I've played through probably a dozen EB campaigns, as well as a few other mods, and check these forums and the twitter regularly just to keep track of my favorite mod, but I really never post (mostly because I don't really do forums, and because I would end up getting in innumerable arguments about interpretations of history). There has been one point that keeps coming to mind when playing EB, and other mods: generally the vassal state diplomatic actions are ignored.

I understand that in EB the government types fill the role of vassal cities. Additionally I understand that diplomacy was not easily manageable in RTW, as far as controlling AI diplomacy anyways, is this different in MTW?

I would love to see an actually useful implementation of vassal states in EB2, or another mod. I think it would add some realism to the game, being useful to exemplify the autonomy of regions of empires (I.E.- Rome in its control of frontier regions). This would result in the much more common diplomatic action of defeating a nation and then taking tribute and influencing their policies, rather than simply invading directly governing.

Another option would be to have a campaign nation start as a vassal, and have to break free (plenty of examples but what comes to mind is Macedonia influenced by Hannibal [though that was a particularly unsuccessful example]).

Anyways I hope to hear back if this is a reasonable possibility, or if its technically impossible.

Reply

As far as I know diplomacy can't be modded.

Reply

This is not exactly true, The King.
Check out the "XAI" or "ReallyBadAI" subforums over at the twcenter - both managed to significantly change AI behaviour.

It is true however that the AI still isn't really smart (although that depends a bit on how you define "smart") but you can change quite a few things and make for example alliances more stable or significantly increase the influence of certain actions (exterminating vs. occupying for example, or paying tributes etc).

(Still the MIITW AI has the same basic problems as the RTW AI (like diplomatic AI and military/strategic AI being independent from each other, leading to situations where you sign a truce and are attacked the same turn).)

@ sethbest:
As fas as I experienced in the mods I played (haven't played vanilla MIITW much, mainly because of the stackspamming and the inaccuracies) it is - compared to RTW - much more likely to convince an AI-controlled faction to become a vassal state.
I don't really like to do this however since a vassal state has to pass all the money left at the end of the faction's turn to you - so you end with lots of money (even worse incase of a present money script) and your financial overview will be bugged then (even if you no longer have a vassal you'll see lots and lots of extra income that only "exists" in your financial screen but not in your treasury).

And furthermore I think that with the new government system of EB (which is because of the central/outlying authority system much more complex than in EBI) you will have a good base for RPing vassal states.

I'd like to read an EB member's comment on this though since I of course have no insight into the plans for EBII.

Reply

I know that AI can me modded but I meant that you can't create more diplomatic options. You can't create things like "Get out of my land!" or something like that.

Reply

Ah, okay, misunderstood you.
Yes, creating new diplomatic options is indeed impossible (at least I never read about a success there) which is a pity. Even Civilization II (and maybe even Civ I - have to play that again ...) had more options available some fifteen to twenty years ago...
But then - the TW games are focused on wars/battles and not on building/development primarily. (Which is a sad thing.)

Reply

@Shadowwalkers
I never noticed those bugs before, but that is probably because nations break their oaths almost immediately. That does throw a wrench into the overall idea.

I don't think any new diplomatic action have to be created, just that vassalage is a more popular idea to the AI, or i somehow script enforced. The real benefit here over the individual city government system that EB used would be that outlying regions would have to be handled carefully as they would react how they did historically, breaking away or rebelling when an opportunity presented itself. This would be like how Julian led the disgruntled territories of Gaul against Constantine, or Mark Antonie breaking away with the north African regions. This fits the overall scheme of controlling a vast empire, and is a more likely threat than the occasional small turncoat cohort or rioting city in the current system.

I don't think it would be extremely important, just an idea that kept bugging me while playing. It is a real shame that diplomacy is so broken, it would make the game much more interesting if forming and holding alliances and truces could influence your actual game, rather than just giving you a few turns without dealing with stupid suicide sieges. Or if the bribe option ever seemed to work, and you could buy-off an enemy legion, or mercenary unit.

Reply

I'm not sure I understand what exactly you are proposing. Are you saying that you'd have Rome rather vassalize Gaul, Spain, Greece etc. than conquering them?

Reply

EB has always been about historical accuracy while allowing deviation for player actions. I'm just suggesting that by strengthening or making the vassal state diplomacy choice a more likely action by the AI the player will have the option of having nations that are on the verge of obliteration become vassal states rather than falling under direct control of the player. I think this allows people to play the traditional arcade style conquest game, or to have vassals represent new provinces of the empire. So the player could conquer Gaul, or could just conquer a fair amount of Gauls regions bordering Rome, and bring gaul under its control as a vassal. Since Rome historically appointed Ceasers or magistrates for territories anyways this would be more accurate, though the regions culture (buildings, cohorts, generals) would remain the original nations which would be inaccurate in the case of Rome, but wouldn't be far from the truth for some Persian or Greek nations.

This is really just an example though. I am just suggesting that the become vassal state diplomacy options can be used as a game mechanism if they can be strengthened in functionality, allowing for some expanded options over the government type buildings.

Reply

You could technically mod in a whole new diplosystem but it would be such a pain.

Reply

I have to disagree about "more accurate". Rome appointed roman magistrates, imposed roman structure and law and settled roman settlers, stationed roman soldiers in her provinces and recruited locals to add strength to them. All this is in contrast to how a vassal works: A vassal pays tribute and has limited external policies, but other than that it purely retains its culture, has its own armies and is lead by its old families. In my opinion this goes a lot too far to be still considered anywhere near accurate. In terms of EB gouvernments, Egypt before Kleopatra's death would be a vassal, Iudaea with her own king a level 4 and Gaul between 3 and 2.

I can see the appeal of the possibility of large parts of an empire's possessions, but at least in Rome's case I can't see how it would be an accurate representation. You earlier spoke of Marc Antony. Egypt and the eastern provinces did not take up arms, because they had a grudge against the republic or sought independence, but because they chose Marc Antony over Octavian Caesar. But in the game any such rebellion in which a vassal takes up arms would in case of its victory result in its independence, not in a change of gouvernment in Rome. Only a "shadow faction" such as the "roman rebels" in BI could achieve that, which, however, we will not see in EB2.

Reply

@Lysimachos Yes, you pointed out the flaws in my example. That is what I meant by the "though the regions culture (buildings, cohorts, generals) would remain the original nations which would be inaccurate in the case of Rome, but wouldn't be far from the truth for some Persian or Greek nations."

Persian and Greek nations for instance often left conquered nations semi-autonomous, and did not impose their cultural military structure on regions. This is one of the proposed reasons for the boundaries of the Persian empire, as they had very little success holding territories with cultures that were too conflicted with their own (Think the short lived conquests of Egypt and Greece), though it is also attributed to the empires longevity through lack of interference with its culturally similar regions. The only reason I would say it could be used in the Roman campaign as well would simply be due to player choice.

Reply

Rome had plenty of vassals throughout its history, Armenia, Galatia, Numidia, Mauretania, Thrace, Nabatea, Judea, Bosporos, a ton of germanic and british tribes etc.

The problem with the vassal mechanic from the game is that it only provides money, you don't get any control over what goes on in the vassal state or its relations with the other factions in the game. Its basically just a faction that gives you money.

Reply

I rather ignore the vassal function and resolve these issues with lvl 3 or 4 governments. Protectorates are in my EBI games more like allies with some kind of imbalanced relationship due to a former conflict and very rare.

Reply