Client Kingdoms: confused by the concept.

[Didz]

About 16 turns ago I got the following Diplomatic Report.

This clearly states that France and the HRE have become client kingdoms.

I'm not sure if this is meant to imply that they are client kingdoms of each other, or one of the other, or that they are both client kingdoms of someone else.

The faction overview shows the HRE as a vassal of Denmark, but makes no mention of France as a vassal of anyone. Not only that but the HRE seems to have its own independant set of allies (Milan, Byzantine, Russia, Denmark, and Hungary) which is quite different to Denmarks (England, Venice and Poland)

On a secondary point: Can anyone confirm what impact vassalage has on Faction Goals and diplomacy, for example, if Scotland were to make England a vassal state would that satisfy their faction goal for the Short Campaign or does elimination mean exactly that, also is is possible to declare war on a vassal without going to war with its protector?

[Eng]

Shouldn't client kingdoms be like the austro-hungarian empire???

[Ciaran]

I'm not sure if this is meant to imply that they are client kingdoms of each other, or one of the other, or that they are both client kingdoms of someone else

The faction overview shows the HRE as a vassal of Denmark, but makes no mention of France as a vassal of anyone. Not only that but the HRE seems to have its own independant set of allies (Milan, Byzantine, Russia, Denmark, and Hungary) which is quite different to Denmarks (England, Venice and Poland)

It should mean that France is a vassal to the HRE. Vassals still can have their own allies and enemies.

On a secondary point: Can anyone confirm what impact vassalage has on Faction Goals and diplomacy, for example, if Scotland were to make England a vassal state would that satisfy their faction goal for the Short Campaign or does elimination mean exactly that, also is is possible to declare war on a vassal without going to war with its protector?

I´ve never tried to make the faction I had to eliminate my vassal, so I can´t answer the first part. The second part, however, is simple: 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. And if you´re allied with the overlord you´ll most likely lose your alliance, unless you can somehow get the vassal to initiate the war.

[FactionHeir]

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

Who breaks alliance with who has some random factor but it mainly based on relations. 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.

[DVX BELLORVM]

On a secondary point: Can anyone confirm what impact vassalage has on Faction Goals and diplomacy, for example, if Scotland were to make England a vassal state would that satisfy their faction goal for the Short Campaign or does elimination mean exactly that,

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.

also is is possible to declare war on a vassal without going to war with its protector?

I think it is, but I'm not 100% sure. As someone already mentioned, the vassal can have it's own allies and enemies, independent of it's master.

[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.

[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.

[alpaca]

Well diplomacy in general is not that exciting in all TW games so far. I don't think anyone ever properly designed it, it has that definite "let's make it up as we go along" feel to it that I in fact get about the whole strategy layer (I don't know if you ever noticed rounding errors in the trade income for example when moving your governor in and out of a settlement can make a difference in your income)

Anyways, the vassal system in Civ4 is a bit better but in fact I think there you don't get enough from it because you have no financial benefits. Quite on the contrary, you even have to pay higher maintenance for your cities if you have a vassal. Nonetheless, some points about it are good, for example that you actually protect them: If somebody goes to war with either you or your vassal, they'll go to war with you and all your vassals which is a very strong diminutive to any military planning. In TW it's mainly a tributary and should be called that to be honest. You don't have much of a military cooperation except for the automatic rights of passage, alliance and trade agreements which, let's face it, mean as much as a steaming heap of llama dung on a hot afternoon.

[andrewt]

Well, Civ 4's vassal system is more of a gameplay device than something that is supposedly realistic. It lessens the tedious late game activity of having to hunt down every single city of an AI faction to destroy it.

[Didz]

Well neither game provides a realistic model of feudalism, in fact if one beleives certain American historians feudalism never existed and Europe in the middle ages was nothing more than one big federal republic

However, purely from game play point of view I would have liked vassalage to involve a bit more commitment and conformance from the vassal. At the moment it hardly seems worth the effort compared with the standard 'slash and burn' conquest technique.