Client kingdom / Allied State?

[AqD]

Hi ExRM devs!

I'm experimenting with the Allied State government type, and I hope you guys could give me some comments (BTW does ExRM have it now?) since in my forum there is no other dev to discuss


Purpose: A quick and cheap method to subdue a conquered region.

Advantage: People in allied state govern themselves, so they wouldn't rebel.

Disadvantage: They pay only the land tax, NO trade tax, and only a small proportion of mining income would be sent to you. They have no loyalty to you and they don't give a damn about your laws - corruption would appear to be terribly high because they're supposed to save money for themselves whenever they can.

Military value: They could provide garrison AOR troops, but no more. And it takes longer time to be able to train units there than in regions with direct governments.

Modding:

• Clone the barracks trees (= direct government) in EDB for every factions; I merged stables and barracks and just use the equestrian trees instead.
• The barracks cannot co-exist with allied state buildings for the same faction. It causes some problem in the initial campaign map, so I had to change all barrack levels to be faction-specific (ex: auxilia_phase3 => auxilia_phase3_carthage)
• Allied state level I takes 1 turn to construct. Effects: +30 happiness (+150% happiness), -500 tax bonus (reduce all positive tax bonus), -500 trade income bonus (-500% trade income)
• Each level of allied state change 2 points of happiness to law (2 points = 10%), and make more AOR units available.
• Special non-AOR but auxiliary units such as Roman Equites Alares and Klibanophoroi are available too in the highest level.
• Execution Square and Academy lose their law bonus
• Mining income is reduced by 60%

The huge negative bonus is to trick AI not to build allied state. The result loads and the effects work fine, though I haven't really tested how AI reacts to the new buildings.

[pannonian]

The huge negative bonus is to trick AI not to build allied state. The result loads and the effects work fine, though I haven't really tested how AI reacts to the new buildings.

You could make it an option for players who have at least a basic knowledge of EDB. Include the whole building tree, and all its effects. But comment out (with the preceding semi-colon) the first level of every version, and let the player put the faction version they're playing back in. If there's a feature that's fully playable for the player, but you're not sure how it impacts on the AI, release it as an easily importable version, and let people experiment with its effects so you can get more feedback.

[Pat89]

How about AOR in non-allied barracks trees?

[AqD]

How about AOR in non-allied barracks trees?

They're kept unchanged of course.

[Quinn Inuit]

Hi aqd! No, we haven't implemented a client state system yet, though it is on my to-do list for 4.0.

Your system looks sound, and probably a lot easier to operate than EB's system. Questions:
1) What happens if the AI takes over a province with one of these buildings in it?
2) IIRC client kingdoms revolted or switched sides opportunistically on a regular basis. Should they be less likely to revolt, though?
3) Should client kingdoms grant access to higher level local units than the normal AOR?

[AqD]

Hi aqd! No, we haven't implemented a client state system yet, though it is on my to-do list for 4.0.

Your system looks sound, and probably a lot easier to operate than EB's system. Questions:
1) What happens if the AI takes over a province with one of these buildings in it?

The buildings are faction-specific except for Successor kingdoms, so AI would just start a new government.

2) IIRC client kingdoms revolted or switched sides opportunistically on a regular basis. Should they be less likely to revolt, though?

If there are sides to switch to I could make the govenors much easier to be bribed, but they shouldn't launch any armed revolt since they govern themselves and barely provide any tax/contribution to player's faction.

3) Should client kingdoms grant access to higher level local units than the normal AOR?

Yes, and some of the auxiliary units.

[despot_of_rhodes]

I like things making the game deeper, historically and for gameplay reasons. But after reading the postings above, i´ve got a question: why should i build a client kingdom, if i can pacify any province i want with an apropriate gouverneur and enough garrison troops? ( mostly, this provinces are bordering some other lands, so one would need a large army in the province anyway ).

Ok, to get some unique AOR units, but then they must be really wothy, like some really good archers for romans or eles etc. I know, playing historically is an obsession of some ( though, they do many things, wich are quite ahistoricaly, just to keep the balance between the factions ), but i never build up an army, wich is set of so many different AOR units, that i just go crazy, when i want to replenish or retrain them - that was probably the reason, the GCS never really conquered the world

My point is: the Client Kingdom (CK) should be not only possible, but rather nessesery to establish. I would say - if i get almoust no money from that cities, why should i spend so much money to build the infrastructure? I´d say: the building costs of the CK should be quite low comparely to those in my main towns.

One more thing: Actually, only the population of Roma ( and later Capua ) possesed the full Roman Citizenship - the rest of Italy were allies of Romans ( except the Roman colonies in Italy ). And it took centuries, to integrate even just Italics. AOR barracks system allready represents the slow integration of that cities in the res publica, but actually, there were only integrated after the roman "civil war" ( when Samnites actually were not integrated, but annyhilated ). So, maybe one should also choose this "CK" concept for the Romans, simulating, that none of the italic cities were subjugated or used to pay tribut, but were the pool of rectuitment for latin troops, which used to gain their part of loot after a succesfull war/campagne?

