Senate missions - negotiating a protectorate

Hello. I decided to post this message because my bug list contains an issue with the "negotiate a protectorate" Senate mission, remarking that this is a forum/community request. I developed the Senate (amongst other things) so I thought I should share with you a couple of important subtleties that aren't made obvious by the manual or general gameplay.

Negotiating a protectorate is not easy. This mission is only issued if the target faction has < 4 settlements and < 5 family members and the Senate is at war with them. To tempt the faction into submission you need to be at war with them, threaten them quite severely, particularly by massing extensive troops on their borders, blockading their ports and putting the entire faction under pressure. Once that's in place, the faction should be more amenable to subjugation. You may have to be prepared to hand over large swathes of their territory back to them, so consider this if you choose to accept the mission. If the Senate is no longer at war with them, they will expire the mission with no cost to your faction.

Don't forget, the Senate will assign you more unpleasant missions with more dire consequences for failure rather than rewards for success as your popularity with them tumbles. At some point, you may have to just bite the bullet and accept the punishment - you can avoid some of these if you get elected to the office of Quaestor/Censor. Bear in mind that the office of Censor requires the official to have served in lower offices, so if lower officials are killed somehow, say in a freak gardening accident, before they complete their tenure, the pool of candidates to choose from will be reduced.

I hope this helps.

Cheers,
J Guy Davidson.

I believe, the forum request was actually for fixing the current bug that having a faction as your protectorate (as opposed to luring into being a protectorate) drains your treasury...

Cheers for that.

So when you say we need to "threaten them quite severely" just how severe do you mean? When I fought the Gauls they kept on giving me the "freedom speech" despite me having two full stacks running around their last (lightly garissoned) territory and their only port blockaded!

I lost patience with them and eliminated them, its easy enough and cancels the mission.

Quote:

---

I believe, the forum request was actually for fixing the current bug that having a faction as your protectorate (as opposed to luring into being a protectorate) drains your treasury...

---

yes that would be an idea. According to everything I have seen a protectorate gets a vast amount of cash from the "protector" faction. Shouldn't it be the other way around? They should be paying for protection, not the other way around!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hatcat

Hello. I decided to post this message because my bug list contains an issue with the "negotiate a protectorate" Senate mission, remarking that this is a forum/community request. I developed the Senate (amongst other things) so I thought I should share with you a couple of important subtleties that aren't made obvious by the manual or general gameplay.

Negotiating a protectorate is not easy. This mission is only issued if the target faction has < 4 settlements and < 5 family members and the Senate is at war with them. To tempt the faction into submission you need to be at war with them, threaten them quite severely, particularly by massing extensive troops on their borders, blockading their ports and putting the entire faction under pressure. Once that's in place, the faction should be more amenable to subjugation. You may have to be prepared to hand over large swathes of their territory back to them, so consider this if you choose to accept the mission. If the Senate is no longer at war with them, they will expire the mission with no cost to your faction.

Don't forget, the Senate will assign you more unpleasant missions with more dire consequences for failure rather than rewards for success as your popularity with them tumbles. At some point, you may have to just bite the bullet and accept the punishment - you can avoid some of these if you get elected to the office of Quaestor/Censor. Bear in mind that the office of Censor requires the official to have served in lower offices, so if lower officials are killed somehow, say in a freak gardening accident, before they complete their tenure, the pool of candidates to choose from will be reduced.

I hope this helps.

Cheers,
J Guy Davidson.

---

Thanks for the info, Hatcat.

You might want to consider writing this explanation into the readme of the next patch you release because there is nothing in the game or manual that tells how protectorate status works ??????

Lots of people have complained about not being able to get this part of the game to work.

Thanks very, very much Guy! This is going straight into the diplomacy doc.

*runs off skipping -- "A quote! A quote!"*

"I believe, the forum request was actually for fixing the current bug that having a faction as your protectorate (as opposed to luring into being a protectorate) drains your treasury..."

Spotted, fixed.

"So when you say we need to "threaten them quite severely" just how severe do you mean? When I fought the Gauls they kept on giving me the "freedom speech" despite me having two full stacks running around their last (lightly garissoned) territory and their only port blockaded!"

Mmmm. That seems wrong: they should roll over and let you tickle their tummy. I'll alert the authorities.

Thanks for sharing it with us, Hatcat :)

But well, as it was pointed, the main problem with protectorate is that it's bugged for now.
The second problem, is that we simply don't know at all WHAT a protectorate is. There is some guesses, based on the word and some hints inside the game, but that's all. No definite explanation.

