Do you find the client state option useful and have they ever turned on you? They seem to be a good way of having to pacify every region. So far.
Printable View
Do you find the client state option useful and have they ever turned on you? They seem to be a good way of having to pacify every region. So far.
None have so far turned on me, but I think it's possible. I find them occasionally useful, but also troublesome, though not to the extent of vassals in Shogun 2. My frustration with them stems from stupidity, mainly. In my Rome campaign, I made the Etruscan League into a client when I took Corsica. They expanded and took Sardinia themselves, then Lilybaeum, then Carthage (!) and Thapsus, only to lose all of it back to Corsica. Since then they've retaken Sardinia, lost it to one of the many returning Carthage factions (every time there's a revolt in western Africa the faction returns to the game), retaken it, lost it to a revolt, and have now been blockading it for more than 50 years without ever assaulting it or even laying siege to it.
I took on Libya as a client (at their request) thinking that if I controlled Carthago while they had the rest of the province of Africa it would count towards one of my optional missions. They lost both Macomades and Lepcis to revolt, and again proceeded to blockade them to infinity. I was even thinking of revoking their client status and attacking them just to get rid of those damned fleets.
Fleets blockading ports indefinitely is a bug that was solved with the latest patch I think (or I guess anyways since I didn't really read much, other than 'AI improvements')
This situation here had been going on for 40 or 50 turns: http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/...9F081D8E071EE/
Once I loaded the game after installing the patch, the first thing that happened was a funny battle that involved 5 different factions ^^
:laugh4: Who came out on top from all that mess?Quote:
the first thing that happened was a funny battle that involved 5 different factions
Well, Sparta, who originally kicked it all off, landed a unit of Royal Spartans (General I believe) on the beach, alongside a row of ships from other factions, Massilia and Nova Carthago and they all went and did nothing, except for the Spartans, who got themselves murdered by defensive scorpions on towers. My army came in from the only land route and I decided to send all my light and crap stuff to go and set fire to a gate, cause prepared as we all were after 50 years of nothing happening, no one brought any siege equipment.
In the end, the Roman faction died, the Spartan general died, some Massilia slingers caught a few shots from scorpions and half my army died to the stupid things trying to set fire to a gate.
i subdued a faction, which promptly betrayed me next turn by attacking another city while my army that subdued me was still in range of their last city. it may have done it because the command was already issued before they got subdued. im not sure.
As Rome, after I knocked out Carthage, Nuvo Carthago agreed to become my client. It was and currently is still at war with some Iberians. Previous non-aggression pacts (and other commitments) have caused me to reject two requests thus far to aid my client in the war. When I’m done subduing Africa I may move west and sort things out but I’m curious to see how it shakes out in the meanwhile. NC could win, it could get destroyed, it could turn on me, the Iberians could make war on me: there are quite a few possible outcomes.
I've never been betrayed by a client state/satrap. As Egypt, I have Arachosia and Qidri as satraps and both proved highly useful when the Khorasmii declared war on me while I was busy elsewhere. The only time I've found it to be a problem was when I took on Persia as a satrap and about 20 turns later, long term ally Athens declared war on Persia and I had to end my arrangement with Persia. Shortly after that, I began to have factions all over the map cancel trade and non aggression treaties with me. I'm not certain that the two events are linked, but it's the only explanation I could come up with.
Satraps can also refuse trade agreements and cancel existing trade agreements with their faction master, which I find to be a bit odd.
I find them kind of expensive for their benefits. The amount you have tom pay is excessive compared to the benefits. I usually have to pay 10 grand or more and my biggest benefit is that they always pay less than 200 per turn. On top of this they usually only have 1 territory and drag you into battles. It does make a good excuse however to enter a war without being aggressive. I found the cheapest way to get trade rights with a client state is that when they request you go to war with one of their enemies, you counter offer with trade rights included in the deal. After figuring that out I will try to make free ones by offering "become client state", trade rights and I will go to war with the faction you are at war with. It may work without having to exchange money.
I have had plenty of nations offer to become my client state for free but, I was always in a predicament that I could not properly defend them if I needed to so I turned them down.
I've found it beneficial in some cases, and not so much in others. Early in my campaign I was in the process of conquering Sparta, but when down to one region, he offered to make peace and become my client. I figured, "well, let's see what happens". Soon after I quickly subjugated and made Athens a client as well. Initially both nations had very strong neg diplomatic modifiers to me because of the recent war, and would not trade with me. Over time, however, that has shifted and now in late mid-game, Athens one of my friendliest nations and biggest trade partners (although to this day Sparta remains somewhat snitty). Negative diplo feelings aside, however, the Athens/Sparta combination proved pretty strong in the east, and conquered lots of regions on their own. Plus, having these two Hellenic factions on my side slowly brought around quite a few other Greek states, now I'm buddies (either voluntarily client or even military allies) with just about all of them. Result; tons of "blue" acreage counting toward victory conditions, secure eastern frontiers allowing my legions to focus elsewhere, alongside steady, secure, and substantial tribute/trade income streams. Probably not bringing in quite the amount of money they might under my direct rule, but considering zero public order, rebuilding, and military occupation headaches, a trade-off I was happy to make.
My chief take-away is that most piddly factions are probably not worth "clientizing", but taking on a relatively strong client state who seems on good terms with several other factions can be very helpful in the long run.
My primary annoyance with client states that I think should be promptly corrected right now is trade. If one is strong enough to subjugate and compel a faction at spearpoint to end its political independence, seems one would be able to compel them into a forced trade agreement as well. Game currently doesn't work this way, however, which I think is a little strange.
I could not agree more. They should also offer you up their Women, when it pleases you...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bramborough
Usually anyone who I can easily turn into a client I'd rather just take over.
They don't automatically approve trade, the money they are supposed to pay you is broken and shows zero payments, and they don't count towards controlling provinces.
I'd say they are in about the same state as the rest of the game.