Client Kingdoms: confused by the concept.

[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.

[Kobal2fr]

- 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

I don't think that's a bug - basically, accepting to be a vassal kingdom is when the king signs a piece of paper stating that "I, Wygmir the Cuckold, for one, welcome our new English overlords !", because at the time his faction has very little choice, but over time they can decide they don't need it anymore.
It should stick most of the time, since the fact that any excess cash is given to the liege faction should guarantee that the vassal remains permanently inferior to the liege, unless
1) they spend all their cash on troops, then they don't have any cash to give you and now they've got troops ; or
2) you use the cash on non-military stuff, giving them time to catch up ; or
3) Your military forces are diverted further than in "look at me funny and I'll break you like a twig, Denmark !" range ; or
4) They ally with enough factions that they feel safe from you through them : or
E) All of the above

OK, andrewt's 2 turn reversal is a bit extreme (I had one such short vassal too during my current campaign, but it was my fault as I did something particularly stupid : offered to trade maps for maps with them. Rookie mistake, that - AI always tanks alliances when you do it ), that's granted, but vassalage is basically willfull servitude. Emphasis on willfull, they can and should be able to call it quits whenever they want to face the consequences of their relapse in the form of a Monster Ribault stack

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

Well, it is, isn't it ? They're not allied with you anymore, meaning you're free to attack them without tanking your own reputation. See : Monster Ribault stack. Revenge is a dish best served multi-barreled.

- 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.

Can't be helped as long as we don't have a "stop being asshats and make peace, you morons. Accept or we will attack you BOTH" diplomacy option... But maybe something could be tweaked in the AI files to force vassals of the same faction to be trusted allies to each other no matter the relations/reputations ? Haven't played around too much with the diplomatic AI yet, so I couldn't say for sure.

[Didz]

I don't think that's a bug - basically, accepting to be a vassal kingdom is when the king signs a piece of paper stating that "I, Wygmir the Cuckold, for one, welcome our new English overlords !", because at the time his faction has very little choice, but over time they can decide they don't need it anymore.

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.

[andrewt]

Well, I did the same mistake Kobal did. I tried to trade something with them. I usually never bother with diplomacy so I didn't know.

I'd really love something like Civ 4's vassalage status. If you beat the crap out of someone and they accept vassalage, they can only break it if either one of 2 things happen:

1. They lose a ton of possessions
2. They grow too large in comparison to you

I believe it's either they lose more than half of their land and/or population after they became your vassal or they grow to have more than half of your land and population.

[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.