Additionnally, I think that the amount of pressure required to make a faction bend is hugely exagerrated. Even reduced to one province, with a puny army, after ten years of constant crushing defeat, they still ASK for something in exchange of peace/protectorate.

Well, if it's more costly to make peace, or to make them a protectorate, than to eradicate them, you can guess what's the option most commonly used...
As you don't have any penaly if you destroy a faction when you are ordered to make it a protectorate, it's what I do. No sense in giving back five regions and half my treasury while all the forces they have to counter my legions is 240 peasants...

I've had the same result. As the Bruti, the senate wanted me to make the Dacians a protectorate. They were down to their final city (Lovovisce, I think, in any event it was landlocked), it had one general and two units of falxmen as garrison, I had a full 20 unit army (general, 1st cohort, 9 legionary cohorts, 2 roman cav, 2 legionary cav, 1 wardog, 4 archer auxiliae) outside the walls, and another pretty much identical army within the borders. I got the "Our freedom is precious to us" speech, no matter what I demanded or offered, so I just killed them.

Great info, thanks for posting! One of the better aspects of RTW has been the Senate missions in my opinion. I really did enjoy them.

I understand the need to destroy a faction if you get a protectorate mission but the consequences if the senate has deemed in the diplomacy screen that the nation should be made into a protectorate and they are destroyed doesn't your senate rating plummet? It has every time i've destroyed a faction when i should have been a bit more softer with the military touch.

I had both a high senate popularity and people popularity in one game before i destroyed the egyptions. After the mission to make them a protectorate disappeared i had a senate approval rating of about 3. I understand the senate would have been afraid of my power with the people but such a dramatic shift?

Quote:

---

Mmmm. That seems wrong: they should roll over and let you tickle their tummy. I'll alert the authorities.

---

Many thanks for that!

After all the campaigns I have done, so far I have yet to make anyone a protectorate. But it was really strange in my opinion that even though they were so pathetically weak they were still defiant, and still rebuffed all attempts at reaching a peaceful settlement... (even a ceasefire at one point)

in my experience, the senate just sends you a note saying that the mission (to makes someone a protectorate) is no more relevant... they seem to miss the point that it was YOU who rendered it irrelevant by destroying the faction in question :) i guess, it's more difficult to use this solution to the protectorate issue when they request that you make a faction your protectorate when you do not share any borders with it and have not way to ferry armies there in the time aloted.

In my last campaign (Brutii, m/m), I convinced both the Scythians and Parthians to become protectorates. With the Scythians, they had 4 provinces left, I had 4 armies in their lands, full stacks. I offered them large sums of money (30000), but they refused. I offered them the province of theirs I had just ravaged. They refused. I offered them map information, they totally caved. Same thing happened with the Parthians. They are suckers for map information. Now, I don't know why I would want 2 protectorates, what with the financial drain (which I did notice), but it certainly freed up a few armies from piddling little border wars for the much larger civil war.

I've seen both of these too. You're about to eliminate them and they drain your money or refuse to give in (so you crush their pathetic souls).

While we've got you here hatcat, maybe you'd like to tell us what we were supposed get for taking on a protectorate i.e. do they pay tribute, perform like allies, allow us to recruit their troops?

Nice. It is so gratifying to see the developers using this forum to communicate. Thanks!

The initial post hints at something that I have suspected since day one: There is a lot more depth to this game than we could possibly know, as evidenced by the dynamic that you describe about the Senate missions and the heirarchy of Senate positions. None of this is even hinted at in the game manual, nor is it in the Prima strategy guide. Now, I assume that you guys who developed this game were not heavily involved in writing the manual, but somebody should realize how much of a problem this really is! Because so many aspects of this game are undocumented, they are completely missed. Thus much of your work is going unappreciated, and much of the depth of the gaming experience is being missed, because there is no way for us to anticipate these dynamics. I don't know what can be done at this point, but a giant online FAQ or something like that would certainly be a start! Heck, I'd go spend another $20 on a strategy guide if one was available that was worth it. I'd have plenty of reason to gripe about, because the game manual is so poor, but I have enough goodwill toward CA that I would get over it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orvis Tertia

Nice. It is so gratifying to see the developers using this forum to communicate. Thanks!

