Shouldn't Bactria be a vassal state of the Seleucids at the start of the game?

[eregost]

So doing some research Bactria split from the Seleucid's domain around 250BC. The campaign will start around 272BC so it will be another 22 years until Bactria goes independent following history. Why aren't they a vassal of the Seleucids at the start?

[xjlxking]

I'm assuming that it's because as a Vassal state the player needs someone else to attack besides Seleucid. Parthia and Athens are both surrounded by client states/allies.

[eregost]

I'm assuming that it's because as a Vassal state the player needs someone else to attack besides Seleucid. Parthia and Athens are both surrounded by client states/allies.

Parthia is not a vassal state of the Seleucids in the game.

[xjlxking]

Parthia is not a vassal state of the Seleucids in the game.

Ah well that simplifies it

IF you are surround by Seleucid with no where to expand without declaring a war on them, you would get get destroyed. This way, you can expand north of Parthia and east before trying to declare war

[Lord Dakier]

Most likely to stop the Sels becoming a demi-god faction. If Pontus and Armenia were to ally like they did and Bactria was a vassal, Sels would have no major enemies except Parthia and Egypt and would slaughter them. This is usually the case in many Rome 1 mods.

[Spartacus041]

I have a strong feeling Bactria will be one of the first DLC factions after release. They are situated to be the true rivals of Parthia in the east and start off quite strong. Also, they are such an exciting and ecclectic faction - Greeks, Bactrians, Indians. It only makes sense to make them playable.

[eregost]

The Seleucids' strength can easily be kept in check with something like a central authority diplomatic modifier with vassals. It can start at a low value for the Seleucids and can be influenced by things like wealth, army strength, alliances and wars, distance to capital, battles won and lost, relevent tech, and so on. If vassal opinion is low, they give less money and commit fewer troops when requested to their protector and are more likely to outright revolt. This will make it so that Bactria would be likely to rebel early and the Seleucids' eastern vassals would be unlikely to lend much support to put Bactria down or might even use this opportunity to rebel themselves if they have better relations with Bactria so then the Seleucids will have a tough time.

[xjlxking]

The Seleucids' strength can easily be kept in check with something like a central authority diplomatic modifier with vassals. It can start at a low value for the Seleucids and can be influenced by things like wealth, army strength, alliances and wars, distance to capital, battles won and lost and so on. This will make it so that Bactria would be likely to rebel early and the Seleucids' eastern vassals would be unlikely to lend much support to put Bactria down or might even use this opportunity to rebel themselves if they have better relations with Bactria so then the Seleucids will have a tough time.

So you want Bactria to be a vassal only to not be a vassal in a few turns?

[eregost]

So you want Bactria to be a vassal only to not be a vassal in a few turns?

There would be a chance that they don't break away depending on events and how the Seleucid AI or player handles things. It is historic and can easily be balanced so that the Seleucids are not OP so what is the problem?

[xjlxking]

There would be a chance that they don't break away depending on events and how the Seleucid AI or player handles things. It is historic and can easily be balanced so that the Seleucids are not OP so what is the problem?

You are leaving it to chance. If a player decides to play another faction besides Parthia, Seleucid will just consume Parthia. They have one side to expand towards too. The client states can't attack another client state, so it leaves only Parthia as a target.

[eregost]

You are leaving it to chance. If a player decides to play another faction besides Parthia, Seleucid will just consume Parthia. They have one side to expand towards too. The client states can't attack another client state, so it leaves only Parthia as a target.

Consume Parthia with what? If a mechanic like the one I explained were implemented then if the Seleucids go to war with Parthia and request their vassals attack, the vassals might ignore the Seleucids outright, take a long while to mobilize and send their troops over to the front lines and/or send a token force with few/weak/depleted troops led by a poor/inexperienced general. Syria is a distance away and the Seleucids will need their forces there to deal with Egypt. With this new war opened the vassals could even decide this is the right time to break away from the Seleucids.

