A thought on vassals

[th3freakie]

Nasty litle buggers vassals are. You need hem to diplo anex, but they are very... unpredictable.

How many times have you not been draged into a war you didn't want to fight because your 1 prov vassal and ally, although having 200 relations with you and having tea in your Royal Palace every Friday, decided he wanted to drag you to a war agaist an alliance 2 times the size of yours? Many times getting himself anexed in the process?

Or how many times have they decided to DoW another vassal of yours, who for some reason wasn't in the alliance yet (like, lack of space) thus forcing you to either dishonor the alliance or take a massive stability hit?

Now, these things sometimes lead to fun. I had a foolish Tver draging my Moscowny to a fierce 20 years war with all of western europe. It was nerve-recking, but fun.

Sometimes, they're just stupid, like when a french minor DoWs another french minor and both get stuck in eternal war due to the amazing "I own yours and you own mine" effect. Also due to one of them being too dumb to ask ME for military access.

So I had an idea - what if vassals, if in a alliance lead but their master and with 150+ relations could 1) never DoW anyone OR 2) could DoW like they do now, but it would only take effect with the masters premission.

Any comments?

 

[unmerged(52332)]

That thing when your vassal DoW another your vassal I complete agree with you.. :rofl:
Secondly- last idea isn't bad at all I think that if you have vassal's they may not doe nothing without your permissions even myself will be glad when you make be able to set how many army they can hold in country!! But this is inposible so just dreaming... :wacko:

 

[Registered]

So I had an idea - what if vassals, if in a alliance lead but their master and with 150+ relations could 1) never DoW anyone OR 2) could DoW like they do now, but it would only take effect with the masters premission.

Any comments?

I am in complete and total agreement. Vassals should, IMHO, not be able to make their own foreign policy. That woudl include them not granting military access to my enemies

 

[Duke of Wellington]

In one game I tried getting lots of vassals but once I had around 15 they kept Dowing each other forcing me to dishonour alliances or break vassalages. There ended up being three alliances made up entirely of my vassals all fighting each other while I was at peace and in no alliance

 

[th3freakie]

I am in complete and total agreement. Vassals should, IMHO, not be able to make their own foreign policy. That woudl include them not granting military access to my enemies

Well not always. I mean, Moscow should be free to do whatever it wants while it's a vassal of the Golden Horde, I have no problem with this existing while vassalage means "Ok I pay you at the end of the year but I still have your guts and just accepted this not to be anexed".
My problems are when vasslage represents either co-government (spain-portugal 1580-1640 for exemple) or when it represents very close domain-friendship ties.

 

[DSYoungEsq]

From a strictly game-play perspective, you are being intentionally dense if you put your vassals you intend to diplo-annex in your alliance anytime before you actually intend to do the annexation. They just cause trouble that way.

 

[th3freakie]

From a strictly game-play perspective, you are being intentionally dense if you put your vassals you intend to diplo-annex in your alliance anytime before you actually intend to do the annexation. They just cause trouble that way.

Well but some you don't want to anex. And even the ones you do want, better have them in the alliance during the 10 years, otherwise they risk being anexed by other means...

 

[Duke of Wellington]

Well not always. I mean, Moscow should be free to do whatever it wants while it's a vassal of the Golden Horde, I have no problem with this existing while vassalage means "Ok I pay you at the end of the year but I still have your guts and just accepted this not to be anexed".
My problems are when vasslage represents either co-government (spain-portugal 1580-1640 for exemple) or when it represents very close domain-friendship ties.

This is a good reason to have a differentiation between vassals. Force vassals e.g. Muscowy or Wallachia, Dynastic Vassals like Portugal or Spain and Diplomatic vassals like Scotland. The types should be essentially the same except the last two are not allowed to make foreign policy decisions and relations between a force vassal and liege should detieriorate.

 

[GrimPagan]

From a strictly game-play perspective, you are being intentionally dense if you put your vassals you intend to diplo-annex in your alliance anytime before you actually intend to do the annexation. They just cause trouble that way.

I tend to invite them for two reasons; one, I don't want anyone else to grab their provinces before I can; two, sometimes their are capable of grabbing provinces in peacedeals, making them an even better target for diplo-annexing.

 

[EvilSanta]

Im lucky I havent yet had any real problems with vassals.It would suck when 2 my vassals fight each other.

 

[unmerged(15337)]

In one game I tried getting lots of vassals but once I had around 15 they kept Dowing each other forcing me to dishonour alliances or break vassalages. There ended up being three alliances made up entirely of my vassals all fighting each other while I was at peace and in no alliance

:rofl: :rofl:

This is priceless!

