassals! You could use that gold to build an even bigger army or fund an expansion push. If it gives once off payments every 10 turns however, then it will be a bit of a pain managing your economy if you are deficit spending. I think it will look neater if it was in gold per turn.

Maybe that is all it will be: They continue to exist and you get gold per turn. They continue to be your Vassal if a) you look after them or b) your power is far above theirs. For conquerors and expansionists, gold is 'everything' in CivIV.

I do like the idea of possibly unstable Vassals who may turn on you. It would make it interesting. The BIG problem I see is that the diplomacy/AI isn't able to perform correctly. They would have to beef up the AI/diplomacy first in order to make the Vassal worth it. There would have to be some logical way for them to turn against you or want to leave. If it is up to another random generator (much like all of the diplomacy/AI), then the Vassal State option will be ruined.

EDIT: It would also be great if the human player can also become a Vassal State to another dominante AI controlled empire. That way, the aggressive/conqueror type AI personalities can actually live up to their name while allowing the human player to keep playing. I suspect that those conqueror types have been dummed down in CivIV to allow the human player to thrive (in order to keep it 'fun'). With the Vassal State option, the humans can thrive while a conqueror takes over the world. I certainly hope this is the case as it will give the aggressive types a bit more respect and allow them to 'do their thing'.

Watiggi

 

[Xenophonos]

I'm definitely looking forward to Vassal States. With tribute coming in, it'll be a nice addition to Civ 4's economics system of farms and cottages.

However, tribute can't be between 10-20 gold per turn. Sure that sounds great in the Middle Ages but in the Modern Age, 10-20 gold per turn is a joke.

Their tribute would have to function by percentage.

 

[Watiggi]

Well by the look of it, you're going to be able to renegotiate it every ten turns anyway

I do hope it isn't a once off amount of 100 gold for 10 turns of being a Vassal State.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well by the look of it, you're going to be able to renegotiate it every ten turns anyway

I do hope it isn't a once off amount of 100 gold for 10 turns of being a Vassal State.

Well that would work (and that way tribute could be anything.. Gold, Techs, Cities... they come up and renegotiate it, and you ask 'what will you give me for this'... and they tell you what tribute they are willing to pay)

 

[kjaye]

I expect it will be similar to Alpha Centuri in the way that it is handled.

I think it's a great idea as conquest doesn't usually involve taking over every city in real life.

It will conquest a lot more fun.

One thing I really hope is that the AI conquerers will likewise make other AI nations vassal states and offer or demand that you become one too.

New options are great as long as they apply to AI civ's as well.

If it does then it could be superb. Imagine the Roman Emperor demanding you yield to him or risk destruction.

I think it would make even games where you are losing fun, as you could imagine you the Scots fighting for freedom against the English!

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I expect it will be similar to Alpha Centuri in the way that it is handled.

I sure hope not... in Alpha Centauri, it was just a way to make conquering them quicker... this should be a way for them to get a break from the war and possibly recover.

 

[Watiggi]

One thing I really hope is that the AI conquerers will likewise make other AI nations vassal states and offer or demand that you become one too.

New options are great as long as they apply to AI civ's as well.

If it does then it could be superb. Imagine the Roman Emperor demanding you yield to him or risk destruction.

I think it would make even games where you are losing fun, as you could imagine you the Scots fighting for freedom against the English!

Owwww yyyeeeahhh
I so hope for this too. It would be great to bring out the best in the conqueror AI's and still allow you to be predominately autonomous while they build their massive empires, in the process swallowing you up in their empire. I really hope they do that.

If you can become a Vassal too, then the conquerors would really be free to be very aggressive and demanding and instead of making demands and not doing anything about it, they could go on a conquest all game. That would be cool. It wouldn't detract from a peaceful game as they would have their empire (which you would be apart of) and you would still be allowed to build yours.

Watiggi

 

[El Koeno]

I don't think there will be a pre-determined "price" for vassalage, e.g. 100 gold per 10 turns, you'll have to negotiate in order to reach agreement over the price, I think.

Maybe the overlord can simply make any demand, and the vassal has to accept or declare war. If the overlord is nice to his vassals they will probably accept the situation and give in to an occasional demand. If the overlord sqeezes his vassals to hard, they might see no other choice but to rebel and fight for their freedom.

 

[Watiggi]

I don't think there will be a pre-determined "price" for vassalage, e.g. 100 gold per 10 turns, you'll have to negotiate in order to reach agreement over the price, I think.

Maybe the overlord can simply make any demand, and the vassal has to accept or declare war. If the overlord is nice to his vassals they will probably accept the situation and give in to an occasional demand. If the overlord sqeezes his vassals to hard, they might see no other choice but to rebel and fight for their freedom.

Yeah. Sadly this is the AI we're talking about :/

I think the AI will still be kept just as stiff and rigid as it is now. I hope not, but I doubt they will change it. As such I cannot see it giving into any demand. It will probably just offer to be your Vassal and give x amount of gold per turn "if you'll leave us alone" kinda thing. I doubt you'll have a choice. Off course one can only hope....

