Client Kingdoms Idea

[Revan The Great]

I had an idea for RS2 of a building that I think would add a lot to the game, and its roleplay value. I PM'd it to Tone and he suggested that I post it here for discussion. As is you can build a couple different buildings like 'Regional Government', 'Fortified Region', etc. I think we should add another building to that category called "Client State" or "Allied Region".

The effects would be a big boost to happiness, but very heavy economic penalties (I'm talking like -50% Tax, Trade, Mining, or maybe even more), but would allow you to recruit the 'regional troops' of a region without having to build three of our own barrack's + Mercenary Recruitment Pool. They could even be given a slight experience or morale bonus when recruited in this way.

The primary advantage to this would be quicker pacification and recruitment in newly conquered regions, but with severe economic penalties (Maybe even make this hypothetical building cost a good deal of money? Should be quick to establish though). Also, it should enable recruitment of a local type of general 'Ex. 'Greek General Bodyguard' in Athens, or 'Barbarian General's Bodyguard in Sarmizgetusa) who could act as the 'Client' or 'Allied' King. Maybe give a public order penalty if one of your non-locally recruited generals moves into the city?

The basis for this idea is historical, as often times when the (for example) Romans absorbed a particular region or created a new province, that province would've existed for a few generations as a nominally independent '-state'. It would also allow more of a choice when you go conquering on the warpath. Also, since the economy is so hindered and perhaps the building of your faction's more advanced structures could also be hindered, the particular province you decide to establish this new unique type of government in would take about the same amount of time to build up and be productive as it would've taken had you not built the 'Client Kingdom' building and instead had just eaten the massive unrest penalty for however many turns, but at the cost of more money needed to build the 'Client Kingdom' building, and with less taxes and income generate for the duration (as opposed to just a lot of angry riots for a few years).

What do you guys think?

[dvk901]

Hmmmm...that's not a bad idea. Let me 'absorb it a bit' and perhaps others will comment.

[Ballacraine]

I am not sure what that would do over & above the Regional Recruitment Building?

Balla.

[Revan The Great]

Well the regional recruitment building takes awhile to get to in a new province. You need to spend ten or so turns if you start from scratch building your own barracks before you can even build the regional recruitment building.

This idea would cut that time down to just one or two turns, but the main thing it would do is give you a big cushion of public order bonus to help offset the heavy unrest penalties suffered when you conquer a new city (Keep in mind they're increased more than vanilla already). All of this is offset by suffering a huge economic penalty in that given region. If, at a later date, you decide to demolish you 'Client Kingdom' and build it up as a regular old province you can do that, but in the meantime you've lost out on 50% or more of the cash that the province would've otherwise produced.

Also, if you establish a 'Client State Region' like I'm advocating, you shouldn't be able to build more than the first level of your own barracks, if that. Which means that if you do decide to switch over from a 'Client State Region' you'll have to spend quite a few turns building up your own barracks now that it can no longer build its own regional troops.

[sithlord447]

To much EB in this idea for me

[tinha]

Interesting topic to discuss.
Historically didn't they tax the hell out of "Client States"? or Impose harsh, unfair conditions on them?

It just seems to me that if i conquered a region and made that region submit to me, then i would expect them to pay me handsomely so they don't turn on me, that would include manpower. But I wouldn't want to lose out on Tax, Trade and all that wonderful Economic benefit of having Conquered that State.

I like the idea of a "Client State" building when you conquer a Factions Capital, that would seem interesting. With access to 'regional troop' recruitments just in Capital Regions though. But i wouldnt want any penalties on Trade, Tax, etc..If anything i would want those as benefits.
And Building this would reduce happiness, because the people would be torn in their loyalty from previous rulers,governers, to the possibility that their City may have just been DePopulated. As the new Term is put in RS2, (Love that!) So not only would they be unhappy when you build this because they may have had their families slaughtered or sold into slavery, but they also dont like that the new rulers are also taking away their riches.

