Do the Seleucid satrapies 100% always rebel?

[calamitys]

In my experience they always 100% rebel. Is it possible to maintain at least 1 of them without rebellion?

[ForTheHorde]

In my experience they always 100% rebel. Is it possible to maintain at least 1 of them without rebellion?

Im currently 200 turns into a Seleucid Campaign, and although Parsa, Zranka and Haraiva rebelled about turn 30, the others remained (and still remain) loyal. It seems to be random chance coupled with your diplomatic relationship with the Satrapy.
Keep in good relations, and you don't have to worry too much.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

The script says that if you have good relations they won't rebel. If you haven't, they will rebel for sure.

[~Seleukos.I.Nikator~]

Hey guys,

I'm bringing this thread up from the ashes.

In the past few months I've played two different campaigns with the Seleucids and one of the conclusions I've drawn is that for a human player it is actually fairly easy to maintain good enough relations with the Seleucid satrapies to prevent them from revolting, which is turn makes that campaign easy and unchallenging.

I believe the Seleucid campaign might actually benefit from harsher conditions in the satrapal revolt script for the human player that will make this revolt nearly unavoidable at some point in the campaign.

I would, however, like to hear others' opinion as well. Those who've played the Seleucids recently, what's your take on this?

[Mastergunner_19k]

Just recently finished my Campaign with Seleucids...well almost finished, one more area to conquer and military victory is mine. Anyways, I was able to hold on to original Satrapsies due to decent relations with them...the others (2 nations or 3 I don't remember) rebelled sometime around turn 30 or so....it was a good experience for me because it gave my generals and armies experience, also crushing the rebels did wonderfully by showing my loyal clients what happens when they want independence (purely RP for my taste, not any game mechanic ). It didn't really make the campaign easier per se, having the remaining Satrapsies didn't truly benefit me in making the campaign easier, if anything they got attacked over the campaign by nations like Baktria. Which gave me the reason to go to war but not having to rush to defend my borders because my loyal servants did actually put up a fight.
Honestly its flavor in my eyes. I don't believe the campaign got too easy, but I do believe I would not enjoy it much if Seleucids clients always and 100% rebel each time...where would the "what if" feel of the game go? No surprises equals boring campaign for me.
But seriously its only my view.

[Iain F]

Why not just cut them loose?

I tried it once and it went ok, yes you take a hit in the treasury at first but after a short while I was coining it in anyway and it added to the challenge a bit. Some of the ex-satrapies became firm allies and the whole area descended quite quickly into a cockpit of in-fighting which I and my chums were to take advantage of and we all added lands to our kingdoms and things out east settled down nicely with a nice bulwark of allied states defending against any encroachments.

[Devodians]

In my last campaign as the Seleucids (H/N), Egypt attacked me within 20 turns, joined by Rhodes who was their ally. All of my Satraps joined in my war. And since I got that diplomatic bonus for every "military action" against Egypt or Rhodes, my relations with my satraps were all Green. None of them rebelled, which made my campaign very easy (and boring).

Personally, I think it would be a much more fun campaign if your eastern Satraps (from present day Iraq and over) were to have a guaranteed rebellion, regardless of your relations with them. Maybe move a scripted rebellion a little later in the campaign (turn 40-50 ish). I find that by that time, you'll have established a secure position and taken out at least one of your principle enemies (Media, Galatia, Egypt, etc), so it would be a perfect time to have that sudden challenge when it looked like your campaign was getting too easy. Just my two cents.

[~Seleukos.I.Nikator~]

Just recently finished my Campaign with Seleucids...well almost finished, one more area to conquer and military victory is mine. Anyways, I was able to hold on to original Satrapsies due to decent relations with them...the others (2 nations or 3 I don't remember) rebelled sometime around turn 30 or so....it was a good experience for me because it gave my generals and armies experience, also crushing the rebels did wonderfully by showing my loyal clients what happens when they want independence (purely RP for my taste, not any game mechanic ). It didn't really make the campaign easier per se, having the remaining Satrapsies didn't truly benefit me in making the campaign easier, if anything they got attacked over the campaign by nations like Baktria. Which gave me the reason to go to war but not having to rush to defend my borders because my loyal servants did actually put up a fight.
Honestly its flavor in my eyes. I don't believe the campaign got too easy, but I do believe I would not enjoy it much if Seleucids clients always and 100% rebel each time...where would the "what if" feel of the game go? No surprises equals boring campaign for me.
But seriously its only my view.