[pannonian]

My point is: the Client Kingdom (CK) should be not only possible, but rather nessesery to establish. I would say - if i get almoust no money from that cities, why should i spend so much money to build the infrastructure? I´d say: the building costs of the CK should be quite low comparely to those in my main towns.

One alternative, which might be playable for players, but I shudder to imagine how the AI would deal with it, would be to have border state buildings, to represent buying off the barbarians. Eg. Campus Getae, as the border between Thrace and Scythia/Sarmatia, could have a building that resets diplomatic relations with the Sarmatians every turn to neutral, but subtracts n denarii from the treasury every turn, to represent the tribute paid by civilised states to outlying nomads.

[AqD]

I like things making the game deeper, historically and for gameplay reasons. But after reading the postings above, i´ve got a question: why should i build a client kingdom, if i can pacify any province i want with an apropriate gouverneur and enough garrison troops? ( mostly, this provinces are bordering some other lands, so one would need a large army in the province anyway ).

Because you cannot!

Full 80% unrest + Full 80% culture penalty + Full 80% distance to the capital = always rebel no matter what you do. It's what happened in my parthian campaign in saka settlements, which are certainly not worthy to have the capital moved or get my faction leader to govern there.

The point of installing allied state is to subdue useless regions that you don't want them to fall into the hands of rebels or other factions. And it's important too in your early campaign if you're conquering culturally-different settlements and you're too poor to keep them happy. A real world example would be like the Sarmatians to Imperial Romans after they're beaten, or Macedonia after the Roman-Macedonian war.

PS: you can always destroy the allied state and start it over when you have time & resource to focus on it.

[charles the hammer]

client kingdoms are very useful if you use extended cultures and unrest from culture gets way to high and its near impossible to hold.

[Pat89]

Because you cannot!

Full 80% unrest + Full 80% culture penalty + Full 80% distance to the capital = always rebel no matter what you do. It's what happened in my parthian campaign in saka settlements, which are certainly not worthy to have the capital moved or get my faction leader to govern there.

Remember that happiness bonuses do never go below 0%...
This means that if you have 20% happiness of other buildings and -80% happiness of this, then you do NOT have 20%-80%=-60%... You will just have 0%... Not lower...

This means that settlements can't be less happy than their natural happiness level. And that means that you're never 100% sure if the settlement will revolt.

[AqD]

I added a bonus for the allied state - reversed AOR availability: elite units first, medium units second, and so on. For instance, you have captured Armenian capital, you could ask them to provide cataphracts in a few turns, but if you want non-professionals / cannon-fodders like Cyrtian Spearmen you have to wait.

How do you guys think of this?

[despot_of_rhodes]

The quick access to elite units is a good reason to establish a client kingdom, but why the reverse thing? If you depopulate the city to fast, demanding cheap and large cannon fodder units, you will get no advantage, becausee trade will go down with the decrease of population. And mercs are everywhere around there too, if you need some cheap garrison units or auxilla for your main troops.

Quinn: What do you think about my idea to change the Roman "expansion" politics and make it more historically, based on thouse client kingdom system? This way Rome won´t get rich in no time, since the income of the affiliate cities won´t bust up her economy the way it happens now, after the Italy is secured. And one would get a quicker access to the italic troops ( not the italic princeps etc. ). Making the costs of Hastati/Princeps/Triari higher ( lowering Hastati skills/morale a bit ), and establishing Capua as a training center of roman-italic troops ( italic hastati etc. ).
If a client kingdom is established, there going to be a building representing this, i guess. If then one would combine the building with a creation of an immovable general/gouverneur, this charakter, not beeing a part of the royal family, would perfectly represent the head of that client kingdom, and no other gouverneur would be needed.

[AqD]

The quick access to elite units is a good reason to establish a client kingdom, but why the reverse thing? If you depopulate the city to fast, demanding cheap and large cannon fodder units, you will get no advantage, becausee trade will go down with the decrease of population.

There is no trade income in allied state so it doesn't matter. The tax doesn't matter either. It's not uncommon in med/late campaign that the ratio of trade/tax in big cities is higher than 10/1. Land tax is utterly useless

And mercs are everywhere around there too, if you need some cheap garrison units or auxilla for your main troops.

That's why I also removed cheap units from mercenary scroll.

[Quinn Inuit]

aqd:
How are you doing mercenaries? I'm curious, since I think we need to re-evaluate ours, too.

Why the reverse AOR recruitment? I don't understand. Wouldn't it have been easier to force-recruit peasants than get the nobility to fight for you?

I'm still not sure I'm a huge fan of the fact you don't get money from a client state.

DoR:
I like the immovable character idea. Isn't that what they do in EB?

I also like the client state idea for Rome. For everyone, really. This is something that we should probably pursue. Does anyone want to design it for me? I'd like to implement something generic for all factions, possibly mandatory in some AsOR.