Anyway thats just my bit up for discussion. I am sure others will have other ideas that could give Ravens idea more or less life.

[ray243]

Interesting topic to discuss.
Historically didn't they tax the hell out of "Client States"? or Impose harsh, unfair conditions on them?

It just seems to me that if i conquered a region and made that region submit to me, then i would expect them to pay me handsomely so they don't turn on me, that would include manpower. But I wouldn't want to lose out on Tax, Trade and all that wonderful Economic benefit of having Conquered that State.

I like the idea of a "Client State" building when you conquer a Factions Capital, that would seem interesting. With access to 'regional troop' recruitments just in Capital Regions though. But i wouldnt want any penalties on Trade, Tax, etc..If anything i would want those as benefits.
And Building this would reduce happiness, because the people would be torn in their loyalty from previous rulers,governers, to the possibility that their City may have just been DePopulated. As the new Term is put in RS2, (Love that!) So not only would they be unhappy when you build this because they may have had their families slaughtered or sold into slavery, but they also dont like that the new rulers are also taking away their riches.

Anyway thats just my bit up for discussion. I am sure others will have other ideas that could give Ravens idea more or less life.

Nope. I recall one historian made the comment that the Romans expected to gain more money from a place that's a province than a place that was a client state.

And I don't think that most people who are living in a city where they have been defeated will put up such an active resistance. People submit because the will to fight is gone, and people would now have to listen to their new overlord.

Then we have to bear in mind that nationalism as we know, did not really exist. In many ways, the state that was conquered is still retain their original culture. Take Greece under Roman rule for instance, where Greek is still the spoken lanugage as opposed to Latin.


And additionally, we must also bear in mind that a fair number of campaigns undertaken by the Romans did not bring them a lot of new wealth. Trajan's conquest of Dacia never managed to help him earn back the money he used up for the campaign, and Britain take a pretty long time to become a productive Roman province.

[Revan The Great]

Ray is correct.

What this hypothetical 'Government-type' building I'm suggesting would be for is to simulate what would happen if you invaded a given country and topple its existing government and replace it with local people who would be more inclined to follow your way of thinking. In this sense it's much more tailored to, for example, Syracuse with a lovely selection of unique, local troops all centered in that one province who would otherwise go to waist once the Greek Cities lose control of that province; instead of 'Rome' who has a hundred different types of soldiers recruited over a wide and expansive AOR which are all very powerful and formidable.

In this sense you did not 'Conquer' so much as 'Liberate' a given province, and the justification for taking severe economic penalties is (besides obviously balance) that whichever provinces you decide to establish this government in, they're still theoretically independent. They still need their own cash to pay for their social projects, buy cocktails for the king, stage public festivals, build things, all the stuff that any country would do. Anything that you would get from your client state would simply be a 'tribute' that they pay as a thank you, and compensation for the blood and treasure you spilt to 'free' them from whatever tyranny they lived under before.

As far as recruitment goes, this should definitely be a priority to establish at a faction's capital, where hopefully you'd be able to recruit 80-90% of their faction' soldiers. Obvious exceptions would be factions who are Empires. Being given access to the full or nearly full roster of the Romans or Seleucids would be overpowered, since their units were borne out of controling many different provinces and regions as opposed to just a local area which is what most factions are limited too.

For anyone who has played as the Greek Cities and managed to conquer Sparta, the recruitment I have in mind would basically function the exact same way - You can recruit every single unit of Spartan soldiers except one or two, and have access to a 'Spartan Bodyguard' unit which generates a local general when built. However, I stress that if this idea is implemented as I have it in mind you will not see Praetorians, or Roman Legionaries in the service of Carthage, nor will you see Hetairoi or Hypaspists fighting for Armenia.

Honestly for those of us who like to roleplay I really think this idea unequivocally adds a lot to the game. There's always the option that you simply don't build the 'Client State' building if you don't like it.

