New Vassal State Information

[Thedrin]

Originally posted by MightyTiny


I see one problem with that.... given that vassal states automaticaly declare war with the nations the "master" state declares war on, becoming a vassal to Monty might not be a good way to achive a peaceful early game...

Given that the scenario puts you up against Alexander and Montezuma you're probably reducing the risk of having war declared on you by becoming a vassal. Assuming Montezuma is your master.

[Watiggi]

Originally posted by Thedrin
So vassal states won't be an option in MP games?

I never play MP but I'd be quite irritated if I couldn't become a vassal myself.

Hmmm. That is quite a good point. I can't imagine it not being available for MP (otherwise there would be a lot of annoyed people). So maybe you can in the game.

[padillah]

Originally posted by gdgrimm
It'll be tough to tell until the game gets released and played by people who can discuss it, but.....

How many times have you wanted to spend some time building infrastructure (especially early wonders), but had to forego doing so, because some aggressive civ (like Monty or Alex) was right next door, and you needed to make sure you had one of the largest armies on the planet to prevent a war with them?

Pretty common, yes?

Well, how about volunteering to be a vassal state to them while you finish that wonder or two.

1) You'll avoid them going to war with you (I would suspect)
2) You'll be a less likely target for others (since they'll have to go to war with both you and the 'master').
3) You'll hurt the aggressive civs economy (perhaps to a crippling extent).
4) Once you get done with the wonders, you can build the necessary army, and then choose NOT to renew the vassal arrangement.

In fact, #3 makes me worry a little bit about balancing issues. If the AI isn't smart about when/where it accepts a human player as a vassal, becoming a vassal to the leading tech AI would be a great way to slow them down.

Yeah, I see some uses now. That post is a little old.

Although I'm forced to ask - What steps will the master be able to take to keep the vassal in hand? You can't go to war and you can't control their build queues so what's left?

Can you pillage their tiles? I've heard you can take their resources, does that include strategic ones like iron and oil? Since I don't control the resources I use how do I control the ones a vassal uses? In other words, if I already have Iron can I use theirs instead so they can't? How can the vassal recover from something like this?

This may make an early vassal rush worth it. Beeline for IW, build bunches of swords, take the nearest guy vassal, then deprive them of iron and other strat resources so they can't get out from under.

Hmmm, some of this really needs some good deep analysis.

Tom P.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Thedrin
So vassal states won't be an option in MP games?

I never play MP but I'd be quite irritated if I couldn't become a vassal myself.

Human players can be vassals.

Human players can be masters.

Since both sides are covered I don't see why it wouldn't be available in MP.

(unless I'm not seeing something)

Tom P.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Watiggi
Why are people assuming that the human player can become a Vassal. If you ask me, it looks like this is set up solely for the AI to enter into as an alternative to being exterminated.

For the same reason we are "assuming" humans can use the Camp unit in the Mongol scenario.

It is certainly available to human players in both single player and multiplayer games. There are not two ways about it.

[Lorizael]

I would be extremely dissapointed if humans couldn't become vassals. I know human and AI aren't treated equally, but they should at least have all the same strategic options. I'm sure Firaxis made it available to all players.

[Watiggi]

Maybe, but it just looks more like a dominators mop up solution, that's all. Because the master cops extra maintanence, I am left to wonder if that could open all kinds of unfortunate exploits for the human player. I do hope the AI is geared up to know when having a Vassal is good for them and when it isn't.

[Thedrin]

Following an exploit in an early version of CivIV the AI was reconfigured so that it would not accept lone ice cities on the other side of the world as gifts. I'm certain that even if Firaxis has overlooked this detail for Vassal states that it will be quickly corrected.

[Simplicity]

Hmmm...

Now I'm wondering if vassals are treated like "Team" members. When you're on the same team in Civ4, you can tell what the other side is researching, right? (Though I've never played on a team before, I thought I saw a screenshot of that somewhere.)

Maybe you can tell what your vassal is researching so you can specifically research something else... That would be nice.

Probably doesn't work that way though.

[Will9]

Yes, but you don't want the vassal to be as advanced as you. It would be cool if you knew all the techs the vassal knows, but they don't know everything you know.

[DrSpike]

I aint being nobody's vassal.

[gdijedi7]

Units outside your borders cost more than units inside your borders. Do units in a vassal cost like units in your civ, or outside your civ?

[padillah]

Originally posted by DrSpike
I aint being nobody's vassal.

As a builder I see some serious uses to voluntary vassalage.

Basically, I step aside and build and research until the time is right then I break off the agreement, rush build a wonder or two, plop some settlers down for some extra land and boom! I'm a competitor again.

Of course, since I've never won the darn game... maybe not me. But Blake surely. Or maybe you, or RLM.

I'm sure somebody will make a valid strat out of it. If he's up to it maybe Vel, inventor of the Settler First strategy, could come up with something.

Tom P.

[Fosse]

I really don't see the increased maintenance costs as any substantial negative to having a vassal. Rather I see it as a balancing feature. If you gave every city in the master's civ +1 happiness and you didn't have some penalty -- and here increased city cost is sensible -- it would be very powerful. Any player of any skill level should be able to parlay that +1 happy face into a huge gain over the increased cost of cities.

The advantages of being a master are very clear, I think: Increased intelligence that is equal to having a spy in each city, one-way Open Borders with the vassal, and the ability to demand anything at any time.

That there is no hardcoded tithe paid to the master is of no real matter, since you can demand GPT whenever you want. In fact, by having the master have to demand it you increase realism because it gives the vassal a chance to balk at the demand and declare independence.


As for times it would profit a player to be a vassal, I actually just played a SP game where it would have been helpful to me. 18 player game, and I have four cities with maybe three hills between them all on the north of the landmass. Peter declares war and marches through Persia's land (who is friendly with me) to get to my cities, and he has overwhelming numbers because my production is just terrible.

Not being able to bribe Cyrus into the war or get him to cancel the Open Borders, I could have sworn fealty to him, getting instant peace at the cost of happiness, and been able to develop until I decided I was strong enough to stand on my own. It would be costly, of course, but not as costly as having Peter's axemen raze one city and temporarily occupy the other two.

[KrikkitOne]

It seems that you can Only demand Resources from your Vassal

(well you can demand anything but Only Resources will change the Vassalage into War if Refused)

(according to mrbee from IGN)