DSYoung: I think you are oversimplifying to the point of being misleading. It may or may not be helpful to have a longterm vassal-ally. It depends on what countries they are and what else is going on. Sometimes a vassal-ally is very useful to start wars that you then control, saving you stab and BB for the DOW. Such wars could also be started defensively, by your targeted country foolishly DOWing your vassal, being too afraid to DOW you. Also there are economic benefits to having vassals, depending on how decentralized you are.

I do agree, though, that you should never have any ally, vassal or not, who is likely to DOW a vassal of yours. You do need to think through the politcs before you jump into setting up an alliance.

To the original poster: Those are reasonable ideas, and have been proposed here many times in one form or another. My impression is that they are more suited to EU3, but I suppose only Johan really knows.

 

[th3freakie]

To the original poster: Those are reasonable ideas, and have been proposed here many times in one form or another. My impression is that they are more suited to EU3, but I suppose only Johan really knows.

I never considered them for the next patch

 

[DSYoungEsq]

jwolf, I might have been to terse to be completely understood.

The point is that you don't put the vassal in an alliance simply because you intend to diplo-annex. You might have a different strategic reason to put them in the alliance, but you have to consider all the trouble that it will likely cause you. The OP seemed to indicate that the only reason the vassals were in the alliance was because of eventual diplo-annexation.

 

[unmerged(15337)]

Agreed, DSY. You have to keep the big political picture in mind with any alliances. We're all armchair Machiavellis.

 

[unmerged(52021)]

and Diplomatic vassals like Scotland.

Scotland would be a dynastic vassal, as you put it.

 

[th3freakie]

jwolf, I might have been to terse to be completely understood.

The point is that you don't put the vassal in an alliance simply because you intend to diplo-annex. You might have a different strategic reason to put them in the alliance, but you have to consider all the trouble that it will likely cause you. The OP seemed to indicate that the only reason the vassals were in the alliance was because of eventual diplo-annexation.

Well, I admit I don't give in too much though, but my future diplo-anexees are also valuable partners and friends of my country, in our constant war agaist te Axis of... whatever we don't like.

 

[DSYoungEsq]

Well, I admit I don't give in too much though, but my future diplo-anexees are also valuable partners and friends of my country, in our constant war agaist te Axis of... whatever we don't like.

Isn't that by definition everyone else in the whole world? :rofl:

 

[unmerged(37774)]

One thing that has always annoyed me about vassals is when they break the vassalage and *you* have to DOW them to re-establish it.

Early on in my EU2 playing I would often vassalize weak other religion countries I did not want if I ended up at war with them somehow and didn't want to take any provinces - like say I'm France at war with Algeria.

But what is the point? They'll just break the vassalization in a few years if I don't feed them cash, which ruins the advantage of having them as a vassal in the first place.

OTOH, if Algeria had to consider war with France as part of breaking the vassalization they might (more realistically) conclude it isn't worth it on their part unless France is really weak for some reason...

 

[unmerged(20077)]

I had a troublesome vassal recently as Burgundy: Mainz. Austria DoW'ed them twice and we had to fight and fight and fight to prevent them from being force-annexed by the Big White Blob, which already had Würzburg next door. I eventually wondered why the Austrians hated Mainz so much and discovered they had a permanent CB because the mad fools were Embargoing them! Quite what good a TE from a one province minor was, I don't know. Anyway, I diplo-annexed Mainz and then released it again, without the TE.
One reason not to diplo-annex, of course, is that allied vassals can cheat on army maintenance and it's often good to have 40,000 men instead of the 12,000 you could pay for if you owned the place.

 

[th3freakie]

I had a troublesome vassal recently as Burgundy: Mainz. Austria DoW'ed them twice and we had to fight and fight and fight to prevent them from being force-annexed by the Big White Blob, which already had Würzburg next door. I eventually wondered why the Austrians hated Mainz so much and discovered they had a permanent CB because the mad fools were Embargoing them! Quite what good a TE from a one province minor was, I don't know. Anyway, I diplo-annexed Mainz and then released it again, without the TE.
One reason not to diplo-annex, of course, is that allied vassals can cheat on army maintenance and it's often good to have 40,000 men instead of the 12,000 you could pay for if you owned the place.

Aye, sometimes it seems vassals are only trying to hurt us.

In my current game with Burgundy Lorene DoWed Milan (wha..?? :wacko: ) and caused the Great Fraco-Italian war, since all of both territories were allied around Me and Milan.