[dvk901]

I have to agree 'in principle' here. Afterall, King Herod is an excellent example of a 'King' who ruled semi-independently as along as he behaved himself. And Palestine was anything but a profitable place for the Romans. They held it merely to control trade and as a buffer against the Parthians. Otherwise it was a troublesome and naughty region they eventually lost Legions in, and had to smash with a great deal of manpower and cost.

The issue of recruitment, however, is what troubles me. The way RSII uses models and units makes it very hard to 'share' a lot of units...simply because so many parts of the models are used for other units. For example, you have an elite pikemen for your faction that uses a model that's shared with other factions. If you even 'could' recruit their 'pikemen', you would just the texture that YOUR pikemen had and a different name. This would really get screwy with cavalry, because it would take a computer to figure out what horse goes with what unit, and quite often the horse YOUR faction has wouldn't match the unit some other faction had. Trust me, it would be a mess. The only units that can be recruited by all factions are the ones that are already in the Mercenary building...any others, like Praetorians or Legionaries would just be silly. Furthermore, the Mercenary building was set up the way it is so that there is a clear 'yes or no' as to whether to build it. You look at the building, and if there are units in it you'd like to recruit...you build it. If there is NOTHING to recruit, then you don't. And some regions have nothing..or maybe things you don't want anyway. Making it 'multi-level' only fools the player into building it thinking he'll get something, only to find there is nothing to be had anyway. I really don't want to hear complaints about "I built this and now there's nothing in it! Why did you...blah, blah"

Also, being able to recruit a 'local general', although the idea is sound and it makes sense, would look a bit odd in 'RTW practice'. You would recruit a 'Barbarian General' who looked like a Roman or a Greek in the Strat area, and a Barbarian on the battlemap....and again, you would have the mish-mash of horses that wouldn't match the unit, and a bodyguard that didn't match the general. I would love to be 'able' to do this, because it has a lot of historical precedence...but in RTW it's impossible.

Also, also....such a building or buildings as this cannot be tied to the economic\fortified city tree, because that tree MUST be indestructible. If it weren't, it would be too easy to just cheat...build a fortified city to get the barracks you want, and then destroy it and build an economic city (which is more productive). I made them this way so that the only way to have both was to build 'up' and pay for it...so you wouldn't want an indestructible 'client state or ally' building you couldn't ever get rid of. To me this is more a 'government' kind of building, and I do have an option in mind...but right now it's just a theory.

[torzsoktamas]

I also agree with this idea.

[Revan The Great]

The issue of recruitment, however, is what troubles me. The way RSII uses models and units makes it very hard to 'share' a lot of units...simply because so many parts of the models are used for other units. For example, you have an elite pikemen for your faction that uses a model that's shared with other factions. If you even 'could' recruit their 'pikemen', you would just the texture that YOUR pikemen had and a different name. This would really get screwy with cavalry, because it would take a computer to figure out what horse goes with what unit, and quite often the horse YOUR faction has wouldn't match the unit some other faction had. Trust me, it would be a mess.

I don't that would be too big an issue, just because a faction with elite pikemen wouldn't be interested in recruiting another faction's elite pikemen (if indeed you'd allow them to go so far up the foreign faction's tree). You might see some weirdness like Roman officers with certain units, but I don't think that's too big a deal either. Is that what you were trying to suggest?

The only units that can be recruited by all factions are the ones that are already in the Mercenary building...any others, like Praetorians or Legionaries would just be silly.

Yes, I said in my earlier posts that you wouldn't see Praetorians or Legions being recruited. Rome and Italy are oddballs in my whole Client State scheme since, beyond the actual Roman legions there are few other soldiers to try and recruit. Basically just a Samnite here and there. A better example would be Pontus, where if you conquered them you would have access to several of their basic infantry types, as well as regional auxillaries (i.e. Scythian archers, Greek Slingers), and maybe you could have up to Pontic Thoritikai, but maybe not the Chalkaspidai's or Pontic Elite Thoritikai. I should stress again, however, that this idea's recruitment is primarily aimed with an eye at the 'Independent' and 'Minor' regions rather than actual factions which have alot of unique units only accessible by either the rebels or one particular faction - Numidia, Syracuse, the Bosphorous especially are all good examples.