The initial post hints at something that I have suspected since day one: There is a lot more depth to this game than we could possibly know, as evidenced by the dynamic that you describe about the Senate missions and the heirarchy of Senate positions. None of this is even hinted at in the game manual, nor is it in the Prima strategy guide...[big snip]...

---

Post feedback and "gameplay depth" features you uncover in the Forum,
pm one of the staff (Soly or Catiline) that you have done so and they will attempt to collate them all into a Guide of sorts.
Cheers,
B.

My original submission for the manual on the Senate was a few thousand words. Indeed, to completely cover every intricacy of the game would take a mammoth effort of writing, editing and costly printing. The best we can hope for is to design features whose subtleties emerge through continued exposure and discussion amongst other game players. Good features will reward the player with a sense of "ooh, that's clever" long into the gameplay cycle. It's hard to tell at this stage how well that's worked. It's under review for future products.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hatcat

My original submission for the manual on the Senate was a few thousand words. Indeed, to completely cover every intricacy of the game would take a mammoth effort of writing, editing and costly printing. The best we can hope for is to design features whose subtleties emerge through continued exposure and discussion amongst other game players. Good features will reward the player with a sense of "ooh, that's clever" long into the gameplay cycle. It's hard to tell at this stage how well that's worked. It's under review for future products.

---

what speaks against posting your original submission? that would be helpfull... i guess its been nested somewhere on your harddrive :D

denon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hatcat

Indeed, to completely cover every intricacy of the game would take a mammoth effort of writing, editing and costly printing.

---

While I understand your sentiment here, I must disagree. I am an editor by trade (mostly magazines and newspapers), and I understand what is involved in putting together something like a game manual. It's certainly not necessary to "completely cover every intricacy of the game," which is a bit hyperbolic, but a much more comprehensive guide could have been produced without breaking the bank if it had been a priority.

The real disappointment to me was the Prima strategy guide, which I had expected (with good reason, I think) to be more comprehensive and full of insider knowledge. Sadly, the guide leaves one with the impression that the writer(s) had no contact with the developers at all. I have grown accustomed to the idea of paying extra to get the "complete" game manual, and this has been made more palatable in the past because strategy guides are often enjoyable to read in their own right (the one for MTW was pretty good). But the one for RTW was a downer.

Anyway, I don't mean to bust your chops about this. I hope it is taken as it is meant: constructive criticism from a fan who really appreciates the product you've produced. (And if you want a bid for the production of your next game manual, let me know! ~;) )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orvis Tertia

While I understand your sentiment here, I must disagree. I am an editor by trade (mostly magazines and newspapers), and I understand what is involved in putting together something like a game manual. It's certainly not necessary to "completely cover every intricacy of the game," which is a bit hyperbolic, but a much more comprehensive guide could have been produced without breaking the bank if it had been a priority.

The real disappointment to me was the Prima strategy guide, which I had expected (with good reason, I think) to be more comprehensive and full of insider knowledge. Sadly, the guide leaves one with the impression that the writer(s) had no contact with the developers at all. I have grown accustomed to the idea of paying extra to get the "complete" game manual, and this has been made more palatable in the past because strategy guides are often enjoyable to read in their own right (the one for MTW was pretty good). But the one for RTW was a downer.

Anyway, I don't mean to bust your chops about this. I hope it is taken as it is meant: constructive criticism from a fan who really appreciates the product you've produced. (And if you want a bid for the production of your next game manual, let me know! ~;) )

---

I totally agree anbout the Prima Strategy Guide. I still find it a useful reference for unit stats. But the rest is half finished. Where are all the stats for the Greek Temples. Other factions have the same prob. no stats for some of the buildings. Seems to me that maybe the writers had no contact with the developers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orvis Tertia

...Heck, I'd go spend another $20 on a strategy guide if one was available that was worth it....

---

I think anyone around here who has the extra $20 would, without a doubt. There's obviously tons of the game that is being missed. I'd spend that much for a manual-sized download if it had solid information straight from the developers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tamur

I think anyone around here who has the extra $20 would, without a doubt. There's obviously tons of the game that is being missed. I'd spend that much for a manual-sized download if it had solid information straight from the developers.

---

OK, CA, fly me to the UK, give me three days of Q&A chat about the game with you guys (and buy me a few pints and some fish and chips), and I'll write and design a PDF manual that you can sell online for $19.99 and split the profits with me 60/40. Whaddya say?
:deal:

OK, to go back to the apparent reason that this post was stickied, I can think of two things in the realm of "undocumented features" that might benefit from further explanation.

