Annex or client state?-what's your choice and why

[mirelicus]

As the title suggests ,i want to ask you what's the better option:to annex or to make a client state?
I prefer annexing regions for the most part(especially in my roman campaign,since,AFIAK,annexed regions will produce loyal generals during the second rebelion,and it will be easier to fight off the rebel scum ),but sometimes,just for the sake of choosing something else,i pick client state.

[fableofsea]

Annex if it's closer to home territory and historical Roman territory. But I usually annex Italy and all other areas client state till I have them pacified. But if I can get good aux troops, I will keep them client state.

[mirelicus]

What about macedonia?do you subjugate or client?

[fableofsea]

Client till I get nothing else from it, then granted citizenship. Although Greece I would annex the northern part and Client state the southern. That's my choice in how to handle it.

[Ovidius Empiricus]

I usually don't make any client states. The two at the start in Northern Italy are enough to recruit/retrain plenty of allied cohorts/triarii/skirmishers. The Western one has weapons metals, which is ultimately useful for "gold" armor, so it's primarily the one I focus on as a recruitment center. Also, it can recruit lots of useful named/numbered legions later on.

Every other settlement is annexed to boost income. Many provinces never recruit a single unit anyway, allied or not. I think it also takes less time (and perhaps lower total construction costs?) to reach citizenship through the annexation path, once they're ready for that. A few strategically-located places do get barracks/citizenship, in order to produce some local mercs and eventually legions/auxilia. Beyond that, I generally haven't had a need for clients recruiting more allied units for me. I guess it's sort of nice to spice things up a bit with merc infantry too, since I'm probably relying a little bit more on those than a player using lots of allied units -- having so many of the same Roman/Allied cohorts can make things a little dull.

But at least in 1-turn (as I always play), that's totally viable. Client states do benefit from a little more happiness (with the non-family governors I guess). Also, it would make the logistics a little easier to be able to retrain allied units in more far-flung places that are closer to the front lines. But those things are fairly minor and are certainly manageable, if you're not interested in a very quick steamrolling type of campaign.

[Quintillius]

It is rather faulty to think you have a choice here. I thought the same, but you'll move yourself in a very difficult position if you build the Annex building outside your home regions.

More info:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...s-amp-Tips-FAQ
Campaign gameplay -> 6. How's the Roman army recruitment building tree designed?.

Build Annex stuff in home regions and client stuff in outer regions of your Empire.

[Agrippa19]

I don't have any particularly gamey reason for choosing between the 2, I usually try to think of it as if it were practical to how it really was.

I'll annex territory close to home to represent my home borders growing larger, and the people who border me would already have submitted to the fact that my nation was superior to theirs anyway so they'll be easier to subjucate and annex.

As for further territories I'll make client states. This allows for them to remain largely as they were with their own culture and laws but pay taxes and give troops when I need them. As is what the Romans largely did. They'll have Governors from their own region as puppets to feed the illusion that they're largely free and that'll help unrest but their policies will be dictated to them from Rome.

Take Spain for example. They're a distant nation with a fiercely indifferent culture to Rome. Historically their political structure was anarchial compared to Rome. They had local kings that cooperated but they were a nation of different identities so as long as these differences were respected with the kings reflecting the overall category of Iberio-Celtic identity along with their culture they cooperated much more efficiently and unrest wasn't a huge factor. Wars would have been fought between them over territorial disputes or resources but against an outside threat they would unite as they all belonged to the same identity structure. They were something comparable to the Holy Roman Empire in my view except they did not have an emperor and were divided between their seperate tribes. Each a subcategory of the overall 'Gallaeci'.

The Romans on the otherhand were an Aristocratic Republic with an entirely different political structure and culture. At this time in Roman history you had to be a patrician to gain access to the main offices of the Senate which excluded people form all other cultures other than Roman (this system gradually changing over the next century).

After the Romans defeated the Gallaeci, rebellions and resistance persisted for decades so to combat this they had to compromise. If the rigid Republican system was enabled it would have been the same as 'annexing' the country. Where the roman political system would have been introduced. But they could never do this. So Spain effectively became a client state slowing absorbing the spaniards into the Roman system with them paying taxes and troops to Rome while they were allowed keep their gods and local laws until they eventually died out as they were made to seem 'inferior' and 'barbaric'. The members of the spanish tribal elite were introduced into roman administration but they were answerable to Rome. This helped to stop the spanish people from realising just how much sway Rome had over them, thus helping to eliminate discontent. Sp Spain would be the perfect example of a collection of client states.

Around 200BC Illyria which was much closer to home and was a haven for pirates was crushed by Rome so was much easier to annex. They're political structure was something like Spain but far less strength tied to it's sense of identity and they were fully aware of what the penalty was for standing up to Rome, with little in comparison to oppose it so gave in to the Roman way of life. Thus being annexed.

If the map could represent client states and annexed states, annexed would be red like your home regions, while client states would be red and white striped. But going through an 'assimilation' process. Eventually they should be given citizanship. I also think of citizenship as being reserved for the elite of that province. So when I'm granting citizenship to a provinve I'm not actually giving it to everyone, just the elite governing that province. Which in turn allow them to enjoy the best of both worlds. Client state rulers of the culture of that region who have done a good job pacifying and now get Roman citizenship which takes the population of that region closer to being Roman also.

Edit: To put in practical terms annexing means you must have the compliance and cultural infrastructure implented in that region to recruit troops. If you were a gallic/gallaeci/greek warrior who had just been conquered by Rome, would you just submit to joining the Polybian cohorts to fight for Rome? Well most likely you couldn't anyway as you're land would be taken from you so technically you couldn't under republican Roman law so annexation doesn't make sense. In this case a client state must be implented so the local laws allow for recruitment. This results in a military different in it's structure, ie AOR units. Nice diversity in the units you can recruit but it also makes practical sense. These men would never fight under a Roman banner or for a Roman political system in what it stood for, but they would fight as a Roman ally in return for the certain degree of autonomy they enjoyed as well as a decent paycheck. This mod does a great job in representing that with the limited engine abilities available.