Client States: Should They Rebel More Often?
Does anyone else think client states might be too stable? Even client states with extremely negative relations don't seem to ever rebel against their masters.
It makes sense that client states with good relations should be stable. But if relations are bad, there should be a high risk of them throwing off their masters. This would force the overlord to actively support the client, with troops and gold, or risk losing them.
Maybe it is just my campaign... Anybody else seeing their clients rebel?
Senator
Re: Client States: Should They Rebel More Often?
no not see them rebel against me.
i have the volcae as my client state,they hate me to the bone.they have only burdigala left and are surrounded by undefended roman settlements.
instead of backstabbing me they are defending my settlements at the rhine frontier against boii incursions.im happy with that if they liked me but they hate me.
had also scythia as client states earlyer in my campaign.they controlled a very large area but when i attacked them one time they asked for peace and to become client state.not even having taken a city from them. maybe it's because im playing on normal difficulty,dunno.
Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth. -Marcus Aurelius
Tiro
Re: Client States: Should They Rebel More Often?
I played once Rome and on of my client states declared war about me.
1. They couldn't stand me.
2. They were able to conquer up to 2 or 3 settlements (dunno remember excatly anymore).
So my best guess is, that the chance of rebellion is related to the players strenght / number vom settlements in comparison to the AI.
In case this is true, then i think it is more reasonable than just backstabbing, since the AI should try to win, not just to be a pain in the ass.
Till shade is gone,
till water is gone,
into the Shadow with the teeth bared,
screaming defiance with the last breath,
to spit into Sightblinder's eye on the Last Day
Vicarius
Re: Client States: Should They Rebel More Often?
Originally Posted by TheOrangeProject
I think you're quite on point. Still, just some details:
If they hate you a looooot , they might "suicide" rebel.
If they love you, even if they grow to be 10x more powerful than you, they might stay a client state (had that happens to me twice where I was a tiny pebble compared to a client state I had conquered 50-100 turns earlier xD)
But if they are between -100 and +100 relationship, they will pick a stance according to your power relative to theirs: try to keep an edge on them and they will not rebel, else they might.
Last edited by Butan; January 26, 2015 at 03:45 PM.
Protector Domesticus
Re: Client States: Should They Rebel More Often?
It also depends on the reliability rating of the faction in question. In one of my recent campaigns, I made the Ardiaei a client state after they tried to invade me. They hated me, but since they're "loyal," they never broke their treaty with me, even after I destroyed the other Illyrian factions (with whom they had good relations).
Vicarius
Re: Client States: Should They Rebel More Often?
I had completely forgotten this.
Does it really weight into their diplomatic stances?
Pretty sure its possible, but you have to get asked to, you cant offer it afaik.Is it possible to become a client state? I've not seen that among the diplomatic options before.
Senator
Re: Client States: Should They Rebel More Often?
It depends on how you treat them too. And if you have multiple ones and defensive alliances, then they may even go to war with each other.
The further you get in Imperium, the more likely it becomes that they rebel too. At maximum Imperium, you'll have so much negative diplomatic relations (-100) that keeping client states becomes nearly unviable, and you must occupy to subdue them for good.
That said, I wish the diplomatic penalties were higher across the board (all -25 more).
Remember to smile
Re: Client States: Should They Rebel More Often?
Is it possible to become a client state? I've not seen that among the diplomatic options before.
~Wille
Thorolf was thus armed. Then Thorolf became so furious that he cast his shield on his back, and, grasping his halberd with both hands, bounded forward dealing cut and thrust on either side. Men sprang away from him both ways, but he slew many. Thus he cleared the way forward to earl Hring's standard, and then nothing could stop him. He slew the man who bore the earl's standard, and cut down the standard-pole. After that he lunged with his halberd at the earl's breast, driving it right through mail and body, so that it came out at the shoulders; and he lifted him up on the halberd over his head, and planted the butt-end in the ground. There on the weapon the earl breathed out his life in sight of all, both friends and foes. [...] 53, Egil's Saga- The pranks played on the knight Jean de Joinville, 1249, 7th crusade.I must tell you here of some amusing tricks the Comte d'Eu played on us. I had made a sort of house for myself in which my knights and I used to eat, sitting so as to get the light from the door, which, as it happened, faced the Comte d'Eu's quarters. The count, who was a very ingenious fellow, had rigged up a miniature ballistic machine with which he could throw stones into my tent. He would watch us as we were having our meal, adjust his machine to suit the length of our table, and then let fly at us, breaking our pots and glasses.
http://imgur.com/a/DMm19
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