What do you mean by 'the original satrapies' and 'the others'. Are the others the satrapies you have established in the course of your campaign that just simply broke that agreement with you at the later date?

If all of these satrapies that you start with, stay put that can't be really much of a challenge having the whole of the eastern part of the map secured from the start. They may, as you said, go to war with other factions there like Bactria and India, dragging you into that war as well, but if you have at your disposal your own armies plus all the armies of all your eastern satrapies, these wars can't be much of a challenge, either.

Why not just cut them loose?

I tried it once and it went ok, yes you take a hit in the treasury at first but after a short while I was coining it in anyway and it added to the challenge a bit. Some of the ex-satrapies became firm allies and the whole area descended quite quickly into a cockpit of in-fighting which I and my chums were to take advantage of and we all added lands to our kingdoms and things out east settled down nicely with a nice bulwark of allied states defending against any encroachments.

Well, yes, you may try to cut them loose, but if you do that they will still relatively like you and it's not very likely that they will go to war against you. Most of the time you will just be receiving some diplomatic proposals from them for non-agression pacts, trade agreements, etc.

In my last campaign as the Seleucids (H/N), Egypt attacked me within 20 turns, joined by Rhodes who was their ally. All of my Satraps joined in my war. And since I got that diplomatic bonus for every "military action" against Egypt or Rhodes, my relations with my satraps were all Green. None of them rebelled, which made my campaign very easy (and boring).

Personally, I think it would be a much more fun campaign if your eastern Satraps (from present day Iraq and over) were to have a guaranteed rebellion, regardless of your relations with them. Maybe move a scripted rebellion a little later in the campaign (turn 40-50 ish). I find that by that time, you'll have established a secure position and taken out at least one of your principle enemies (Media, Galatia, Egypt, etc), so it would be a perfect time to have that sudden challenge when it looked like your campaign was getting too easy. Just my two cents.

Exactly, that precisely how I think about it. If you go to war with other factions your satrapies will follow and as a result your relations will improve. I think the best system for it would be to have a scripted rebellion that will surely occur at some point in the game, but not too early, like 40-ish, 50-ish turn, like you said. Then depending on your relations with your satrapies, those who have excellent relations with you, will remain loyal, while the others will revolt and automatically go to war against you. Such a solution would be very interesting for the Seleucids and would make that campaign much more challenging, I believe.

[Mastergunner_19k]

Sorry for the mistake, I meant 3 out of my starting satrapsies remained loyal while some rebelled...

[Nordling]

I played selecuids for some time and a lot of my satrapies rebelled. However, even with those rebellions taken into account, the campaign felt quite easy. As eastern hellenics (trait shared with baktria) you can get a lot of buildings promoting 1st class pop growth (satrap's palace - gratning 2.5% 1st pop class groth iirc, stables, temples) making recruiting elite units affordable in pop terms. What that means is that each one of my stacks was a doom stack - pikes, AOR or merc syrian archers, royal epltasts and hetairoi or cataphracts + some fillers. This in turn resulted in battles won with about 100 casualties, even on hard difficulty. Their roster is so beastly that those persians just don't stand a chance. The only difficulty i faced was to keep atropatkan happy with me until i deal with persians & indians all the way to eastern border of the map. Egypt was easily beaten in levant and i set up defensive perimeter around jerusalem.

I reckon that playing seleucids vs romans H2H could be very interesting but in SP they roll over any opposition with relative ease. Still a fun faction tho!

[Jin-]

Hey guys,

I'm bringing this thread up from the ashes.

In the past few months I've played two different campaigns with the Seleucids and one of the conclusions I've drawn is that for a human player it is actually fairly easy to maintain good enough relations with the Seleucid satrapies to prevent them from revolting, which is turn makes that campaign easy and unchallenging.

I believe the Seleucid campaign might actually benefit from harsher conditions in the satrapal revolt script for the human player that will make this revolt nearly unavoidable at some point in the campaign.

I would, however, like to hear others' opinion as well. Those who've played the Seleucids recently, what's your take on this?

I agree with this. Currently i have none rebelled and im over turn 100. Although i have to keep killing prisoners and be at wars to keep it on positive.

