Client Kingdoms: confused by the concept.

[Didz]

It should mean that France is a vassal to the HRE.

In that case there is a definate gliche in my game. As you can see the diplomatic report clearly states France and HRE. But the faction overview shows HRE as a vassal of Denmark.

I'm surprised that vassals can have their own allies and enemies, I would have thought that their overlord would more or less have dictated their foriegn policy. I imagine that could lead to some interesting situations.

Having said that I'm surprised at how little conformance there is between allied factions in the game so it probably related.

Yes, you can declare war on a faction that´s a vassal to someone else without automatically triggering a war with the overlord. However, the overlord will not like it very much that you attacked his vassal (the same goes for allies, by the way) so expect a drop in your relationship.

That doesn't seem any different to declaring war of allies then. So, assuming that the faction overview is the accurate record. I could attack the HRE without automatically triggering a war with Denmark, but presumably if I attacked Denmark I am likely to find that it is calling on the resources (if not the armies) of the HRE for additional support.

You cannot make a shadow faction your vassal. They'll also not sue for peace when beaten down.

I'm not familiar with the term 'shadow faction' but I assume this is some background classification assigned to factions that are pre-set elimination targets for another faction in the short campaign victory conditions e.g. England v France, Scotland v England, Turkey v Byzantine etc.

If your relations with the faction is better than the other's for at least 1 turn, chances are it will break alliance with the person you attacked.

Interesting, so on that basis then, if you want to keep your existing ally you need to be sure that you have a better relationship with them than any other faction which is not allied to it?

Or is that test only triggered by a situation which requires the faction to make a choice between you or another.

It won't satisfy the victory conditions, you have to eliminate the faction. But vassal's provinces are considered to be under your control, so you don't have to actually conquer 15 provinces (or 45 in the long campaign) to met the victory conditions. Except of course, if your vassal is the faction you have to destroy to achieve the victory.

So, playing Scotland, I physically have to eliminate England. Making them a vassal state would effectively lose me the game, but I would never be able to anyway becuase they are a 'Shadow Faction' for Scotland.

However, I could force France to become my protectorate and if France had 5 provinces, then those five provinces would count towards the 15 I need to win the game.

Beyond that vassals basically work like permanent alliances in terms of diplomacy and relationship.

I think that makes sense, have I got it right?

[Ciaran]

Ditz: Yes, vassalage basically is an alliance on steroids. You get a certain amount of money from your vassals and their lands count as your own. Everything else is just like a normal alliance. Vassals will still act on their own; heck, I had it happen that two vassals of mine (Denmark and Poland, while I was playing France) went to war with each other, which, of course forced me to choose which one to keep as my vassal.

[Didz]

That is weird...sounds like a gliche to escape vassalage to me.

"hey! I've got this great scam. We pretend to be at war with each other and then the idiot has to let one of us go."

[DVX BELLORVM]

So, playing Scotland, I physically have to eliminate England. Making them a vassal state would effectively lose me the game, but I would never be able to anyway becuase they are a 'Shadow Faction' for Scotland.

No, you wouldn't loose the game. No alliance lasts forever, and the vassalage is not an exception. When the time comes, break the alliance and conquer them to win the game.

[andrewt]

In my recent Moors game, the HRE accepted vassalage from me and they broke it after 1-2 turns.

[alpaca]

Gosh I had a weird one today. Apparently a faction can be a vassal to more than one opponent.
I'm playing an English campaign at the moment, and the HRE became a vassal to both Milan and Hungary, being shown as a vassal for both factions in the diplomacy scroll, too

[FactionHeir]

Err I think that's a bug actually.

[Kobal2fr]

Yup, got that one too, HRE being vassal of two factions. Got me so confused I took a screenshot of it.

[Didz]

Looks like we are gathering a few bugs related to CLient Kingdom status.

- There's obviously a problem with accurate reporting on the diplomatic report. (No idea why France appears as the overlord on my report when it was Denmark.

- There seems to be an odd situation where vassal states can just decide they don't like being lorded over and declare idenpendance. Reported by Andrewt

- There is an issue which arises becuase two vassals can declare war on each other and in doing so force you to release one of them from vassalage which seems a bit wrong. Reported by Ciaran.

and finally

- There is a gliche where a faction can be a vassal of more than one overlord. Reported by Alpaca and Kobal2fr.

My own view is that vassalage should be a bit more than a simple alliance and that vassal states ought to provide a bit more than just financial support. I think they ought to conform to their overlords diplomatic and military policy in effect being an asset in everything except internal build ansd recruitment strategy.

Likewise, independace should be more akin to a rebellion than a diplomatic option.