Seleucid Kings and Client Rulers

[Revan The Great]

Hay thar, I've been around for awhile, left, and now I'm back and playing EB 1.0. Must say, it looks awesome, and I've been playing since 7.2-ish!

Naturally I had to pick up my favorite faction - Arche Seleukeia. Unfortunately, I am very disappointed in the 'Babylonian New Years' trait, where the Faction Leader and Heir take a -100% movement penalty one a year. It's like the Olympics every year!

Personally, I find this trait disgustingly annoying. Since the Babylonian New Year is only in April, I think it'd be more appropriate to give a -33% movement penalty to show that your general isn't taken a whole three months off, and instead just the month of April. Of course, I doubt he spends an entire month celebrating...so maybe just a -10% to show he's taking a week or so off. Maybe it could be reworked and have the trait actually give bonuses, instead of being a royal headache.

My next order of business is 'Client Rulers'.

First let me make the case *against* the supposed 'Puppet' governments. When I build a level four government it's usually an 'Allied Free State', which I interpret to mean a completely separate faction (in roleplay terms) without actual AI control, and a very strong alliance with your main faction. Therefore, instead of a 'Client Ruler', I think that you should be given a 'Autonomous King' (Working title ) who works the same way as the current Client Rulers, but has an ethnicity corresponding to whatever region he happens to be spawned in (If that's possible. If not then oh well I guess). He should also have a 'King' trait, that doesn't given the -100% movement penalty, but rather gives a few bonuses and maybe a slight movement penalty.

In return, I think it'd be good to make 'Client Rulers' only for level three governments, as most level three governments have the 'Semi Autonomous' designation, this goes more in line with a 'Puppet Ruler', which is what the 'Client King's' designation says he is.

That aside, I think the mechanics of Client King's should also be changed. I personally don't believe a City would go to hell in a handbasket if the Client King took a step out of his cities' gate. I think a -50%, even a -60% or more movement penalty would be far more appropriate than a -100%. This is very practical, since it allows the Client King to conduct at least limited operations within his given province, recruit mercenaries, sally out in the event of a siege, and also allows you to check out his bodyguard's upkeep and stats.

Thank you all for reading my long post, I hope I've given useful feedback that will be considered for implementation in 1.1.

-Revan

[bovi]

Edit: I see now that you also posted on the org. Let's keep the discussion in one place.

[KhaziOfKalabara]

Hmm, interesting idea. I second your comment about ethnicities... but I challenge your views on how free the Allied Free States actually are. For me the relationship expressed in the "strong alliance" is actually more akin to that between a major faction and a protectorate, while in the level 3 gov the level of control exerted by the "main faction" is more overt, hence FMs should, as now, be able to govern these settlements without negatives (or perhaps with Interloper penalties capped at, say, 10%.

In practical terms, though, I quite like the idea of reducing the client ruler movement penalty. A -90% would make it possible to recruit mercs while strongly disincentivising using them outside the province - or will this play merry hell with the AI?

[Heinrich von Sachsen]

Hmm, interesting idea. I second your comment about ethnicities... but I challenge your views on how free the Allied Free States actually are. For me the relationship expressed in the "strong alliance" is actually more akin to that between a major faction and a protectorate, while in the level 3 gov the level of control exerted by the "main faction" is more overt, hence FMs should, as now, be able to govern these settlements without negatives (or perhaps with Interloper penalties capped at, say, 10%.

In practical terms, though, I quite like the idea of reducing the client ruler movement penalty. A -90% would make it possible to recruit mercs while strongly disincentivising using them outside the province - or will this play merry hell with the AI?

Agreed, and as for the AI, it is impossible for it to get any. When it captures a province the script automatically gives it the best available gov.