why can't I vassalize myself?

[SPQR300]

Hi! I am playing an emperor aggressive AI game, where I am blocked from the other civilizations by Shaka, I share his religion, and he is friendly to me. I am going for a cultural victory, and I can cope with the other AIs because I hardly spend on military. Everything is fine except for the fact that I am vulnerable. I have just got feudalism, and thought I could voluntarily be his vassal, so that I am safer, until there are defensive pacts. BUT it's not possible . Is there any trick or this feature is just simply not implemented?

 

[nbcman]

No, human players can't vassalize to the AI. But if you keep shaka happy you may be able to get to a cultural victory before he decides to attack you or to go for a victory himself.

 

[Matthew5117]

But beware, Shaka's one of the most monstrous leaders in the game. Many players kill him and make no thought of befriending him. So listen to me, and say, "Shaka is dangerous."

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If shaka is TRULY "friendly" he won't declare. I doubt you have him at friendly, more likely pleased.

At pleased, you aren't safe at all. Your only hope if you're weak and can't attack/kill him is to bribe him to attack others constantly...at least he can be bribed at pleased (but don't forget this cuts both ways, and people can bribe him on you, too).

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Is Shaka a backstabber? I know Monty and Cathy will DoW at friendly if they deem it necessary. Will Shaka?

 

[Antilogic]

He might not be a huge backstabber, but he is a huge warmonger. Eventually he's going to run out of targets.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Monty doesn't DoW at friendly. Cathy only does it if another friendly civ bribes her. Shaka is worse than montezuma and a stronger AI on almost all counts ---> he waits till stronger to declare than monty, he builds more units than monty, and his favorite civic is the same. His UB pays off some maintenance so he out-techs similar warmongers, and his city spam makes him more threatening. Shaka is among the stronger AIs in the game and at least tied for most dangerous neighbor possible.

 

[Agent327]

Everything is fine except for the fact that I am vulnerable. I have just got feudalism, and thought I could voluntarily be his vassal, so that I am safer, until there are defensive pacts.

You mean surrender to the AI? Why not just throw in the towel?

 

[SPQR300]

You mean surrender to the AI? Why not just throw in the towel?

I go for cultural, what was so hard to understand in that?? Why do you post when you are not helpful, didn't understand my first post,and only pissed me off? After more then 4000posts you could have learned some forum etiquette.

 

[say1988]

Because it would be too easy for a Human to take advantage of it. Vassalize to a big guy, get him to give you techs and stuff, win, or unvassalize then win.

 

[eastsidebagel]

Because it would take a huge amount of fun out of the game. Experienced players would quickly come to exploit it.
EDIT: x-post

 

[mechaerik]

JEELEN is not saying anything about Culture Victories, he is saying that you basically want to surrender by vassalizing. And say1988 is completely correct; Allowing a human to be a vassal would result in massive exploits.

 

[Peteyboy]

Having just won a cultural game on Emperor (and having done it at most levels on Marathon speed) you will almost certainly have to face war once or twice in the game - there is only so much bribing that can be done - with Shaka you'll need to give up everything to keep him off your back - but in reality you need to strengthen up and fast. The trouble comes as you expand the borders spark tension doesn't go down well with Shaka and staying friendly ultimately will be in vain. To win culturally I find you have to basically play a standard non-rush game with added focus on wonders and a different tech route - leaving yourself vulnerable will so often only lead to heartbreak.

TMIT - who do you consider to be more/equally dangerous as an early neighbour? I've never found Montezuma a problem, Ragnar can be a pest, but only really Shaka causes me any issues.

 

[Earthling]

The problem is that the AI actions about vassals are absolutely terrible - on both sides (the surrendering civ and the master civ). One example is that the AI simply gifts techs for free to its vassals - an obvious reason why a human shouldn't be allowed to be a vassal because this would be an exploit. Likewise other AI average vassal disposition into their diplomacy - so a human could cripple a civ by becoming a vassal and then building up a horrible rep with other AI.

