Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
I Subjugate X
I declare war on Y.
X refuses to enter war on Y.
X declares war on ME.
I'm like wtf, you can't do that. Turns out they can. And they will. Not really an issue with Chaos, i'll admit.
To answer your question though, you subjugate by taking control of their last settlement, if you can occupy, you can subjugate instead. I've never really bothered to do it though.
Diplomacy = Vassel.
Subjugate = taking control of factions last settlement
The problem is the base aversion.
Base legendary Aversion -15 + great power penalties + trespassing = GG you might as well be playing as VC, nobody likes you. Only way you get to trade is if you're meant to, So Dwarves, occasionally Empire OR after 50 turns of slaughtering chaos stacks solo to the point where people think you're basically god.
Fun stuff.
Stops them starting stupid wars between each other and guarantees you'll be able to issue war coordination targets to all of them which you can't do with awakened tribes if they're not at war with your intended target.
Are you vassalizing them through diplomacy or subjugating them when they have 1 city left?