One question i have for you, what's your experience with Egypt? Do they accept any of the treaties? I had them + 100 and they refuse everything.
Second question, there goes my first question lol. I cant make any of the factions puppet unless i capture their last settlement. AI does not accept puppet state on diplomacy screen even after you have sacked their settlements and armies

[~Seleukos.I.Nikator~]

One question i have for you, what's your experience with Egypt? Do they accept any of the treaties? I had them + 100 and they refuse everything.
Second question, there goes my first question lol. I cant make any of the factions puppet unless i capture their last settlement. AI does not accept puppet state on diplomacy screen even after you have sacked their settlements and armies

Hey Jin!

Do you mean my experience with Ptolemies while playing Seleucids? Honestly, I can't say much about it as I'm normally at odds with them all the time. Historically speaking, pretty much since the establishment of those Hellenistic monarchies they would most of the time hate and fight one another, so I kind of stick to it. Even in those times when we have peace I don't normally attempt to enter into any sort of agreements with them and I don't particularly bother about the relations between us.

Regarding the puppet states, yes, indeed, I have also noticed that in the current CAI-buildup it's nearly impossible to make another faction agree to become your satrapy via diplomacy. When it comes to other diplomatical options the CAI is currently quite sensible in its decision-making, but to make another faction your satrapy you've got to use the crude force, it seems.

[Nordling]

Hey Jin!

Do you mean my experience with Ptolemies while playing Seleucids? Honestly, I can't say much about it as I'm normally at odds with them all the time. Historically speaking, pretty much since the establishment of those Hellenistic monarchies they would most of the time hate and fight one another, so I kind of stick to it. Even in those times when we have peace I don't normally attempt to enter into any sort of agreements with them and I don't particularly bother about the relations between us.

Regarding the puppet states, yes, indeed, I have also noticed that in the current CAI-buildup it's nearly impossible to make another faction agree to become your satrapy via diplomacy. When it comes to other diplomatical options the CAI is currently quite sensible in its decision-making, but to make another faction your satrapy you've got to use the crude force, it seems.

Well, making satrapies establishment easier for the player could be a double-edged sword. In late game you typically have more gold and if it was made easier for the player tovassalise other factions then you could exploit that just by throwing cash at the faction. I agree and understand with your point but am pointing out that it could potentially be game-breaking as the mid-late game would be much easier. I watched legend of total war review of thrones of brittania where there is a "end game crisis" i.e. (iirc) 8 stacks of norman invader hitting brittish shores. What he did was he threw money at those normans and vassalise them essentially ignoring end game challenge. My point is that it is a sensitive matter.

EDIT: i had some limited success with establishing client states - i managed to vassalise lusitani after beating them in the field and sacking one of their cities. They had 2 cities left and gladly accepted peace along with client status and trade agreement. If you want to vassalise someone instead of conquering them make sure to always release captives.

[Jin-]

Hey Jin!

Do you mean my experience with Ptolemies while playing Seleucids? Honestly, I can't say much about it as I'm normally at odds with them all the time. Historically speaking, pretty much since the establishment of those Hellenistic monarchies they would most of the time hate and fight one another, so I kind of stick to it. Even in those times when we have peace I don't normally attempt to enter into any sort of agreements with them and I don't particularly bother about the relations between us.

Regarding the puppet states, yes, indeed, I have also noticed that in the current CAI-buildup it's nearly impossible to make another faction agree to become your satrapy via diplomacy. When it comes to other diplomatical options the CAI is currently quite sensible in its decision-making, but to make another faction your satrapy you've got to use the crude force, it seems.

Thanks for the reply. Yeah meant when playing as Seleucids. Was thinking maybe it's some hard coded or whatever to make it so that Egypt wont/cant accept any of the treaties so AI Seleucid and Egypt wont make a peace.
Then again it could just be the stupid CAI

[Jin-]

Well, making satrapies establishment easier for the player could be a double-edged sword. In late game you typically have more gold and if it was made easier for the player tovassalise other factions then you could exploit that just by throwing cash at the faction. I agree and understand with your point but am pointing out that it could potentially be game-breaking as the mid-late game would be much easier. I watched legend of total war review of thrones of brittania where there is a "end game crisis" i.e. (iirc) 8 stacks of norman invader hitting brittish shores. What he did was he threw money at those normans and vassalise them essentially ignoring end game challenge. My point is that it is a sensitive matter.

EDIT: i had some limited success with establishing client states - i managed to vassalise lusitani after beating them in the field and sacking one of their cities. They had 2 cities left and gladly accepted peace along with client status and trade agreement. If you want to vassalise someone instead of conquering them make sure to always release captives.