To be honest though. If it turns out to be just as I just said, I wouldn't really have a problem with it. The gold per turn would be of great use for a conqueror. Helping the Vassal by giving tech may make them more "trusting". If that is the case, then helping them with tech may encourage them to continue with being your Vassal and help with wars (with the new tech). However I am not going to aim too high, considering the current state of diplomacy. I am just going to assume that the AI will say that they will be your Vassal for x gold per turn and you either agree or not. Anthing extra will be a bonus.

Watiggi

 

[El Koeno]

Yeah. Sadly this is the AI we're talking about :/

I think the AI will still be kept just as stiff and rigid as it is now. I hope not, but I doubt they will change it. As such I cannot see it giving into any demand. It will probably just offer to be your Vassal and give x amount of gold per turn "if you'll leave us alone" kinda thing. I doubt you'll have a choice. Off course one can only hope....

To be honest though. If it turns out to be just as I just said, I wouldn't really have a problem with it. The gold per turn would be of great use for a conqueror. Helping the Vassal by giving tech may make them more "trusting". If that is the case, then helping them with tech may encourage them to continue with being your Vassal and help with wars (with the new tech). However I am not going to aim too high, considering the current state of diplomacy. I am just going to assume that the AI will say that they will be your Vassal for x gold per turn and you either agree or not. Anthing extra will be a bonus.

Watiggi

I totally agree.

 

[angelus512]

Vassal states in my opinion can't wait until they are introduced. They are WAY WAY WAY overdue.
Most of the strategic civ players have been doing vassalage related gameplans since Civ2. Only difference is how effective its actually been.

In civ3 I smiply gobbled up certain AI's key resources they needed to make effective war, and then gave it back to them via trade. Consequently making them dependant on my good graces.
Naturally of course this method didn't always work because the game wasn't programmed to make the AI genuinely recognise you had them by the balls because they lacked key resources.

If this vassal option is to be implemented it would be OHHH SO HELPFUL.
For example a game I'm playing on earth map as England.

I stuck to Britain and Scandinavia for a while until I had galleon's, frigates and LOTS of redcoats.
Then I sailed over to the USA which given its total isolation from Europe had suffered HARD from tech trading.

And like real world situations I could see that I had a vast technology edge over the USA but given time the states would become very very powerful given the area they had occupied and the size of their cities. Most were 15size+.
So I knew whilst I was only 4 cities to USA 10-13 huge megapolisis I could conquer parts of the USA but not all of it.

As all good civ players know it takes time to properly conquer somebody and you genuinely need a HUGE army 40+ units to do it quickly.
So rather with my redcoats which I maintain are the sweetest UU at just the right point in the game, I went about taking some key USA cities in what I perceived to be strategic locations.

Deprived them of the ability to create a Navy on their Atlantic seaboard by occupying 2 major cities that could turn into battleship factories in future.
Then went deep south via the coastline to take another 2 cities holding some strategic resources and giving me the future option of striking at America's oil heartland if the need ever arose.

Then finally took the port that connects Atlantic to pacific around Mexico area. Course the point is this entire exercise and to consolodate my gains and make the cities productive took me around 60 turns.

Consequently I missed out on opportunities to take South Africa for luxury resources or establish a beachead in the middle east to occupy all the oil.
This all directly as a result of HAVING to totally emasculate your enemies. If vassal states were in then my conquest might have been easier and more realistic.

End of the day i could have occupied ALL of america If i wanted to but it would ahve taken me too long and I had designs on africa and middle east.
Now if vassal states work hopefull it will take many factors into considerations when the computer thinks about whether to agree.

1. Size of your civ relative to theirs.
2. Proximity of your civ.
3. Tech advancement of your civ in military tech as opposed to other non military tech's compared to theirs.
4. Your control of strategic military resources (copper, iron, oil) relative to their military resources.

Thats about all I can think of thus far. But the point is that I reckon most people have been playing vassalage states already just in different ways. And the point of the whole exercise is that with vassalage states you can actually stay "true to life" so to speak.

Britain for example realised after a while that the concept of "Formal" Empire was a fundamentally flawed one in terms of the fact you couldn't totally occupy everywhere you were interested in, cost too much and too much time.
So instead the concept of "informal empire" was born where Britain controlled vast areas through threat of force, coercion and intelligent use of their trade networks.

Vassalage states would allow a situation such as this to occur. I could occupy countries without a shot being fired (only with damn good cause of course).
Save my army for areas where I actually NEEDED to occupy it etc etc etc.
So the entire game isn't taken up with this huge land grab problem.

 

[Wolfwood]

I sure hope that the vassal states will be able to rebel and try cut out of the vassalage when they feel like it or you have kicked them in the belly one time too many. After all, we have real-life examples of that happening.

How about if you would not even be able to rely on your own military units in the vassal state's cities to remain loyal to you when the rebellion starts...?