Do Vassals Change your strategy?

[Rancidlunchmeat]

or have you all decided that they aren't really worth it and its better most often to just eliminate your opponents?

The reason I ask is because I don't normally place a high priority on Feudalism. Has anybody changed their research paths to enable Vassals earlier?

In vanilla Civ, I used to crush most everybody down to one (maybe two if I was nice) small cities and then just let them sit there and be trading partners. Essentially, they were vassal states but without all these new benefits (such as robbing them of gold)

But in Warlords, if I follow my usual tech path, I'll have crushed the civ's almost beyond usefulness if I don't switch to get Fedualism earlier.

Have people found it a benefit to get Fuedalism earlier so instead of totally destroying AI Civs, you can leave them a bit larger so they end up helping you more as vassals?

Or have you found it better to follow your normal path, get Fuedalism in the normal course and then just let the game play out as it would?

I guess the real question is does anybody spend any amount of effort in order to enable vassals as quickly as possible? Since the game is all about speed (first GPP, first GP, quickest down the tech ladder, etc..), is there a sufficent benefit to getting vassals more quickly?

[LDiCesare]

I don't prioritize feudalism for vassals though once or twice I wished I had. But then again, it's probably not a good idea to get vassals early on as they have a cost in maintenance.

[Rancidlunchmeat]

I would think the sooner you could get them the sooner you can get them to pay you gold per turn for giving them their own resources back.

But thanks for the reply.

Wow this board has completely died over the past two months.

Is everyone just too busy playing Warlords in order to read/post anymore, or has everybody outplayed Civ and is bored with it?

[Jaybe]

There just aren't that many controversies with it.
The game is so wonderfully variable that there are no 'magic' strategies.
The game is so 'perfect' in replayability for a 4X game.

I would, however, like a game that is less 4X and more of a study of the development, rise & fall of civilizations. More strategic simulation, less 'fun game.'

[Thedrin]

Originally posted by Jaybe
I would, however, like a game that is less 4X and more of a study of the development, rise & fall of civilizations. More strategic simulation, less 'fun game.'

Regarding the thread title.

I no longer go to war if I don't have feudalism but someone else (other than my intended victim) does. I will try to gain vassals since if I don't vassalise a civ someone else will.

[CarnalCanaan]

Originally posted by Thedrin


I no longer go to war if I don't have feudalism but someone else (other than my intended victim) does. I will try to gain vassals since if I don't vassalise a civ someone else will.

I would qualify this somewhat for my own strategy: I am less likely to declare war if my intended target has a very good friend. I've noticed that escaping into vassalage is a popular trick of the AI. Devlish bastahds!

The old strategy looked like this: a) Pick a fight with a weak/unpopular/strategic enemy; b 1) have that target call in its larger friend to the war, b 2) sue for peace with the initial target; c) transfer all war efforts to the recently called-in ally, now the primary target. Result: I am now prosecuting a war against a large rival without incurring diplomatic penalties. Downside: The above process works in reverse, or continues onto other AIs without my intention.

The new strategy: a) Pick a fight with a weak/unpopular/strategic enemy IF I am able to fight a war with both that target AND its potential master!; etc. etc.

This seems like a minor change. Paradoxically, although it results in more "world wars" in a given game, it also results in less or more focused warmongering on my part. (Also, my experience is that it results in more focused warmongering by the AI as well. Monty picks his prey and assaults it mercilessly.)

[Thedrin]

For me the new strategy is to attack strong civs. It'll take a while before they're willing to vassalise to anyone by which time I can have made a healthy territory gain. The sudden decrease in power will cause third parties to join in on my side but since I got my forces together first I should be able to get the best out of the rapidly diminishing power. Since vassalisation is an inevitable eventuality I will ignore the long work of total extermination and just concentrate on securing the best sites. If I vassalise the defeated foe I get the benefits. If I don't vassalise then one of the AI has just gained the burden of a vassal without much power.

[MikeH]

Attack weak civs and get poor land. You're always better off going for the best enemy you can take.

[OutsiderSubtype]

Aren't vassals still a little buggy? I'll probably use them more when the happiness issue gets corrected.

[Arrian]

The only thing that changes my approach is if I want to attack a weakling and I notice that it is the vassal of a stronger civ... I'll think twice. Or I won't notice and attack, and find myself at war with 2 civs (I've done that several times! ).

-Arrian

[trev]

I have found that attacking a very aggresive player and making him a vassal is very useful because the vassal will participate actively in your wars, only thing is they need at least 3 good cities to maintain an army good enough to be a really useful benefit to you. Also after a few mutual wars they will get friendlier and pay good gold per turn for resources. I have had the Japanese with 3 cities pay me at least 150 gold per turn in their deals, this in a game at emperor level.

[alent1234]

i'm a lite player and play on warlord so far, but i had some luck with attacking the lowest ranked civ, get them to vassalize then repeat with the next 2-3 lowest ranked civs