So, it sounds like we could simply have AI neutral nations that exist as basically AI players.  They might not have all the powers of a player (maybe not cast spells as a wizard) but would still advance cities, create settlers, and have diplomatic negotions. They wouldn't be as powerful as a real player, but would still be a factor.

I think that if a community of neutral cities are left alone for a long time (I know in my MoM games, there are often many towns connected by roads that arn't touched until late game) they should band together as a new player.

I am sometimes annoyed in games like "Sins of a Solar Empire" when online players thumb their noses at the idea of having AI players.  Like the precence of AI players that you can ally with suddently makes it a comp-stomp or something.  

I think there should be neutral slots that can only be filled by AI players that would be specifically placed on the map in such a way that they give an edge to those who try to use them as an ally.   You should have it set so you can lock teams that only locks the player teams with each other (so players cannot back stab each other) but still allows for missions and teaming with the AI players.  I think that would make the neutral AI controlled players much more interesting.  Also, in a FFA game, one player might not just rampage through the neutral towns because he'd rather be the better ally and trick the AI to go attack his enemies.

man, the more I think about it the cooler it sounds.   It would be like Civ 4's vassel system, except it would be useful in multiplayer since I've never seen human players use that feature, but computers would. 

I think it would force diplomacy to be a factor too.  Because in like, Sins of a solar empire for example, you may not focus on any AI computers in a multiplayer game because you know you are going to crush them anyway.  However in this system, you want to stay on the AI good side like you want to stay on the pirates good side in Sins.  To send them at the other players if possible.  If they become too powerful you will form alliances to fight against them.  It makes neutral cities do more than just take up space and would really bring the diplomatic features to the front of all types of gameplay (except those where that feature is turned off)

Yeah, I think that's what was being hinted at, but all this expanded talk of vassalage sounds pretty awesome too. Though I wonder if vassalage will work differently depending upon your faction's tech tree (assuming there's some sort of 'government' branch to research). For instance, in a "good" faction, the vassal system may work as lwarmonger details it while an "evil" faction may be more totalitarian and just conquer smaller towns, enslaving everyone inside to either go into the armies or join the labor force (i.e. get a huge boost to production values).

shameless necro

The idea of vassalage and neutral factions without channelers sounds cool, It would really add to the gane as most others do not do it justice.

It would be cool for vassals to give resources and gold and maybe knowledge you wouldn't get if you simply conquered them

Now that's a really neat idea, and would fit with that peacemonger-friendly theme that Scott mentioned recently.

I always liked attacking neutral towns in MoM.  At the same time, I kinda wish I could turn them off just to see what the game is like.   It would certainly maket he world seem less previously explored.