Furthermore, the Mercenary building was set up the way it is so that there is a clear 'yes or no' as to whether to build it. You look at the building, and if there are units in it you'd like to recruit...you build it. If there is NOTHING to recruit, then you don't. And some regions have nothing..or maybe things you don't want anyway. Making it 'multi-level' only fools the player into building it thinking he'll get something, only to find there is nothing to be had anyway. I really don't want to hear complaints about "I built this and now there's nothing in it! Why did you...blah, blah"

My problems with the mercenary building are 1. That it takes too long to establish, since you need to have at least a city-sized provincial capital with a level three barracks of your own making. A 'less radical' solution might just be to make mercenary recruitment pool available to build with only, say, a level 1 barracks pre-requisite. That would make more sense than the current system because the infrastructure to recruit and train local troops should already be there, and those local soldiers already in existence as opposed to when the Romans move in they would need to build up their own facilities and colonize the place, etc. 2. I also feel that it's too limited in most cases.

Also, being able to recruit a 'local general', although the idea is sound and it makes sense, would look a bit odd in 'RTW practice'. You would recruit a 'Barbarian General' who looked like a Roman or a Greek in the Strat area, and a Barbarian on the battlemap....and again, you would have the mish-mash of horses that wouldn't match the unit, and a bodyguard that didn't match the general. I would love to be 'able' to do this, because it has a lot of historical precedence...but in RTW it's impossible.

Admittedly it looks odd to have 'Quintus Balbus' as the 'Client Kingdom of Pergamum', but all the same. I chalk it up to the ability (or desire) to think abstractly and suspend literal interpretations while still getting enjoyment. If I, and many other people, saw old 'Quintus Balbus' we'd just imagine that as his 'Roman name', just like how many Eastern monarchs took a 'Greek name' when the Seleucids were the big boys on the block, in order to ingratiate themselves to their powerful neighbor and/or overlords. There are quite a few historical precedents for this, where citizens and foreigners alike who wanted to have relations with another culture of civilization would 'adopt' a part-time name from that civilization, or be given said name by that civilization's people as either an affectionate endearment or an ugly slur. I should point out that yesterday I recruited a 'Spartan General' who was named 'Crathis of Athens' as the Greek City States and it didn't really bother me. I just ignore it - but there is a precedent that such conflicts are already in the mod, though of course as an accidental oversight.

Also, also....such a building or buildings as this cannot be tied to the economic\fortified city tree, because that tree MUST be indestructible. If it weren't, it would be too easy to just cheat...build a fortified city to get the barracks you want, and then destroy it and build an economic city (which is more productive). I made them this way so that the only way to have both was to build 'up' and pay for it...so you wouldn't want an indestructible 'client state or ally' building you couldn't ever get rid of. To me this is more a 'government' kind of building, and I do have an option in mind...but right now it's just a theory.

Two things to say here: The first is that people can cheat no matter what you do. add_money 40000, process_cq, auto_win attacker. It's up to individuals not to use those cheats, just like it's up to individuals to not 'game the system' and try to work around limits you've set in the game. So I'm not really worried about that.

Second, It's fine if 'Fortified' and 'Economic' Regions are left indestructible - a hypothetical 'Client Kingdom Region' could be in a separate build tree, that way you can build it while simuntaneously deciding if your region will be 'Economic' or 'Fortified'. The only problem is somehow limited your barracks recruitment until you do end up destroying your 'Client Kingdom' building, which incidentally should also be the building controling the recruitment of regional troops so that if you destroy it there goes those pretty local-soldiers you were playing with.