Client state works pretty much ok, but i was talking about satraphies/puppet states which AI seems to deny for some reason. ATM i hold whole map from Greece to Baktria and one settlement tribes refuse to take satraphy diplomacy offer even after killing their army and sacking the settlement

[~Seleukos.I.Nikator~]

Well, making satrapies establishment easier for the player could be a double-edged sword. In late game you typically have more gold and if it was made easier for the player tovassalise other factions then you could exploit that just by throwing cash at the faction. I agree and understand with your point but am pointing out that it could potentially be game-breaking as the mid-late game would be much easier. I watched legend of total war review of thrones of brittania where there is a "end game crisis" i.e. (iirc) 8 stacks of norman invader hitting brittish shores. What he did was he threw money at those normans and vassalise them essentially ignoring end game challenge. My point is that it is a sensitive matter.

EDIT: i had some limited success with establishing client states - i managed to vassalise lusitani after beating them in the field and sacking one of their cities. They had 2 cities left and gladly accepted peace along with client status and trade agreement. If you want to vassalise someone instead of conquering them make sure to always release captives.

Client state works pretty much ok, but i was talking about satraphies/puppet states which AI seems to deny for some reason. ATM i hold whole map from Greece to Baktria and one settlement tribes refuse to take satraphy diplomacy offer even after killing their army and sacking the settlement

Since there's such an option in the diplomacy panel it would be nice if we could actually use it, I believe. Thus far I've found the CAI being totally unwilling to accept any such proposals, even when the faction is definitely beaten and about to be conquered entirely. They would accept peace, which is good and sensible, but they would never accept to become a client state/satrapy. Talking about abusing the game mechanics, well, there will always be ways to do so if one really wants to play this way. But that's anyone's choice, of course, and from what I've heard Legend of Total War has some tendency to find and exploit these loopholes.

Thanks for the reply. Yeah meant when playing as Seleucids. Was thinking maybe it's some hard coded or whatever to make it so that Egypt wont/cant accept any of the treaties so AI Seleucid and Egypt wont make a peace.
Then again it could just be the stupid CAI

From what I've experienced thus far there is always a couple of factions in each campaign that it is often very hard to conduct any diplomacy with, so perhaps that's the case for you now with Egypt. Personally, I've actually considered that to be a welcome variety. I don't think, though, that this is something that's hardcoded in the game as the diplomatic stances are basically moddable and through modding you can make every faction to agree to pretty much any proposal you put forward. Check this mod, for example. If you have any diplomatic agreements that you really want to push through and the AI-faction refuses to accept it no matter what, then you can always just turn this mod on for one turn, get your agreement and then turn it off.

[Nordling]

@seleukos, yeah legend is knoen for that, true. I never said that one should do certain things but just knowledge of those possibilities is a welcome one. It's good that they are being pointed out. It would be perfect if CA gathered those information and tried to fix it. As you already said AI's inability to consider it position powerwise is terrible to say the least. It would rather be annihilated than turned to satrapy which is pretty dumb. Also, although you have the option to propose breaking treaties, AI will never consider those.

[~Seleukos.I.Nikator~]

@seleukos, yeah legend is knoen for that, true. I never said that one should do certain things but just knowledge of those possibilities is a welcome one. It's good that they are being pointed out. It would be perfect if CA gathered those information and tried to fix it. As you already said AI's inability to consider it position powerwise is terrible to say the least. It would rather be annihilated than turned to satrapy which is pretty dumb. Also, although you have the option to propose breaking treaties, AI will never consider those.

You know, actually after the recent CAI changes I do overall like the way diplomacy is in the current DeI buildup, especially when it comes to peace agreements. Sometimes I'm really amazed by how well AI-controlled factions read their current balance of power as compared to mine. If they are much weaker they will sue for peace right away. If we are even or if they are stronger than me, they are normally keen to continue the war, though once they've lost some decisive battles they are more disposed to cease the hostilities and very often they will even take the initiative themselves by putting forward the peace proposal. The same applies to the trade agreements, nap's, alliances, etc. It is a really nice balance overall. The only exceptions are currently those client states and, as you said, proposals to break agreements with other factions. It's indeed very hard to make them do so. They are, however, willing to join wars.

[Nordling]

Yeah, normal diplomacy is all right, like day-to-day basis. But if you really want to have a strong interaction with other factions it is much harder to achieve. For example, i would love to attack some smaller faction, beat them in field and force to be neutral in a conflict with a larger faction. It cannot be done in current state. And the client states mechanic is rather lacking as we already established.