[TsarBG]

I would say it is for gameplay reasons, though also with the vastness of the Seleukid empire, their influence over Baktria would virtually nominal. As other posters have mentioned, this is most likely done so the Seleukid empire doesn't become a monster early on, though in my opinion it would be better if there were scripted revolts.

[O'Hea]

Pro-tip: Bactria will be an early DLC faction, along with Armenia and Cimmeria. You heard it here first.

Making Bactria a Seleucid client makes Parthia even harder to play and significantly reduces the odds of a significant power rising in the east. Plus, you know, it's totally gonna be DLC.

[Spartacus041]

You've explained plenty. But I'm sure CA's campaign designers decided already what the campaign start conditions are going to be since they released the Campaign Map explorers app already. Besides, these TW games are clearly inspired by history. They don't necessarily desire to simulate the diplomatic conditions of 272BC precisely. I'm sure what your saying isn't hard to program in, but I really doubt CA's campaign designer are interested in such specific diplomatic simulations.

So in conclusion, it's already set. Why bother asking them to change something that is, in all honesty, quite trivial.

[eregost]

You've explained plenty. But I'm sure CA's campaign designers decided already what the campaign start conditions are going to be since they released the Campaign Map explorers app already. Besides, these TW games are clearly inspired by history. They don't necessarily desire to simulate the diplomatic conditions of 272BC precisely. I'm sure what your saying isn't hard to program in, but I really doubt CA's campaign designer are interested in such specific diplomatic simulations.

So in conclusion, it's already set. Why bother asking them to change something that is, in all honesty, quite trivial.

I just want to raise awareness because things like this annoy me. I feel TW games are good right now but they could become truly great if CA just put that extra bit of effort in and things like this go a long way.

The fun of playing a campaign game as opposed to just battles is handling things like economy, diplomacy and strategy and the way all three interweave. Currently I feel the diplomacy is sorely lacking. If TW games had a fraction of Paradox campaign depth, they would be much better for it.

[Spartacus041]

I just want to raise awareness because things like this annoy me. I feel TW games are good right now but they could become truly great if CA just put that extra bit of effort in and things like this go a long way.

The fun of playing a campaign game as opposed to just battles is handling things like economy, diplomacy and strategy and the way all three interweave. Currently I feel the diplomacy is sorely lacking. If TW games had a fraction of Paradox campaign depth, they would be much better for it.

I would love a more detailed game too brother. But games like this are not made by historical enthusiasts necessarily. They are made by paid professionals who might not care for such issues. They are making a game that roughly represents that world, not precise like a simulation. Same reason why they have Egyptians being more ancient than Ptolemic, it adds variety and uniqueness and simplifies and differentiates a faction. 99% of the people buying this game would care less if they showed the proper diplomatic configuration of the Seleucid and it's historical vassals.

So why would they invest the time? No incentive. Cash rules everything around me - CREAM - Get the money, dolla dolla bills ya'll and so on and so forth.

[eregost]

I would love a more detailed game too brother. But games like this are not made by historical enthusiasts necessarily. They are made by paid professionals who might not care for such issues. They are making a game that roughly represents that world, not precise like a simulation. Same reason why they have Egyptians being more ancient than Ptolemic, it adds variety and uniqueness and simplifies and differentiates a faction. 99% of the people buying this game would care less if they showed the proper diplomatic configuration of the Seleucid and it's historical vassals.

So why would they invest the time? No incentive. Cash rules everything around me - CREAM - Get the money, dolla dolla bills ya'll and so on and so forth.

I'm not asking for a sim, don't be silly and I'm fine with the portrayal of Egypt. I have given gameplay reasons for why I want Bactria as a vassal, I want it more because I believe gameplay would be substantially improved in the east with a more complex portrayal than for historical accuracy.

[Arcani 4 Ever]

the way the factions are located...

i can easily see Armenia, Media Atropatene and Bactria become playable factions. If those 3 factions + Seleucids become playable the East will finally feel more crowded.

[d4g4n]

you really want another client state...

[eregost]

you really want another client state...

It's the fact of the matter at the time. The Seleucids were horribly represented in RTW and I don't want the same happening here.