[dvk901]

I don't that would be too big an issue, just because a faction with elite pikemen wouldn't be interested in recruiting another faction's elite pikemen (if indeed you'd allow them to go so far up the foreign faction's tree). You might see some weirdness like Roman officers with certain units, but I don't think that's too big a deal either. Is that what you were trying to suggest?

It's the 'weirdness' I want avoided. We spent two years trying avoid weirdness and creating something profession looking. The last thing I want is a hob-cobble of officers and units and horses that don't belong together. Besides, even if I were to say "Yeah, great idea......", Tone would step in and have us both for lunch!

Yes, I said in my earlier posts that you wouldn't see Praetorians or Legions being recruited. Rome and Italy are oddballs in my whole Client State scheme since, beyond the actual Roman legions there are few other soldiers to try and recruit. Basically just a Samnite here and there. A better example would be Pontus, where if you conquered them you would have access to several of their basic infantry types, as well as regional auxillaries (i.e. Scythian archers, Greek Slingers), and maybe you could have up to Pontic Thoritikai, but maybe not the Chalkaspidai's or Pontic Elite Thoritikai. I should stress again, however, that this idea's recruitment is primarily aimed with an eye at the 'Independent' and 'Minor' regions rather than actual factions which have alot of unique units only accessible by either the rebels or one particular faction - Numidia, Syracuse, the Bosphorous especially are all good examples.

I honestly think the regional units recruitable in the Mercenary building provide a great wealth of local units. As I've mentioned in our own forum, there are more mercs and AOR units in RSII than RTW originally had in total units. There are hundreds of them. But, there is a bigger issue here. We are tippy-toeing on the very brink of disaster with a number of factions....certainly ALL of the Greek factions (except the Free Greeks), and the Ptolemies. In the original setup of this mod, all merc and AOR units were going to be recruitable by the factions, BUT we started having CTD's due to the fact that a number of them had overloaded recruitment ques. As it stands, I know that the Seleucid's, Ptolemies, Pergamon, Pontus and Macedon are on the thin line....and the ONLY thing that prevents CTD's is the fact that the merc and AOR units are only available in certain areas. TBH, although I have counted cues over and over, I am not 'yet' certain someone may be over the limit in some obscure region I haven't looked at.

My problems with the mercenary building are 1. That it takes too long to establish, since you need to have at least a city-sized provincial capital with a level three barracks of your own making. A 'less radical' solution might just be to make mercenary recruitment pool available to build with only, say, a level 1 barracks pre-requisite. That would make more sense than the current system because the infrastructure to recruit and train local troops should already be there, and those local soldiers already in existence as opposed to when the Romans move in they would need to build up their own facilities and colonize the place, etc. 2. I also feel that it's too limited in most cases.

I do agree, in hindsight, with you here. It is a bit hard to get to the level where you can actually recruit these, and by the time you do, you already have the bulk of your own units. And I'll think how to make that better. However, one thing I'm not really interested in is making it 'easy' for the player to just step in and start recruiting and expanding the way it was in good old RTW before. The whole idea here (in this mod) is to prevent blitzing, prevent not paying for your barracks (because of the shared barracks system), and basically just being able to ignore consolidation because you don't have to do it.

Admittedly it looks odd to have 'Quintus Balbus' as the 'Client Kingdom of Pergamum', but all the same. I chalk it up to the ability (or desire) to think abstractly and suspend literal interpretations while still getting enjoyment. If I, and many other people, saw old 'Quintus Balbus' we'd just imagine that as his 'Roman name', just like how many Eastern monarchs took a 'Greek name' when the Seleucids were the big boys on the block, in order to ingratiate themselves to their powerful neighbor and/or overlords. There are quite a few historical precedents for this, where citizens and foreigners alike who wanted to have relations with another culture of civilization would 'adopt' a part-time name from that civilization, or be given said name by that civilization's people as either an affectionate endearment or an ugly slur. I should point out that yesterday I recruited a 'Spartan General' who was named 'Crathis of Athens' as the Greek City States and it didn't really bother me. I just ignore it - but there is a precedent that such conflicts are already in the mod, though of course as an accidental oversight.

