VBAM Games Forums

Rough thoughts on a more medieval or Romanesque style of conquest, seeking input:

Vassal State (-50)
This treaty is an amalgam of tributary and defense treaty, surrender, and “pot sweeteners”. In this, the Vassal State becomes subordinated to the conqueror but maintains internal sovereignty, with certain limitations. It provides its new master a percentage of its GDP, swears to come to the aid of the conqueror in times of war, is in turn guaranteed independence from outside threats, and provides the conqueror allied military contingens.

The Vassal is required to give its new master 20% of its GDP, plus 1% per point by which it accepts the treaty. Thus, if a Vassal needs to roll 30 to accept the Vassal State treaty and rolls a 42, it will pay its new masters (42-30+20=32%) of its GDP.

Hostile actions from outsiders that would normally provide the Vassal casus belli also provide the master state casus belli, and vice versa. In the event of war, it must provide an additional 20% of its GDP to the war effort.

The Vassal State provides the master state 10% of its GDP in building and maintaining any combination of military and non-military assets, as directed by the master state, which are under the direct control of the master state.

The master state has free movement of military units through the Vassal State’s territory, but this is not reciprocated. The master state may maintain ground units on Vassal State settlements, and the Vassal State must move or disband any units that would exceed that settlement’s carrying capacity. The master state may station any number of units up to the carrying capacity, at its discretion.

Finally, the Vassal State may automatically break any treaty that would cause it to come into conflict with the master state, and may not enter any form of treaty with outside powers without the master state’s approval.

I had some of these elements baked into a protectorate treaty that was available as an alternate to the normal alliance treaty with the same treaty modifier. The way I have that written, and empire becomes a protectorate if it signs an alliance treaty with an empire that has 4x its GDP. The more powerful empire's player then takes over control of the protectorate, running it as they see fit, but the protectorate remains a separate political entity. That establishes a vassalage relationship, but it is a "friendly" one as opposed to a forced agreement as this one. I think there is room for both, with the forced one probably being easier to sign (and easier to break).

The other option is to reconcile them into a single vassalage treaty and just note the peaceful and forced methods by which an empire can become a vassal.

I was working on the protectorates last weekend and they are in a note state in the current draft. I will try to get that PDF'd and uploaded tonight and we can discuss the best way to get the vassals worked into 2E. I was shooting for very simple with the protectorates (and peaceful only), but I do see a potential need for some other form of forced vassalage, even if it is handled as a special diplomatic arrangement rather than a treaty, per se.

Emiricol wrote:Rough thoughts on a more medieval or Romanesque style of conquest, seeking input:

Vassal State (-50)
This treaty is an amalgam of tributary and defense treaty, surrender, and “pot sweeteners”. In this, the Vassal State becomes subordinated to the conqueror but maintains internal sovereignty, with certain limitations. It provides its new master a percentage of its GDP, swears to come to the aid of the conqueror in times of war, is in turn guaranteed independence from outside threats, and provides the conqueror allied military contingens.

The Vassal is required to give its new master 20% of its GDP, plus 1% per point by which it accepts the treaty. Thus, if a Vassal needs to roll 30 to accept the Vassal State treaty and rolls a 42, it will pay its new masters (42-30+20=32%) of its GDP.

Hostile actions from outsiders that would normally provide the Vassal casus belli also provide the master state casus belli, and vice versa. In the event of war, it must provide an additional 20% of its GDP to the war effort.

The Vassal State provides the master state 10% of its GDP in building and maintaining any combination of military and non-military assets, as directed by the master state, which are under the direct control of the master state.

The master state has free movement of military units through the Vassal State’s territory, but this is not reciprocated. The master state may maintain ground units on Vassal State settlements, and the Vassal State must move or disband any units that would exceed that settlement’s carrying capacity. The master state may station any number of units up to the carrying capacity, at its discretion.

Finally, the Vassal State may automatically break any treaty that would cause it to come into conflict with the master state, and may not enter any form of treaty with outside powers without the master state’s approval.

Hi Tyrel, any further thoughts on these issues since a year ago? This is definitely making it into my current project in one form or another