My vassals can't annex other countries while I'm fighting alongside them

[Nein]

Today I got stuck stuck for a long time in a war against Trebizond as the Timurids, as I was waiting for the Ak Koyunlu to annex them but which they never did, so I loaded a save as them (Ak Koyunlu), only to see that they can't sign a separate peace since they're my vassal, despite the 100% score. That feature is great to stop vassals from abandoning you in a war, but here the result was completely unsatisfactory here as I could neither get my vassal to annex Trebizond nor vassalise them myself since it wasn't I who occupied the enemy capital. I know there won't be more fixes to FtG, but this really sucks, especially when your vassal has leaders but you don't so they'll just keep stealing sieges away from you...

EDIT: Signing a separate peace doesn't work either since it takes my vassals out of the war too.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

That is WAD.
From the patch 1.3 changelog for the beta since 23 February 2013:

- Vassals can no longer make a separate peace while their overlord is still at war.

Look in the file "Changelog.1.3.txt" in your FtG directory.

 

[Nein]

That is WAD.
From the patch 1.3 changelog for the beta since 23 February 2013:



Look in the file "Changelog.1.3.txt" in your FtG directory.

Yes, I know. What I'm saying is that I don't think this was an intended consequence

 

[ConjurerDragon]

Yes, I know. What I'm saying is that I don't think this was an intended consequence

It was a conscious choice.
The alternative was the AI vassal&ally who simply quits the war for 1 ducat or whitepeace and abandons you in a time you actually would need it (not so much as actively fighting the enemy but as a sponge to soak up some of the enemies armies who would try to siege the vassals provinces so that you can siege the enemies.

Next time simply siege OPM´s yourself and annex or vassalize them. To avoid that my vassals do something I do not want them to I have set myself a rule that I am "allowed" to use the richelieu cheat (to be able to control my vassals units) when a country is my vassal and ally.

 

[Nein]

It was a conscious choice.
The alternative was the AI vassal&ally who simply quits the war for 1 ducat or whitepeace and abandons you in a time you actually would need it (not so much as actively fighting the enemy but as a sponge to soak up some of the enemies armies who would try to siege the vassals provinces so that you can siege the enemies.

Next time simply siege OPM´s yourself and annex or vassalize them. To avoid that my vassals do something I do not want them to I have set myself a rule that I am "allowed" to use the richelieu cheat (to be able to control my vassals units) when a country is my vassal and ally.

This could be solved if we allowed vassals only to annex other countries (that is, they still wouldn't be able to accept or demand any other peace settlement, avoiding the problem you mentioned). See, the problem is that the current rules leave a sort of blind spot in how negotiations are carried out. The idea behind not allowing vassals independent peace deals is that it allows the overlord to decide for the vassal, right? But as things stand, if I want my vassal to annex the other country (which is no idle thought, as it is one of the main ways for players to avoid the BB malus of forceannexation) I cannot decide that the way I can demand that the enemy cede provinces occupied by my allies. Either do this or allow the overlord to have the enemy annexed by the vassal, in any case the problem is fixed.
If you say you have to resort to cheating to get around this issue, you are actually admitting it is fairly serious.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

This could be solved if we allowed vassals only to annex other countries (that is, they still wouldn't be able to accept or demand any other peace settlement, avoiding the problem you mentioned). See, the problem is that the current rules leave a sort of blind spot in how negotiations are carried out. The idea behind not allowing vassals independent peace deals is that it allows the overlord to decide for the vassal, right? But as things stand, if I want my vassal to annex the other country (which is no idle thought, as it is one of the main ways for players to avoid the BB malus of forceannexation) I cannot decide that the way I can demand that the enemy cede provinces occupied by my allies. Either do this or allow the overlord to have the enemy annexed by the vassal, in any case the problem is fixed.
If you say you have to resort to cheating to get around this issue, you are actually admitting it is fairly serious.

Just a minor afterthought: You wrote about "the enemy ceding provinces occupied by your allies".
There is no problem if you, as the Overlord make a peacedeal, as long as the enemy country does have provincES to cede. Because provinces can be ceded to both enemy overlord or vassal in a peacedeal, once the overlord makes peace.

The problem you orignally mentioned only occurs if the enemy country has been, e.g. by prior wars reduced to have only 1 province left and would be forceannexed by losing it´s last province. Then your vassal is barred from making a seperate peace while you as the overlord are still at war and you, as the overlord can´t demand that your vassal forceannexes the country.

In a way that makes sense - while a lot of the BB points for annexing provinces can be heaped on your vassals back, the BB penalty for annexing the last province of a country and eradicating it from the map should somehow hit the one ultimately responsible for it.

 

[Nein]

Just a minor afterthought: You wrote about "the enemy ceding provinces occupied by your allies".
There is no problem if you, as the Overlord make a peacedeal, as long as the enemy country does have provincES to cede. Because provinces can be ceded to both enemy overlord or vassal in a peacedeal, once the overlord makes peace.

The problem you orignally mentioned only occurs if the enemy country has been, e.g. by prior wars reduced to have only 1 province left and would be forceannexed by losing it´s last province. Then your vassal is barred from making a seperate peace while you as the overlord are still at war and you, as the overlord can´t demand that your vassal forceannexes the country.

In a way that makes sense - while a lot of the BB points for annexing provinces can be heaped on your vassals back, the BB penalty for annexing the last province of a country and eradicating it from the map should somehow hit the one ultimately responsible for it.

wow, 2019 really does feel like ages ago.

Not saying using vassals to save annexation BB isn't a gamey strategy, but it's one of the most commonly used ones, and if the intention was to get rid of that trick, I would have expected to see it clearly stated in the patch notes. And then you have the historical reasons to allow vassals to annex other countries. Indeed, the whole reason some rulers accepted something ressembling vassal status was to receive the support of the larger empire against local enemies, whether external or internal. So for instance you have the Crimean Khanate who are a vassal of the Ottomans but eventually annex the Golden Horde.
Anyhow, even if you accept that change as desirable, you still have the problem of not being able to vassalise or annex the OPM yourself if your vassal occupied its capital. Instead you have to start another war, and get a head start over your vassal, and even that might not be enough if they have a higher ranking commander than you...
There should to be an option to get your vassal to sign the separate peace when they have a 100% against that other country (though that would create a problem when the occupied nation is itself someone else's vassal). Otherwise you should just be given control of that province as soon your vassal completes the siege.

 

[MichaelM]

I think EU3/4 follow that last idea, i.e. if your vassal takes the city control is immediately transferred to you. Not sure the pros and cons of making that kind of change.

That change in 1.3 was not made to stop the feeding of vassals, although most of the time that isn't a bad outcome from my point of view.