For devs: gameplay suggestion for client states

[Naja]

Here's an idea I'd like to offer as a suggestion to any devs who may be reading this:

Right now you can give your client states military priorities for attacking. This is all well and good, but it can be very awkward if your client states are at war with one another, or at war with an ally of yours. It's odd that you as their hegemon have no influence over that.

So I humbly offer two suggestions that you may consider:

Option 1: Client states cannot declare war on their overlord's other client states, or

Option 2: You gain a diplomatic option for your client states that allows you to request them to stop fighting a particular faction.

This would still preserve the relative diplomatic independence that client states have (compared to satrapies), while making the management of your vassals a little more realistic and fun. Thank you very much for your consideration. I appreciate your responsiveness to player feedback, and the promptness of the recent patches.

[kambiz]

The entire Clint state in this game is a joke ! First of all it's nearly impossible to have AI factions to accept this offer even when You're already besieged their last settlement !!! Then they're expected to act like one of your regions except being [to some extent] independent in their internal affairs but their whole diplomacy must be in your control. But it's actually quite the opposite ! I've decided to never make any faction a my clint state cause conqueing them totally is much more beneficial

[Kenlin Bros]

Edicts should also be possible when you have the province capital and all of the settlements in the province are owned by you or your clients.

[alhoon]

Naja, go for satrapies then.

[Naja]

To give a real world example, Syria can be described as a client state of Russia. They're politically autonomous, but dependant on their hegemon for protection, arms sales, etc.

While Syria is still politically independent, Russia was able to exert pressure on them to submit their chemical weapons to the United Nations.

It isn't that unreasonable to be able to pressure your client states to play nice with a given faction. It would still leave them independent to launch wars of their own accord though, which is a key difference from satrapies that I believe should be retained.

[Naja]

To give a real world example, Syria can be described as a client state of Russia. They're politically autonomous, but dependant on their hegemon for protection, arms sales, etc.

While Syria is still politically independent, Russia was able to exert pressure on them to submit their chemical weapons to the United Nations.

It isn't that unreasonable to be able to pressure your client states to play nice with a given faction. It would still leave them independent to launch wars of their own accord though, which is a key difference from satrapies that I believe should be retained.

[Shaio]

nearly impossible to make an ai agree to be a client state...

I have however had one faction offer to become my satrapy in my pontus campign..... i was at peace with them at that time but had earlier been at war..

turned out they were getting steamrolled by another ai faction thou and were dead 2 turns later before i could even force march my troops to help.