I understand the point. However, the player has the ability to control this kind of mayhem. The AI doesn't. To make non-factional generals available to other factions would invite a truly weird looking campaign where you'd have a Barbarian Roman general, a Greek Parthian, a Barbarian Greek, sitting on a horse that wasn't modeled for him, etc. etc. It could feasibly be done for a specific faction in a modfolder, but this would involve a ton of work that we frankly don't have time for right now because we didn't plan it that way.

The Spartan General is an exception, and was planned that way. You'll note his bodyguard is dismounted...ie, we don't get any horse conflicts.

Two things to say here: The first is that people can cheat no matter what you do. add_money 40000, process_cq, auto_win attacker. It's up to individuals not to use those cheats, just like it's up to individuals to not 'game the system' and try to work around limits you've set in the game. So I'm not really worried about that.
Second, It's fine if 'Fortified' and 'Economic' Regions are left indestructible - a hypothetical 'Client Kingdom Region' could be in a separate build tree, that way you can build it while simuntaneously deciding if your region will be 'Economic' or 'Fortified'. The only problem is somehow limited your barracks recruitment until you do end up destroying your 'Client Kingdom' building, which incidentally should also be the building controling the recruitment of regional troops so that if you destroy it there goes those pretty local-soldiers you were playing with.

I realize people 'can' cheat....I just made it improbable in this case. But the route I'm thinking of is to use a separate tree that is already in existence only for Roman government buildings that have been added. But I'm still trying to envision how to make this work without ruining the existing intention of the tree.

[Revan The Great]

Well in light of your CTD worries I admit that I am beginning to drop my idea - though I maintain that it was a good thought.

I still say that unit recruitment should be widened wherever humanly possible, and the Mercenary Recruitment pool reduced to at least a level two barracks-requirement, which is more reasonable. Most cities when you first conquer them are either a town or large town, and assuming you depopulate a settlement you'll have quite a ways to go before you get to the 'City-size' requirement to build the mercenary pool.

As a side note, I've noticed that the Greek Cities can't recruit regional units in Pergamum or Cyprus and I don't believe that the Greeks can build a Mercenary recruitment pool - or at least I don't see how to build it.

Further, could we at least agree in principle that Sparta, Pergamum, and 'The Greek Cities' should be able to recruit the vast majority of each other's units, as is already the case between the Greeks and Sparta when it comes to Sparta's capital? My reasoning for that is that the three 'Minor' Greek factions would have alot in common and more of a 'Pan-Hellenic' goal as opposed to a multi-national 'Imperial Goal' that the Seleucids or Romans would have.

[dvk901]

Well in light of your CTD worries I admit that I am beginning to drop my idea - though I maintain that it was a good thought.

I still say that unit recruitment should be widened wherever humanly possible, and the Mercenary Recruitment pool reduced to at least a level two barracks-requirement, which is more reasonable. Most cities when you first conquer them are either a town or large town, and assuming you depopulate a settlement you'll have quite a ways to go before you get to the 'City-size' requirement to build the mercenary pool.

As a side note, I've noticed that the Greek Cities can't recruit regional units in Pergamum or Cyprus and I don't believe that the Greeks can build a Mercenary recruitment pool - or at least I don't see how to build it.

Further, could we at least agree in principle that Sparta, Pergamum, and 'The Greek Cities' should be able to recruit the vast majority of each other's units, as is already the case between the Greeks and Sparta when it comes to Sparta's capital? My reasoning for that is that the three 'Minor' Greek factions would have alot in common and more of a 'Pan-Hellenic' goal as opposed to a multi-national 'Imperial Goal' that the Seleucids or Romans would have.

I agree, and I'll see what I can do. I hope you don't think I'm being evasive or obstructive...I like your ideas and will do what I can. Still, I have to face the reality of some things in light of what has already been done.

