New Vassal State Information

[yin26]

Iraq has that most valuable of trade resources: Oil! My gunships love the stuff.

[Cort Haus]

Does the AI never trade cities for peace?

[Thedrin]

It's not in an unpeaceful state. It's just experiencing the decreased unhappiness. Favourable oil agreements. That's just demanding resources. Iraqis not paying taxes to the US. Well, vassals don't seem to pay taxes to the master civ.

Originally posted by MightyTiny
Count Iraq as a vassal

Fixed and QFT

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by padillah

Then it should be an option on the city screen, not a diplomacy entry. It gives the illusion that the AI might be persuaded to give you a city. If you were the most powerful civ in the game and had hundreds of units hovering all around it's smallest city the AI still wouldn't give you the city. It's just not a "real" option.

I have demanded and received cities in exchange for peace. Not large cities, but sometimes it makes sense to demand the city that you haven't located (to facilitate total conquest).

(Of course, by the time the 10-turn peace treaty expires, the AI has often built another dirthole ice cap city that isn't on my map. )

[Martinus]

Also, remember guys that the increase in maintenance costs does not mean the money goes into the vassal's treasury (or indeed reduces the vassal's own maintenance costs). The increased maintenance does not mean therefore that the master civilization is paying for the vassal's infrastructure - rather than that, it is paying for its own infrastructure, logistics and communication network that needs to be deployed in order to grant the vassal relationship a functionality for the master (permanent emissaries able to see what the vassal's cities are producing, own networks allowing for the movement of one's troops as if through one's own territory, ability to force the vassal government to comply with your wishes concerning resources etc. - think US in Iraq or Soviet Union in former Eastern Block countries - the satellites do not pay for the cost of stationing US or Soviet troops there for example)

Also, mrbee's post is ambiguous in this respect, but I would assume that a vassal city does not count as your own "full" city for the purpose of maintenance costs increase - rather it is probably a fraction of that cost (so keeping a vassal with 3 cities should cost less than taking the 3 cities yourself).

[MightyTiny]

Originally posted by johnmcd
Northern Ireland?

Nicaragua?

Israel?

Tibet?

I'm struggling to think of an ocassion when the vassel did pay its way to be honest.

I think you missed the qualifier "peaceful" in my post - if there's widespread resistance to occupation, then of course it's going to involve costs.

From Finnish history, I do think that having Finland as a vassal was profitable for both Russia and Sweden - I don't think the costs exeded the taxes, or gain of the troops conscripted from Finland. Though I have to confess that I'm no expert in the subject, and if someone has figures to show me wrong, I'll be happy to change my mind.

I don't think that the cost-benefit analysis of the occupation of Tibet is a simple matter either.

I won't touch the issue of Israel as that's a highly volatile subject that's likely to spark debate inapropriate here.

A different, relevant question of course would be whether it is reasonable to expect a vassal state to be peaceful enough not to incur costs in security that would exceed the tax revenue and other financial benefits that can reasonably be expected. That, I think, depends on the circumstances - of whether the population of the vassal state feels opressed, of whether they feel they have a shot at self-governance, and whether they have national ideology that would make such a thing worth striving for.

Perhaps you should be able to set tax rates, restrictions and regulations for vassal states, the nature of which would determine the level of natural resistance, and thus the costs involved... that might be interesting. You'd have to find a balance that allowed you to gain from a vassal, rather than have it as a financial burden.

[Watiggi]

Originally posted by MightyTiny
Would you count Iraq as a vassal, and peaceful one at that?

If iraq was peaceful, wouldn't the US be clearly on the plus side economically; after all, they did secure very favourable oil agreements for US companies didn't they? And I don't believe the Iraqis are paying taxes to the US government, so I think counting them as vassals is kinda stretching it.

In game terms, Iraq would be more closely related to a city in revolt rather than a Vassal. In games terms, it will be in this state for another few turns.. eh.. years before it changes 'colours', so to speak.

[One_more_turn]

Tibet has lots of water, something that's going to be more valuable than oil in coming decades.

For China, occupation and assimilation definitely pay off. Assimilation of Tibet is almost a foregone conclusion because Tibetans are too few (several millions at most) in numbers. Lhasa has already been sinisized.

[Martinus]

Tibet is not a good example because it is not an analogy of a vassal civ, since it does not really have an independent government - it is more of an equivalent of a city with foreign culture in it.

Good real world examples of vassal civs are Israel, Taiwan or South Korea for the US - they are nations in their own right, but ones that rely heavily on the protection of the other nation. And I'm pretty sure none of them pays tribute to the US - rather, being able to maintain troops in them costs the US a lot of money.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Martinus
Tibet is not a good example because it is not an analogy of a vassal civ, since it does not really have an independent government - it is more of an equivalent of a city with foreign culture in it.

Though that might not be such a bad idea for inclusion in civ. Say I'm Japan and I conquer Spain. Unless I choose to slaughter them all, there should be a large Spanish population in my civ that takes a long time to become fully integrated (or a short time, depending on civ happiness [Eg. Cyrus's capture of Babylon]). This could be the "diaspora" concept that's been discussed before.

[gdgrimm]

Originally posted by padillah
But, what are the benefits of being a vassel?

Why would anyone volunter to become a vassel?

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.

[Alexander I]

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.

I just hope that overlords can't spontaneously attack their vassals...

I can see it now. Outburst: "Montezuma declares war?!! I was his freaking vassal!!!" Followed by grumbling: "I suppose I shouldn't be surprised..."

[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.

[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.

[MightyTiny]

Originally posted by gdgrimm

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

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...