Ye Olde Capitulation Question

[s.bernbaum]

Every now and then someone asks why they can't get an AI to capitulate, even though it is getting trashed. The answers almost always seem to include a statement to the effect that you can't get a master to capitulate until all his vassals break away, so you should try to get that to happen first. I have never seen anyone dispute this. Since I normally play with vassals off, I have had no opinion on the matter.

However, just now in my current game (which I am playing with vassals for variety), Shaka capitulated to me even though he still had Monty as his vassal. He did so after losing four cities, including his capital to me, while capturing two cities that had belonged to my vassals. Immediately before he capped, his main SOD attacked one of the three that I had in his territory. Both sides took a licking. I withdrew what was left of mine, while my bombers reduced what was left of his to half strength. I still had two more stacks of full strength and equivalent power to the ones in that battle in his territory, and enough non-garrison units in my territory to put together another stack or two immediately. The power ratio at this point was 3.83:1, in my favor, according to BUG. Monty broke free, as soon as Shaka capped and is still at war with me and my vassals. Ramses broke free just before Shaka capped, refused an offer from me to capitulate, and is still at war with us as well. When Shaka capped, I was able to get him to turn over a strategic city to me as part of the deal.

The upshot of this ramble is that you can capitulate a master while he still has vassals. Has anyone else seen this? Does anyone know what the conditions are to make it happen?

 

[Archon_Wing]

I've seen plenty of masters with vassals capitulate before. But it's a lot harder because having a vassal inflates their strength to themselves. Basically they have to be under the average power of all civs, which is typically hard if they add their vassals in.

 

[Seraiel]

I've had both, Masters capitulating while having a Vassal and the Vassal capitulating after that, and, Vassals refusing, but making someone capitulate is perfectly possible if he has a Vassal.

 

[OneLeggedRhino]

I've seen it before, too. Always assumed his vassal un-vassalled between turns, and he immediately capitulated. Don't really know though.

 

[Zx Zero Zx]

You just need more war success.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I've had both, Masters capitulating while having a Vassal and the Vassal capitulating after that, and, Vassals refusing, but making someone capitulate is perfectly possible if he has a Vassal.

+1.

You can cap a master of vassals, the vassals just immediately break free (and are generally willing to cap also).

It's just incredibly unlikely since the master considers his own power + vassal power = his total power and if his total power > world average power he'll never capitulate, even if you have 6x his power and perfect war success.

The general conclusion to take away is that you won't be capping masters of vassals unless you're already running away with the game, but you *can* do it.

 

[s.bernbaum]

Thanks everyone for the feedback. This being my first game with vassals for years, I was rather surprised, based on the comments that I had read over the years, to have the Master capitulate while he still had a vassal. TMIT has the explanation here. I am running away with the game. I tend to play a few levels below where I could be because I enjoy messing around trying different approaches all the time, even when I know they aren't optimal. I just did not realize how much easier having vassals can make the game, if one tends to pull ahead anyway. So, I'll probably go back to no vassals.