Client States/Satrapies Bug?

[GourmetGorilla]

Just noticed that Rome only has the option of creating a Satrapy out of another faction in the diplomacy screen. Currently using the All Diplomatic Options Submod. No option to create Client State, so I'm a bit confused. Is this perhaps load-order related, or is there an incompatibility between these mods?

I also am unclear on the difference between a Satrapy and Client State, beyond the obvious nominal difference...and the fact that Satrapies are generally the domain of Eastern factions, particularly Persian successors.

[Mirozero]

Cant help you with the "bug" since i dont use any diplomatic mods.

Client state's pay you some tribute each turn and act like a defensiv ally. Satrapies pay you tribute, have almost no diplomatic options (they can trade, pay money and declare war i think) and will follow your lead in diplomacy. They are basically the same, just that satrapies have limit diplomatic power and will have the same enemy as you.

[Kye]

Cant help you with the "bug" since i dont use any diplomatic mods.

Client state's pay you some tribute each turn and act like a defensiv ally. Satrapies pay you tribute, have almost no diplomatic options (they can trade, pay money and declare war i think) and will follow your lead in diplomacy. They are basically the same, just that satrapies have limit diplomatic power and will have the same enemy as you.

Is it possible to have a client state expand on their own? Do both count towards your total territory score?

[Drowsy]

Is it possible to have a client state expand on their own? Do both count towards your total territory score?

Yes and yes

[Mirozero]

Is it possible to have a client state expand on their own? Do both count towards your total territory score?

Yes they both do.

Iv noticed that force another faction to CS is way too easy. At some point trade + non aggresion sometimes is enouth to make a CS. In some of my campaigns even Rome was a CS of some 1 town faction like Massalia etc. This is wrong. Same with Selucid Empire. They were my CS when i played Bosphor.

I could be wrong, but i think the client state's paid for military protection. So i dont see why it shouldnt be easy to accomplish.
Satrapies paid and done what they been told to do, to not get totally destroyed by their overlords.

[Kauzer]

Yes they both do.


I could be wrong, but i think the client state's paid for military protection. So i dont see why it shouldnt be easy to accomplish.
Satrapies paid and done what they been told to do, to not get totally destroyed by their overlords.

Ye u are right. But ser-ly ... Rome paying for protection to Bosphor ? Something is wrong with calculations here.

[Drowsy]

Ye u are right. But ser-ly ... Rome paying for protection to Bosphor ? Something is wrong with calculations here.

Anything is possible after the first turn when basically history as we 'know' it alters.


-- I've had factions ruling territory's the size of Anatolia ask for protection in return for gold and all it took was an existing trade agreement, a harsh winter and a lost battle/few dow's. It's actually one of the things that was pretty well done by CA imo given with what they had to work with.

[ABH2]

A faction can only have one or the other option between creating a client and creating a 'satrapy' or vassal.

[Kauzer]

Iv noticed that force another faction to CS is way too easy. At some point trade + non aggresion sometimes is enouth to make a CS. In some of my campaigns even Rome was a CS of some 1 town faction like Massalia etc. This is wrong. Same with Selucid Empire. They were my CS when i played Bosphor.

[ABH2]

Satrapies are really poorly represented in game as a true satrapy tended to have an appointed leader. When you see dynasties getting used they were more 'client states.' The level of control the dominant partner had depended really on how much force they could bring down on violations. When the Seleucids were crumbling, Antiochus III managed to reclaim his 'satraps' but really just made them client states subordinate to him. He had to leave the new ruling monarchs intact where as before the Seleucids had appointed governors.

When the Romans expanded, they basically forced treaties on conquered areas and weaker states. Dynasties were left in tact and made 'client states' but they basically lost real autonomy and eventually they tended to be passed on to the emperor. These were basically treaties signed. Which is the same thing Rome did with conquered areas. Socii were just really treaty obligations with Rome as the dominant partner and the ability to force them onto the weaker. Basically conquered areas gave up autonomy, had most of their local institutions left intact, and in some cases, Romans settled some of the land. Simplified version.

[citizen-ychoux]

Similar question, is it mormal that i cant ceeate satrapies playing as Epirus ? I'm using Dresden Sack & Liberation mod, I can sack so i guess there is no load order pb, but i'm only allowed to create client states, which are useless.

Any idea why this is ?

[GourmetGorilla]

Any idea why this is ?

Epirus is a Western faction. Satrapies were a feature of the Persian Empire and its successors. The discrepancy is supposed to be culturally-based, hence my question since it seems kind of odd for Rome to be able to create Satrapies but not client states. I suspect it's either a bug or I've somehow goofed up mod-wise lol.

From a gameplay standpoint, I don't consider it to be a big deal though. I believe in the vanilla game Western factions such as Epirus can create client states only, while the more Eastern factions such as Parthia can create Satrapies. The Seleukids actually start out with several Satrapies, as they reign over the remnants of the Achaemenid Empire.