Look, Jean-Luc, I have no idea why you repeat the same things over and over again, without actually replying to the points in question.
We have to make a difference between single and MP. So let's see single first.
In AoW 3 we have a surrender mechanic in place, that solves the problem. A vassal-kind of surrender doesn't add anything, except a necessity to take care of the vassal as well - it can obviously be attacked, and if a vassal is attacked, it has consequences for the overlord as well. In short, the surrender mechanic, NEUTRALIZING the remaining "empire" of a surrenderer, is more practical than leaving it in place as a small vassal empire, because it will end the game if it was the last guy who surrendered, and it won't force you to do anything for or in the now neutral towns, but offers the option to do whatever you want there, as opposed to when the rest is vassaled.
So for single player it's a different mechanic than surrender in AoW 3, that doesn't do anything more or better with a view on reducing "tediousness", except offering a different option that is not in any way better than the surrender in place. Also, it's meant only for AI players to offer vassalage
Then there is multiplayer, and since we both don't play that, it's obviously pretty difficult to judge, but: the difference is, we are talking about HUMAN players offering vassalage to another human player. We have different cases here as well. The first is, 2-player game. In 2-player, vassalage is useless. It doesn't solve the problem that one actually beaten player may simply "run" with their Leader, hiding somewhere, delaying the game, maybe even living off of still to be explored stuff and going guerilla. This problem can simply be solved the same way as a battle ends when there was no damage done within a certain number of turns, only for the advanture map. If there is "inactivity" on the adventure map for X turns the game ends with a percentage win based on population, troops or whatever you deem worth to compare and come up with a relative strength.
That leaves games with more than 2 players. Here it is possible to have a mix of human players and AI players or exclusively human players. With a mix, the surrender rule for AIs is spot-on again, and there is no need for something different, as above (mixed play being something very few are caring for anyway). That leaves games with exclusively human players (that is, vassalage amongst human players), and that is the only thing worth discussing, which I was making the points for I did make.
Now, why would something like that be a good thing? Maybe people should say something about it who play multiplayer games with more than 2 people ...?
We have to make a difference between single and MP. So let's see single first.
In AoW 3 we have a surrender mechanic in place, that solves the problem. A vassal-kind of surrender doesn't add anything, except a necessity to take care of the vassal as well - it can obviously be attacked, and if a vassal is attacked, it has consequences for the overlord as well. In short, the surrender mechanic, NEUTRALIZING the remaining "empire" of a surrenderer, is more practical than leaving it in place as a small vassal empire, because it will end the game if it was the last guy who surrendered, and it won't force you to do anything for or in the now neutral towns, but offers the option to do whatever you want there, as opposed to when the rest is vassaled.
So for single player it's a different mechanic than surrender in AoW 3, that doesn't do anything more or better with a view on reducing "tediousness", except offering a different option that is not in any way better than the surrender in place. Also, it's meant only for AI players to offer vassalage
Then there is multiplayer, and since we both don't play that, it's obviously pretty difficult to judge, but: the difference is, we are talking about HUMAN players offering vassalage to another human player. We have different cases here as well. The first is, 2-player game. In 2-player, vassalage is useless. It doesn't solve the problem that one actually beaten player may simply "run" with their Leader, hiding somewhere, delaying the game, maybe even living off of still to be explored stuff and going guerilla. This problem can simply be solved the same way as a battle ends when there was no damage done within a certain number of turns, only for the advanture map. If there is "inactivity" on the adventure map for X turns the game ends with a percentage win based on population, troops or whatever you deem worth to compare and come up with a relative strength.
That leaves games with more than 2 players. Here it is possible to have a mix of human players and AI players or exclusively human players. With a mix, the surrender rule for AIs is spot-on again, and there is no need for something different, as above (mixed play being something very few are caring for anyway). That leaves games with exclusively human players (that is, vassalage amongst human players), and that is the only thing worth discussing, which I was making the points for I did make.
Now, why would something like that be a good thing? Maybe people should say something about it who play multiplayer games with more than 2 people ...?