I have been a vassal state several times - in Classic this strategy is known as 'Operation Omega' or something similar and is generally used by players who value a survive much more highly than a defeat. I've never helped anyone by dislodging their unit, but I guess it could be used for that... Although the vassal would have to have quite a few well-positioned units to do so.

Operation Omega? The term is new for me. I did encounter someone calling it a Janissary Strategy (he was presumably speaking from a Turkish perspective). Players who value "placing" or surviving would be better for this since you could offer to make them the second strongest power in game.

I'm trying to recall where I first saw that term... I think it was in a fairly old diplomatic pouch article. Anyhow, I think Omega tends to refer to the Italian strategy of convoying an army to Tunis then having Turkey (or whoever else it may be) leave that alone whilst taking Italy's other centres, while Italy heads west with their units and disbands their units as they lose supply centres, until they have just A Tunis which remains there for the rest of the game.
I think it's quite a good term though so I tend to use it for any Vassal strategy :)

That could work. I'm trying out the strategy now as Russia subjugating Austria (this is on WebDip) and am hoping to have him advance in the south with units in position to threaten his SCs quickly if he decides to stab. Quite useful to ahve him on board since I gained like 3-4 units without a struggle and waste of time assimialting then moving them out to the front. He sort of acts like a quick reinforcement point for me against the Germany-Italy-Turkey axis.

One sec - I have a very good example of this in action. I'll go find it.

@Halt - this is a really common strategy. Its just called a Janissary Strategy. It works in most situations, even those in which the other power isn't knocked down to one or two SC's. In some public press games, 5 SC powers are subjugated by 8 SC powers and become janissaries to avoid elimination. It can really refer to any situation where a minor power serves a major power in exchange for survival. It has mixed results, from my experience

gameID=9302

As China, I acted as Turan's Vassal after he stabbed me. It wasn't an ordinary game - a draw was predetermined - but it's still a fairly good example as we were able to take down Sriv, which he would not have been able to do otherwise as it would have taken his units too long to get there.
This seems fairly similar to your scenario, as he also had a lot of units ready to attack if I turned on him and he was also able to do things he otherwise could not have. Vassal states can be very useful sometimes.

I do this all the time. More importantly I have been a vassal multiple times.

Drano has been the only person I have submitted to on this site, and 2 of his 4 wins have come from my vassalage, so it has sort have become an inside joke between us.

My most recent example of vassalage:
gameID=7739
Following a Persian stab, I submitted to Sparta to gain a survive. It was winner takes all so I didn't get anything out of the survive, but at least I didn't die.

Beware vassals though. Don't be surprised, if the opportunity presents itself, if they turn on you to win the game. I have done this before because the other guy was a dick

I'd like to think I'm a fairly benign, if cautious, overlord. It's not as if my demands aren't fair. (Well, I suppose as fair as possible in a strictly one sided-relationship anyhow

+1 Goldfinger.

@ Faces: does that include Drano's victory in Known World Second Game? Here, I am still not sure why you helped him win, as you essentially gave up a draw for a survive?

@Halt - if you genuinely want to make it work out, you have to give them some assurance that you won't eliminate them. That can come in the form of another build, holding an SC on the stalemate line, whatever you want. Because if they know you're going to eliminate them to win, why would they help you?

The trick is to give them the assurance, but still leave yourself with a way to eliminate them for the win :)

Because of the way the VDip points are allocated here, there's very little incentive for players to observe the significant difference between a draw and a survive result. Surrendering a solo means one player wins and all other players lose, so "surviving" is a rather euphemistic term created so that players don't "feel bad". You know, everyone gets a trophy? Thankfully many players observe the intangible difference and play for pride and the spirit of the game rather than points. In my opinion the sysytem of awarding of points is flawed when players can find ways to score more points by surrendering a solo than by forcing a draw.

Vassal states or Janisaries function well either way. The creation of these types relationships is what Diplomacy is all about.

"@ Faces: does that include Drano's victory in Known World Second Game? Here, I am still not sure why you helped him win, as you essentially gave up a draw for a survive?"
It does. I am honourable. I promised Drano the solo and even though the opportunity presented itself to betray Drano, I'd rather lose the game, the lose my honour.

@Ruffhaus: I take it you prefer winner takes all then...

@fasces: Honor? That seems to be a rare quality in a Dip Player.

"@fasces: Honor? That seems to be a rare quality in a Dip Player."
It is, its mostly because I find a draw with allies to be more satisfying then a solo that requires betraying allies.

To me, it doesn't seem like a win when the people who helped me get through the early game, need to be punished for their assistance.

@fasces: So you're against stabbing then?

Diplomacy by design is a winner take all game. Hhowever, I don't necessarily like winner takes all games here, because it doesn't really work out as winner takes all under this scoring system. When there is a winner in a game (solo), everyone else has failed, and therefore loses. No points should be awarded to anyone who surrenders a solo. Under a WTA game here, when a solo is awarded, points are distributed amongst the surviving players based on how many centers they owned at the time the game finishes. This in effect is really a PPC game in spite of the misleading misnomer of WTA.

Getting back to Vassals. If you had a strict points per center scoring system I think that you'd see more vassal state relationships. Players are less likely to allow vassals to survive if they are going to share an equire haul of the points for mere surivival. However, there's more incentive to take them on if they are only sharing a small part of the points at stake.

To me it seems rather simple. There should be a clear distanction and heirarchy between solo, draw, and elimination. A solo by definition implies the elimination of all other players because with 50% +1 SC a player can effectively break all stalemate lines. The game is therefore stopped because the outcome is a forgone conclusion. There's no chance to stop someone with a string of 6's on the dice and trurning in cards with 100+ armies to counter attack in Diplomacy. However it does seem reasonable in draws to give a bonus acknowledgeing a player who has acquired more supply centers.

WTA

@Ruffhaus: You are mistaken, on this site there are 2 types of point distribution, WTA which the winner gets all the points or PPSC where your awarded points based on the # of scs you have at games end.

In both cases a draw will divide the pot equally among everyone in the draw.

@ Fasces: Thanks for clarifying your position. While I don't agree with it 110%, as I think helping someone win at the expense of a draw goes against the spirit and nature of the game, I do understand your rationale.