I really think the game should do without peaceful vassals entirely - if you don't have permanent alliances on then at most you can sign a Defensive Pact during peacetime. I would also love to have a system for "Military Alliances" - similar to the old civ3 days, where a Military Alliance causes two civs to declare war on a mutual enemy (you could also sign one when already at war). I'd make a military alliance prevent vassalization on either side (a member of the alliance couldn't become nor take the target as a vassal) - and of course it could be canceled or renewed after 10 turns like other things. I'd weight the AI to not bribe/encourage war entry without such an alliance too - as a whole I think this could resolve a ton of stupidity, like a civ taking a vassal to enter a war (because there would be no way to ever take a vassal peacefully - at most you could ally yourself with the civ) and more.

About early neighbors - Alexander, Ghenghis, and Napoleon are pretty high up there for me as well - they are basically going to declare war on someone no matter what. It's not been my experience that Shaka is the worst (I'd really just put this group of guys, maybe Gilga too if I think about it, all in one lump) but it is true that Monty is more manageable as a whole, for being a religious fanatic. My personal pet peeve is hating a lot of the creative civs, because on larger maps they gobble up land really, really fast, and some are coded to be quite aggressive settlers - so it's about them attacking you so much as just crowding you out (Hatty for instance).

 

[Xellos-_^]

Monty doesn't DoW at friendly. Cathy only does it if another friendly civ bribes her. Shaka is worse than montezuma and a stronger AI on almost all counts ---> he waits till stronger to declare than monty, he builds more units than monty, and his favorite civic is the same. His UB pays off some maintenance so he out-techs similar warmongers, and his city spam makes him more threatening. Shaka is among the stronger AIs in the game and at least tied for most dangerous neighbor possible.

he might be a dangerous neightbor but if he struct on another contientant then he is not much of a problem.

 

[JonathanStrange]

If the AI were smarter, then I could envision a workable system in which the human player could vassalize - which, btw, I wouldn't consider surrender but merely biding my time, the same way the AI does - yet, as things are, allowing us to become AI vassals to gain protection while we work towards a culture victory; well seems exploitive. A better AI that could make better use of its strength like ordering us to give resources, send x number of troops, gift cities, etc. would be able to handle vassalizing a human - but then why we would agree to become one? In general, I mean.

 

[DaveMurray]

Just played a game with Zara, Cathy, Cyrus, Sury, Mehmed, Willem, Napoleon, Justinian, Gilgamesh, and finally Shaka, huge Pangea, monarch level. Guess who was top scoring AI until I DOW'd on them to finish off my domination win? The answer may surprise you.

 

[eastsidebagel]

Napoleon, maybe?
And how does this fit into the topic of this thread?

 

[say1988]

Cause I guess it was Shaka.

Warmongers like Monty tend to be down on the list, but if they pull off a couple good wars they can get huge. There is not much worse than having monty alone on the other continent with decent land against Mansa and Ghandi or similar leaders. Shaka is especially good cause of his economic boost.
Remember than land is the key to the game, maybe there are tradeoffs, but in th elong run whoever controls the most (useful) land has a significant advantage.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

TMIT - who do you consider to be more/equally dangerous as an early neighbour? I've never found Montezuma a problem, Ragnar can be a pest, but only really Shaka causes me any issues.

Genghis Khan has a unitprob of 35 (so same as monty) and is similarly bad. Alex is also 35. Napoleon is 40 like shaka but maybe not quite as bad due to not AGG. Ragnar seems to expand too slowly or something...his unitprob is also 40 but he doesn't do well as consistently.

Other than shaka, my hated neighbors aren't as much the standard warmongers, but more the strong AIs that aren't easy to dislodge. Particularly Gilgamesh is a really rough CLOSE neighbor, despite the HR civic his CRE is annoying and he might early rush before bonuses kick in to get him friendly. Sury isn't funtime as a neighbor unless you can use religious manipulation.

But really IMO nobody compares to shaka. After shaka I'd put gilgamesh close 2nd as "i don't want this guy as my neighbor", then the other warmongers.