Discuss Vassals in EB and history

**Mantaprey** · July 20, 2015, 04:54 AM

Here is what i found of vassal behavior in 2.03k

Vassals don't go to war with the same faction when their master goes to war. They are passive. 1 Vassal can have 2 Masters. Some factions hate being vassals and immediately revoked their vassal status resulting in being conquered or accepting vassalage again only to repeat. While other factions are happy to be vassals for ever. If a Faction attacks the Master and Vassal is Allied with Faction, then the Vassal chooses between the Master or the Faction, getting rid of their vassalage if they side with Faction.

Vassal haters:
Pontos - AS
Hayasdan -AS
Bactria - AS
Lusotannan -Roma

Vassal lovers:
Saka - AS
Saba - AS
Naba - AS
Pahlava - AS
Massylii - Qarthadast

I don't much about vassals in ancient times was it to extract tribute, soldiers or to control foreign policy? or am i getting confused with the feudal system?

What does vassal mean in game for the player? When i was playing as Saka Rauka i received a counter-offer to become a vassal of Bactria for 6000mnai after i had offered them money for a ceasefire. It seems I'm just getting paid for an alliance but what else happens?

**nvm** · July 20, 2015, 06:33 AM

Yeah, vassals are just fancy alliances in this game with the difference that the number of provinces is added to the amount you need to take to win, and they pay you money from their treasury when it' reaches somewhere about 20000(all money above that). I don't think it would work very well with EB due to the nature of money help script and the fact that most AI factions are likely to be poor, especially when you beat them bad enough for them to become your vassal, but they could just make another script giving money every turn for having a vassal.

I've vassalized AI Saka Rauka as Baktria myself back in 2.03g when they were down to one province and proposal was considered "balanced" and they haven't been a threat ever since. Probably because their only other neighbour was Pahlava, and they were allied to me.

**QuintusSertorius** · July 20, 2015, 06:57 AM

Just one small point, the AI can never go bankrupt with the money assistance they get in the script. They might remain relatively poor, but they'll never stay in the red, regardless of how many provinces they have.

**Jervaj** · July 20, 2015, 07:02 AM

I wanted to ask how do you convince a faction to be your vassal without cheating it?

Since the last changes I see vassalages from time to time between AI factions but for me seems very difficult. Even after wiping several armies of one faction and reducing then to one settlement asking for vassalage is considered always very demanding.

**nvm** · July 20, 2015, 07:09 AM

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

Just one small point, the AI can never go bankrupt with the money assistance they get in the script. They might remain relatively poor, but they'll never stay in the red, regardless of how many provinces they have.

That was the point - they may never go bankrupt, but will they ever be rich enough to pay tribute through MTW2 mechanics? I doubt that!

As for vassals, having a high influence diplomat, not terrible relations with them, and good reputation may help. Your relations with the faction will go down if you capture their cities and especially if you exterminate population, but if there aren't any armed conflicts between you during several turns, they will start to improve if they were terrible.

**QuintusSertorius** · July 20, 2015, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by nvm

That was the point - they may never go bankrupt, but will they ever be rich enough to pay tribute through MTW2 mechanics? I doubt that!

You're correct, the assistance script will not provide them with enough to go over 20,000 mnai in a turn. It's to stop them going below 0 for too long, not to actually make them rich.

**Jervaj** · July 20, 2015, 07:22 AM

Umm, well isnt easy to have good relations with someone you are at war with.

Still in my last Baktria campaign when I was testing the reform before leving for holiday I had several battles with them and took the camp they had conquered. I never exterminated neither the camp or the prisioners, and our relations were reasonable and even giving them back the camp the offer was considered very demanding.

They had only their starting camp and close to no armies at all (I checked with toggle fow).

**nvm** · July 20, 2015, 07:34 AM

Maybe you could have waited a few more turns, I don't know. Would they have accepted a ceasefire instead, or have "Peace" in their priorities? Generally if an offer is very demanding, it means they won't accept that under any circumstances so it's pointless to try, but sometimes the passage of time or other changes in situation can change that.

**Barnabas** · July 20, 2015, 07:40 AM

I know we need vassalage for gameplay purposes but my question is about vassalage in historical context. Vassalage as a historical term more or less meaning our allied government option in EB right? They have their own government (limited by the conquerers choice ranging from a chosen family to rule them or a puppet republic) and they pay the conquerers tribute, military contributions if asked and they need to respect the conquerers no-no's (can be in terms of religion or some other spesific issue).

Another question is regarding the gameplay extension of allied governments. I always tend to install my FM's as governers in places for order and stability but when I think about an allied government isn't it a bit absurd for them to get government by my faction leaders (king in many cases) brothers?
Wouldn't it be better if those regions because of their allied governments don't experience big time issues when there is no FM as governer and experience decrease in public order if FM is present? (as if the big state is interfering too much which alerts the locals from producers to local aristoracy). This system can decrease the lack of FM issue too (although people don't complain too much I often find myself in dire need of FM's).

**QuintusSertorius** · July 20, 2015, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by Barnabas

Another question is regarding the gameplay extension of allied governments. I always tend to install my FM's as governers in places for order and stability but when I think about an allied government isn't it a bit absurd for them to get government by my faction leaders (king in many cases) brothers?
Wouldn't it be better if those regions because of their allied governments don't experience big time issues when there is no FM as governer and experience decrease in public order if FM is present? (as if the big state is interfering too much which alerts the locals from producers to local aristoracy). This system can decrease the lack of FM issue too (although people don't complain too much I often find myself in dire need of FM's).

We are definitely missing Client Rulers at the moment. While in a way you could argue that any faction FM not of the royal line could be a satrap or governor, I don't think they fit the bill for a "local" ruler who's been trusted to be able to keep the province's elites and people in line.

**Jervaj** · July 20, 2015, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by nvm

Maybe you could have waited a few more turns, I don't know. Would they have accepted a ceasefire instead, or have "Peace" in their priorities? Generally if an offer is very demanding, it means they won't accept that under any circumstances so it's pointless to try, but sometimes the passage of time or other changes in situation can change that.

Umm maybe, but they would likely rebuild their military and be less likely to accept anything then as the difference goes away. They are ussually extremely agressive as a faction and atack you with anything they have. Anyway I tried and I gave them back the settlement anyway but they were atacked by Parthians and lost it straight away. And as they atacked Seleucids too Ia llied with them and forgot about the Saka. They did basically nothing until during a bunch of turns until they started to counteratack Parthians without much success.