[tone]

My reasoning for that is that the three 'Minor' Greek factions would have alot in common and more of a 'Pan-Hellenic' goal as opposed to a multi-national 'Imperial Goal' that the Seleucids or Romans would have.

Sounds a pretty good thought.

[Alavaria]

As for the issue of the client states building, can you not use upgrade conditionals to allow it to be built and upgraded? Just wondering....

levels base client_state economic fortified econ_fortified

base
upgrades
{
client_state requires .... not hidden_resource italy?
economic ;requires ...
fortified ;requires ...
}

client_state
upgrades
{
economic requires building_present_min_level (governors house level)
fortified requires ...
}

of course, if using not hidden_resource r1 won't work, you can simply write hidden_resource r2 or hidden_resource r3 ... and so on (or even have separate lines for each one.

[dvk901]

Here is what I'm working on for this idea:

building government_hostilia
{
levels gov_determination client_state annex citizenship roman_hostilia
{
gov_determination requires factions { romans_brutii, }
{
capability
{
;no bonuses
}
construction 1
cost 2000
settlement_min town
upgrades
{
client_state
annex
}
}
client_state requires factions { romans_brutii, }
{
capability
{
happiness_bonus bonus 8 requires factions { romans_brutii, } and not hidden_resource ally and not hidden_resource area6
happiness_bonus bonus -5 requires factions { romans_brutii, } and hidden_resource ally
taxable_income_bonus bonus -60 requires factions { romans_brutii, } and not hidden_resource ally and not hidden_resource area6
}
construction 2
cost 5000
settlement_min large_town
upgrades
{
citizenship
}
}
annex requires factions { romans_brutii, } and building_present_min_level core_building proconsuls_palace and building_present_min_level market forum
{
capability
{
happiness_bonus bonus -3 requires factions { romans_brutii, }
law_bonus bonus -2 requires factions { romans_brutii, }
taxable_income_bonus bonus 40 requires factions { romans_brutii, } and not hidden_resource ally and not hidden_resource area6
}
construction 2
cost 8000
settlement_min city
upgrades
{
citizenship
}
}
citizenship requires factions { romans_brutii, } and building_present_min_level core_building proconsuls_palace and building_present_min_level market forum
{
capability
{
happiness_bonus bonus 4 requires factions { romans_brutii, } and hidden_resource ally
happiness_bonus bonus 1 requires factions { romans_brutii, } and building_present_min_level civil_order field_mars
happiness_bonus bonus 2 requires factions { romans_brutii, } and not hidden_resource ally
taxable_income_bonus bonus 15 requires factions { romans_brutii, } and hidden_resource ally
taxable_income_bonus bonus 5 requires factions { romans_brutii, } and not hidden_resource ally
}
construction 2
cost 8000
settlement_min city
upgrades
{
roman_hostilia
}
}
roman_hostilia requires factions { romans_brutii, } and marian_reforms and building_present_min_level civil_order field_mars and building_present_min_level hinterland_settlement_determination merged_city and not building_present_min_level hinterland_historic historic_3
{
capability
{
law_bonus bonus 2 requires factions { romans_brutii, }
happiness_bonus bonus 5 requires factions { romans_brutii, } and hidden_resource ally
happiness_bonus bonus 4 requires factions { romans_brutii, } and not hidden_resource ally
taxable_income_bonus bonus 50 requires factions { romans_brutii, } and hidden_resource ally
taxable_income_bonus bonus 25 requires factions { romans_brutii, } and not hidden_resource ally
}
construction 4
cost 30000
settlement_min large_city
upgrades
{
}
}
}
plugins
{
}
}



¬--------------

{client_state} Client State

{client_state_desc} WARNING! This baseline description should never appear on screen!

{client_state_desc_short} WARNING! This baseline description should never appear on screen!

