Brownbeard said:
Not many exemples in the EU2 period, only in the CK period. Like, say, William the conqueror.
No Vassalized nations declaring war in EU3 please
- Thread starter unmerged(62543)
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Not many exemples in the EU2 period, only in the CK period. Like, say, William the conqueror.
So, no cases of Wallachia declaring war on Austria thus dragging in Ottomans into a war while they're busy fighting Persia, or... Moldavia doing the same stunt by invading Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Or how bout Schleswig and Holstein dragging Denmark into a war with France. No?
The most common types of wars vassals in EU2 would start never happened in that timeframe.
The most common types of wars vassals in EU2 would start never happened in that timeframe.
I think the problem we're having here is that there were many different degrees of vassilization historically. There were vassals that swore allegiance to a King but were essentially their own separate entities that allied with foreign powers, fought wars without their liege, and all sorts of things. Then there were other situations where the vassals were very closely connected to the liege and were more of a semi-autonomous region than a separate state. I think if EU allows for different levels of vassilization then many of these problems could be fixed.
I'd certainly like to see vassals of the same nation stopped from declaring war on each other. The number of times I had to put up with this when I played the Ottoman Empire...! 
Brownbeard said:
How about transylvania/siebenbürgen (ottoman vassal) invading the polish lithuanian commonwealth in the 1650s?
The ottomans didn't get involved...
Elgen said:
You'd get a CB, but you couldn't force a peace between the attacker and your vassal. You could soundly defeat the attacker, and get a 100% warscore on him, but if you made peace with him, he would still be at war with your vassall. This made it very difficult to actually protect your vassal if he wasn't in your alliance.
What ticks me off, is when my vassal who I can't ally, because he is vassal #5 declares war on vassal #4 who is allied to you and you are #$@%ed either way. You loose -5 stab or you loose -1 stab and your alliance.
I thought all these effects were reasonable. Vassals/puppets/satellite states could get into wars over border disputes, and could also drag their parent states into a wider war.
Or, you could ignore it, and risk surrendering your influence in the region when your vassal coughs up some provinces, or gets annexed.
Even the five-member alliance limit wasn't horrible. It was trivial to deal with up to four vassals, but at five it gets tricky and requires some talent. That was fine with me, and even though the mechanism was arbitrary, the effect wasn't unrealistic.
It could definitely be improved, especially the alliance thing, but I very much don't want vassals converted to fully subservient provinces of an empire. That's what the diplo-annex option is for. If you don't want to do that for some reason, who should have to deal with the complications.
Or, you could ignore it, and risk surrendering your influence in the region when your vassal coughs up some provinces, or gets annexed.
Even the five-member alliance limit wasn't horrible. It was trivial to deal with up to four vassals, but at five it gets tricky and requires some talent. That was fine with me, and even though the mechanism was arbitrary, the effect wasn't unrealistic.
It could definitely be improved, especially the alliance thing, but I very much don't want vassals converted to fully subservient provinces of an empire. That's what the diplo-annex option is for. If you don't want to do that for some reason, who should have to deal with the complications.
Harlow said:
Well, considering Vassal states fought their own wars all the time in reality, I'd have to say it would be really bad if vassals couldn't do what they wanted. Consider Transylvania. It was a vassal of the Ottoman Empire, but it fought wars with and even against the OE during the time period we're discussing. A vassal state should have all the rights of a normal state. Being a vassal only signifies that it pays tribute to its overlord and recognizes its dominance. Also, the overlord has the duty of protecting its vassals.
joak said:
Including the one that I listed, i.e.,
Just to be clear here, in general, I have no problem with vassals declaring war. I just think that the particular situation that I pointed our is quite unrealistic. There should be some sort of diplomatic option that lets you make the other country quit attacking your vassal.
It would be good if it worked like satellites in Vicky, where you automatically get an alliance (albeit a defensive one) with your satellite.SonofWinter said:
That, or stop having limits on AI nations being in your alliance.
We know that alliances are now bilateral. Like they are in Vicky and not how they are in EU1&2
I know, I hope the alliance is automatic with a vassal in EU3 rather than optional.Brownbeard said:
Even being optional isn't a problem as long as there is no arbitrary limit on the number of alliances you can have. The automatic defensive alliance as in Victoria should probably exist but that in itself won't prevent the vassal from declaring foolish wars where you can't protect them.jonti-h said:I know, I hope the alliance is automatic with a vassal in EU3 rather than optional.
True enough.jdrou said:
The defensive alliance won't stop them DoWing other people - but it will stop them DoWing each other whenever they feel like it. That was really annoying,
I'm gona had a shade of gray here and proposed the control you have on your vassal is related with the raltions you have with it. At 150+ they can't DoW anyone without your authorization, at -150 or less they'll be eager to DoW YOU and get rid of an hostile overlord. Anything in between, they have the same rights as in Eu2 (and the improved AI should stop them from comiting suicide).
I think an overlord should have ways to control or influence a vassals foreign policy...
Alerias said:
Not if the vassal is just on a "pay me so I won't atack you" scheme. Say I, Portugal, am atacked by marroco wishing to get tangeers back. I defeat them, and to make them pay for sucha foolish act and "know who's boss" make them pay me tribute so I won't punish them further. Does this mean I really care for who their ruler marries with, or even if he allies with Algiers to fight off Mameluc agression? Let them be doing all they want, as long as I know they won't atack me and keep on sending the money...
Habsburgs paid yearly tribute to Ottomans for a long time period in 16th and 17th century(most of the period that they were not at war with one another). Should that qualify Austria as a vassal of the Ottoman Empire?