Client Kingdoms: confused by the concept.

[Kobal2fr]

That idea doesn't actually make much sense in terms of the definition of vassalage or in defining a distinction between Vassal and Ally in terms of game mechanic's.

A vassal as I understand it only retains his right to hold office and land on sufferance of his lord, and that only in return for providing the agreed payments and services demanded by that lord.

If that is the accepted then a vassal cannot merely decide he doesn't want to be a vassal to that Lord anymore without abandoning all the rights he has been granted in return. In the case of a client state which has surrendered its sovereignty in return for the overlords protection that would mean in effect the ruling house would lose its right to rule.

So, the only way a vassal state could achieve independence and retain its right to rule would be to rebel against its overlord and win. However, that doesn't seem to be the method adopted in the game. It seems that in the game there is little difference between a vassalage and an alliance, and little point in granting your protection to a vassal state rather than just annexing it outright.

Which ever way I look at it, it seems to be a broken concept. I was surprised to discover that allies are not required to support each other, but its even more bizarre that vassals can ignore their Lords policies.

Agreed, but that's because you don't look at the vassal's "well, we thought about it and hmmm... OK, we're not your vassals anymore. Yeah. OK ? Zat cool ?" as open rebellion. But I do, and if they think they can get away with it, they've got another thing coming. Throw my tea in the harbour, will they ?!

With that said, I think the term "vassalage" as used in game is poorly chosen, because of the weight the term carries. Heck, age old oaths of fealty not being properly respected was what caused the Hundred Years War in the first place. They were, I agree with you, not just an alliance of convenience with a little money thrown in for good measure as the "leave us ALONE" factor. They were final and supposed to last for the proverbial thousand years.

But CA took it's old "temporary Roman protectorate" system, and the brainstorm must have looked like :
"do we want to rewrite that ?"
"naaaah, it's good, gamewise"
"ok... but it needs another name. Protectorate doesn't fit"
"ooooh how about vassals ? That's properly medieval right ?"
"get Tom a coffee, he earned it. OK, next issue..."

As I figure it, proper vassalage would be kind of like the 3 Roman factions in RTW (no fog of war, unbreakable alliance that auto-DoWs enemies of each other, and perma-mil rights unless you screw up) only unilateraly : the liege gets all the benefits, the vassal gets none. That would be "vassalage" proper. What we've got in the game is just military blackmail.