One of these is what appears to be a natural affinity/natural enmity between factions. It's the dynamic that causes the cultural differences, but I get a sense that it affects diplomacy as well. For instance, Gauls and Spaniards seem to really dislike Romans and Carthaginians, making a lasting peace among these factions unlikely. I would be interested to know how far-reaching these dynamics are.

Another area where knowledge is lacking is in the effect of the capital city and the location of the faction leader. Is there any benefit to getting your faction leader to the capital, as there was, I think, in MTW? If you get a young faction leader who is a good manager but an inexperienced general, are there real advantages to going on a campaign with him to boost his command rating, or are you better off just letting him sit at home and... manage. These are all questions that I think people are feeling out to varying degrees of success, but I wonder if there is a whole layer of the onion that we are just not seeing.

Thank you very much, HatCat, I do appreciate (and pretty sure many others as well) your post here.

Still, there is that question which, pretty obvious, is not about any game depth but about basic information: what's the advantage (and disadvantage) of getting yourself a protectorate?

Some questions come naturally:

Do you get money from them guys? (That is theoretically, because right now several gamers say there's a drain from your bank, I suppose it's a bug; I myself couldn't force any other faction into becoming a protectorate yet, though I tried a lot ~:confused: ).

How much?

Do you get military access?

Can you ask them "protectorees" to perform specific actions? (attack x faction or something else?)

How can they leave the protectorate? Can you change your mind?

other questions are waiting in line, but this would help for now.

IMHO, this isn't about game depth, it's just info needed to understand one (supposedly) major feature of the game. Through diplomacy you've got clear options like sell map info, broker trade rights, accept or we will attack (quite self-explanatory, I believe ~:) ) but this protectorate gizmo remains a mystery. Maybe I'm not such a bright player and should spend more time investigating, but it seems the whole community couldn't figure out...

I belive RTW is a great game but somehow obvious matters where left aside. Some could be patched, but others simply explained in this kind of forums as well.

There is another reason for that (kind, I hope) request. Not all of your customers have access to "prima guides" and stuff. For me (living in Romania) this kind of extra-information, that should have been provided with the original game but has not, is basically inaccessible. I've noticed that the TW community has lots of members from other countries than UK, US, Canada etc. Maybe someone should think about this.

I'm a big fan of the Total War series. I own STW, STW-MI, MTW, MTW-VI and now RTW as original games, even if I always could get a pirate copy of them. Imagine that one original TW series game is something like 10% of the medium monthly income in Romania (would you guys spend 200-300 USD for a game?) while a pirate copy is about 3 bucks. So I was correct to CA. May I hope that CA will be correct towards me? I now that this part of the world isn't big market for you, but I hope game developers like CA care about their customers more than others. It's a matter of company ethics.
:bow:

PS - sorry guys for the long post... I felt like speaking up.

I agree..... Why not just invade them ? ~;)

Not exactly on topic , but if you have trouble getting the target to submit and don't want to lose Senate approval , assasinate the targets family members . Not only does the mission become void , but you seem to get denyability enough that the Senate doesn't appear to blame you .
I did this the second time the Senate asked me to submit Dacia {I had made them protectorate _just conquered 2 of their three provinces , parked a big army outside their capital , sabotaged their buildings and said Protectorate +your two other provinces back or death ... they capitulated . Then a few turns later the Brutii beseiged them for apparantly no reason !} and I really wasn't interested so I just killed their last family member {he probably wasn't going to last long anyway} with the Assasin I had there and my Senate approval was as good as before .
I didn't notice a lot of money gone , but my ecconomy was close to the wire and I din't pay it too much attention .


A downloaded uber manual would be nice , if it gave indepth information that is missing .
It would make modding much easier . Though I imagine there are contractual barriers as far as this game is concerned . :sad:

Back on topic, what are the rules for a faction staying at war with you. I was playing as thrace, and had a long war going with the macedonians, then suddenly one turn, as i was about to attack them, it said 'do you want to declare war on this faction'. I had totally missed their neutrality. Then, the next turn, they broke the truce i had no idea existed. What's up with that!?! I even had a fort on their land!

The rules of war + peace need explaining!

Did you make an alliance with one of their allies? That can cause a ceasefire between the two of you.

Ok....that was it, i allied with the greeks.

Then, 5 turns later, i began a bribing campaign. 10 turns later, the macedonians were destroyed. lol