Is a vassal, has a vassal. Intended or bug?

[Ameron]

You can't vassalize a nation which has vassals. Byzantium cannot be vassalized if they have Athens as a vassal.

I did it many times in the last patch. Declared with claim on Athens, maybe it's relevant.

 

[Woifee]

I think I got it once this way:

Had a Vassal in Mexico area. I fully annexed another mexian state with feeding to my vassal. The vassals of the fully annexed became vassals of my vassal.

But I'm pretty sure it shouldn't work this way.

The first vassal I got trough fully annexing another nation. This way I got a vassal with mesoamerican tech as western european.

 

[Aythne]

Thank you for the report, and discussion.
As far as I know, the following is the intended behaviour;

"When you make a nation into your vassal or protectorate, they should lose all of their subjects.

When you make a nation your Personal Union junior partner, they should keep their vassals, marches and protectorates, while their Personal Unions transfer to you."

When 1.16 is released, that is how it should all work, again; an issue was fixed and is being tested on the matter.

I have faith that this has also been fixed if vassal-of-vassals are working as intended again, but you are making sure that AE gets distributed properly, right? We used to be able to feed vassals-of-vassals with absolute impunity, as only the senior vassal would get AE, not the player at the top of the food chain.

 

[Suzaku]

Thank you for the report, and discussion.
As far as I know, the following is the intended behaviour;

"When you make a nation into your vassal or protectorate, they should lose all of their subjects.

Seems kind of silly that the vassals would break free instead of being transferred to your realm.

 

[Urthalanor]

@ForzaA

Since we are already at the topic, I also managed to get a Vassal to have a Protectorate, by simply force vassalising them in a War after they got the protectorate.

 

[Chief of Staff]

I liked the whole thing of having vassals having its own vassals which make it more interesting but I can understand why it is disallowed, since someone here said it apparently messes with many mechanics. A shame, really. Maybe, one day in future, it will be allowed in EU9 or something...

On the other hand, @ForzaA maybe this won't fix it but perhaps create a special rule where first-tier vassal are allowed to keep their own vassals, second-tier vassals (or vassals of vassals) are not allowed to keep their own vassals... this might put EU4 closer to that of approximation used by CK2 (kings, dukes, and barons).

 

[Simoleum]

Hey just wanted to hear. Playing "For Odin!" in the new world and saw this, is this something that was added or is it a glitch?

This is scary. I've been playing a "For Odin!" game a few days, and noticed the same thing. Have you done it yet?

 

[Nikolaj-11]

This is scary. I've been playing a "For Odin!" game a few days, and noticed the same thing. Have you done it yet?

No, and it's no longer in effect. However the Aztecs had everyone but Xiu as vassals, they were however allied.

I was strong enough to take them out, I carelessly declared on the latter without checking Aztec's vassals beforehand so I thought I was just facing the two.
They attacked me in bad terrain and I won, then I sieged the Aztec capital and peaced them out, after that Xiu was fully annexed, then Portugal attacked.
They did nothing so I just sieged down Carabais and took half their colonies.

Haven't played in a few days since (have been completing GTA IV)

 

[Ixal]

This really screwed me over in my Aztec game as vassals of vassals do not count for reforming Nahuatl.

 

[fleetothemoon]

I really don't think having vassal who have vassals etc is working as intended.

The idea of being able to have vassal pyramid scheme, was officially scrapped since the early versions of EU3, and I don't think the devs ever mentioned such mechanics returning.

This isn't CK2 after all.