For instance, the Sarmatians would probably be required to use a client state in most regions. Sort of like the Sakae did in Bactria--they overthrew the kingdom, but simply ran the place as a layer of nobility on top of the locals. Hmmm...that's not really a client state, more like a reverse assimilation. What would you call that? That might be cool to implement, too. When Celts conquer a Greek settlement, for instance, they could choose to simply rule it and have access to AOR hoplites and a new* Hellenized Celtic unit.


*By this I mean the Chosen Spearment, who were going to be axed for lack of supporting evidence. I've seen some mods mentioning Hellenized Celts, but I'd like to see some evidence of that before making it a standard unit in a place like Marseilles.

[AqD]

aqd:
How are you doing mercenaries? I'm curious, since I think we need to re-evaluate ours, too.

I added all mercenaries to AOR, and made medium/high level AOR troops available in mercenary pool - each of the pools is between 5-10 regions in size, and it contains local AOR troops plus some famous merces (ex: iberians in carthage and thracians in asia) Cheap units like gallic warband are removed so human players cannot use them to increase populations or garrison

Why the reverse AOR recruitment? I don't understand. Wouldn't it have been easier to force-recruit peasants than get the nobility to fight for you?

I'm still not sure I'm a huge fan of the fact you don't get money from a client state.

The allied state (called "client" is a bit bad ) means the common people are unaffected, that's why they remain happy and they don't pay you any cent except for the useless land tax. When you get an allied state, you can have their nobles willing to fight alongwith you - in exchange of that they can continue to govern the region by themselves. Another reason for not hiring levies is that you cannot rely on local garrions to increase happiness/law, since the local troops should have no loyalty to you.

I think it's what happend in Rome-Bosporan, -Armenia, -Sarmatians etc. It should really be a diplomatic option rather than a "building" though.

[despot_of_rhodes]

Diplomatic option would imply negotiations with a faction, and as we all know their numbers are limited. A building would simulate the affiliated status of the town, no matter if it belonged to an independent faction, superfaction or was just a rebel city.

The decision to establish a client kingdom or an affiliate should be made right after the capturing a city, but there is no such an option there. While extermination and enslavement mean brutal subjugation, the occupation means the soft option. To simulate a client kingdom/affiliate ( wich aren´t actually the same thing, because the client kingdoms mostly pay tribute, while an affiliate join your side by their own will ), we have to invade the city anyway, build a special structure and "put men of our trust" in charge of it, represented through an immovable gouverneur ).
The client kingdoms are actually the protectorates in RTW, but this option doesn´t really work, maybe it does better with force diplomacy, but i dislike using this feature somehow

Quinn: I would like to help creating this new system, but i´m afraid, i got not enough experience in moding/adjusting the game ( and i also don´t know much about the eastern factions ). But i will keep on posting my ideas, if this helps.

[pannonian]

Come up with the historical research, and the rest of us will see if we can model it. If Quinn is busy, I'll have a look to see what I can do. I have a passing knowledge of coding, if not indepth, but that can be rectified with a bit of searching and reading.

[despot_of_rhodes]

Well, i did some reading about EB client/affiliated/etc. system ( the 2.0 version, wich is not yet finished ), and i think i do understand their point.

They have 4 options:

1. A very long term developement of the occupied province, rewarded wich best possible troops to be trained after all and the ability of those cities to maintain the hihgest buildings in the faction building tree. ( Homeland option )

2. Colonization is also a long term option, but the benefits are bit smaller in the end ( and the income/trade is also bit different )

3. Protectorate like relationship.

4. Allied kingdom terms of relationship.

But: EB is, as far as i could see ( i haven´t tried the game myself ), highly scripted, and their "client kingdom" system is not only scripted as well, but also very special for every faction in game. ExRM is quite the oposite, therefore i think, it´s impossible to "borrow" their system, aside the fact, that copiyng other mods isn´t really the way, one should improve his own.
And though i haven´t played EB myself, after reading all that stuff i got the impression, that some things there seemed to me to be a small sacrifies for games sake, rather then historicaly accuracy ( no offence ment, i just got that impression, after i saw the option for the Roman faction ).

To be honest, i do not posess plenty of sources about the antient world, but what i´ve got is a good book, picturing the developement of a small provincial town called Roma into the great and powerfull empire it became after a couple of centuries. The book is made of 3 parts, each describing the kingdom/early republic, the late republic and the impirial time frame. It´s written by three authors: R.M.Ogilvie, M.Crawford and C.Wells and it´s original title is: "The Fontana History of the Ancient World ( Early Rome and the Etruscans, The Roman Republic, The Roman Empire ). If no historians among us have any objections, i could use it as a reference for the "client kingdom" system for ExRM, at least for the Romans. This could take a while, but i am quite confident, that i should manage to present something usefull at least for the roman faction.

[Scutarii]

EB has Arjos, which are like the chosen spearmen in ExRM. You could ask their team for their historical backup... Other than that, all I know is that XGM also has a Heavy Spearmen unit that can form shield wall, but its not exactly a realism mod. Still, don't you think removing them leaves a huge hole in their roster? I would rather leave them in and make a celto-hellenic hoplite/spearmen unit for the Gauls to recruit in Greek lands.