{client_state_roman_desc}
Note: This building provides a large happiness bonus in newly conquered areas, but it renders a significant tax penalty.\n\nThe Romans were nothing if not pragmatic. If something was working in some area where they found themselves in control, they tended to let it keep going as it was. This was particularly true in the east, where there were all sorts of local regimes doing a tolerable job. During most of Roman history there was some emergency going on somewhere. Anything they didn't have to do because someone else was doing it for them was fine with them. So by setting this building in place you are allowing the local rulers and government to remain in control under your watchful eye. They will be very happy about this, but since you'll have little 'real' control over taxation and the economy, this region will provide almost no income.\n\nBetter to let them have their false freedom for a time, see how they behave, and then decide how to proceed in the coming years.


{client_state_roman_desc_short}
By setting this building in place you are allowing the local rulers and government to remain in control under your watchful eye.


¬--------------

{annex} Annex Region

{annex_desc} WARNING! This baseline description should never appear on screen!

{annex_desc_short} WARNING! This baseline description should never appear on screen!

{annex_roman_desc}
Note: This building provides a large tax bonus, but happiness and law suffer as a result.\n\nA historical case of annexation would be the political entity of the Pontic kingdom of Mithridates. The last of that line was defeated by Pompey, whose son held on to a rump state for a couple of decades. The rest was given by Mark Antony to one Polemo, who founded a dynasty. Pontus was annexed by Nero later on, leaving the later dynasty with a small but strategic strip of territory into the 3rd century AD.\n\nThis building essentially allows you to 'take over' this client state...whether they like it or not. You will gain a substantial monetary benefit from this, but the people will not be very happy. It would be wise to build a good economic base and generous infrastructure in this region before annexing it, just to take the 'edge' off that unhappiness.


{annex_roman_desc_short}
This building essentially allows you to 'take over' this client state...whether they like it or not.

**********************************************************************************

As you can see, this building is only for the Romans at this point. But there is a reason for this. I'm going to include the building ONLY in the modfoldered campaigns, and it will be faction specific in each case. I don't want the AI building this tree, because it's effects are, obviously, too deceiving for the AI to understand what it's doing. It well choose to build the thing just for the happiness bonus, and then shoot itself in the foot economically....as well as build it everywhere, making the 'choice' for the player a moot point.

The client state building pretty much speaks for itself...you get a good happiness bonus, but you pay economically....good in a pinch to allow the region a bit of freedom until you consolidate.

The 'annexation' building will be the next step, if you choose to take it, for most other factions other than Rome. This allows you to simply take over the region and reap all the monetary benefits it has to offer....at the price of people's happiness. I'm not finished with the bonus part of it yet, but I want to tie into the bonuses the faction barracks, so that as you build the barracks levels the happiness increases incrementally, and the tax bonuses decrease incrementally....a way of changing the region gradually over time.

In the case of the Romans, they will have the choice to upgrade to annexation or citizenship from client state, and citizenship from annexation. And ultimately the Roman Hostilia which was a local Senate that governed an area.

Alavaria, the whole client state thing doesn't really work well with the economic\fortified city tree. I don't want to force the player to build a client state as the 1st building in the tree, because it should be something done on a 'need' basis, not a requirement to get to something else that's really unrelated. This works best in a 'government' tree, where subsequent buildings make sense from where you started.

[Alavaria]

Alavaria, the whole client state thing doesn't really work well with the economic\fortified city tree. I don't want to force the player to build a client state as the 1st building in the tree, because it should be something done on a 'need' basis, not a requirement to get to something else that's really unrelated. This works best in a 'government' tree, where subsequent buildings make sense from where you started.

It isn't forced to build a client state. If you look at what i suggested, from the base building it can upgrade into either economic, fortified OR the client state.

Though some people might also behave like the AI and build the client state building anyway... though it might mess up less stuff to have a separate building.

[dvk901]

Ah, apologies...I didn't see that 'base' in there. Yeah, I think it will be best to have it separate. That building tree is really (or was) specific to the Romans if you are PLAYING them...it doesn't really matter if you aren't. So I can use it as I wish for any faction.