PROTECTORATE as it is really suppose to be.

[LordKhaine]

I would say gross income. Half of the profit would simply means that they don't have to pay anything ^^

If it was half their gross income, many factions would be doomed for a lifetime of negative profit.

[Akka]

If it was half their gross income, many factions would be doomed for a lifetime of negative profit.

As for half total income idea, I think 50% is too much and I agree with lordkhaine it will leave to protected faction no profit at all.

Well, I disagree.

Money only pay for three things :
- Military units.
- Wages.
- Buildings.

What makes factions go bankrupt, is the enormous amount of units they buy and support. But the point of a protectorate, is that you have only a token military, the protector does the job, and you pay him for it.
To pay only 50 % of the income for defense, is much less than what factions usually do. The protectorate will simply have to make drastic cuts in its military, and concentrate on buildings. But well, isn't that the point ? :)

[praetorians cavalry]

Your opinion is good and interesting!Although it is a little too complex. I personally like the protectorate system in Knights of Honor.I think it is good for RTW to refer it.As a protecting faction,you can receive the folloing benefits:
1)Take 20% of your vassal's orginal income(not profit).
2)Can force your vassal to break relationship with certain factions,as well as order them to attack your enemies without difficulties.
3)They are unable to betray you without declaring independence first,and doing this will damage them severely(they lose relationship with all other factions in the world,the loyalty of their people also drop.some factions also have hostile diplomacy with the betraying vassal ).
4)The only way to declare independence without having trouble is to have a good reason.e.g the protecting factions dont do their duty:not protect their vassals against enemies,or push the vassal too hard,otherwise if you are a vassal and you want to rebel without good reasons,you have to make use of your spies,have them to "spoil" the cooperation between you and your overlord.
Well,I hope the protectorate bug will be solved in the earlies patch.

[ToranagaSama]

I like your suggestions, except:

4.Protected faction can build only basic troops (such as peasants and town watch) but no professional troops.

5.Protected faction can not build any new military buildings.

The following is contradictory:

10.Protected faction must obey certain demands from protecting faction such as “attack faction”.

You want the Protectorate to *attack* with just Peasants and Town Watch. I think that's a bit much, imo.

Item 3 is interestings,

3.Foreign politics of protected faction will depend fully on protecting faction, for instance you can’t attack factions which are allied with protecting faction or you automatically get a war stance with a faction that was attacked by protecting faction.

in effect a Protectorate would respond with AI actions similar to the other Roman factions. Interesting, but probably a LOT of coding to make it work, not to mention CPU power. Might be more than low level systems could handle. I wonder what unforeseen issues this might cause?

3.They can still recruit mercenary troops and build decent military force.

Why allow mercenary troops, but not allow the Protectorate to build troops better than Peasants and Town Watch?

Other than the above questions, I like very much.

---

Presently, what conditions are necessary to *compel* a faction to accept or seek Protectorate status? I'm not sure?

I think the requirement s/b capturing a certain percentage of a factions cities. Somewhere between 60-75% of the cities, and a faction would accept Protection.

This would allow a stronger faction to began a campaign against a weaker faction, while allow that faction to take cities from an even weaker faction in order to maintain a sufficient *margin* of cities to forestall being compelled into a Protectorate.

I think this would work well, and would closely mimick hisorical manner in which groups such as the Gauls were pushed out of their original lands by, I think the Mongols; forcing them to encroach upon the territory of the Romans, etc.

[ToranagaSama]

Thinking on this more, Protectorates s/b allowed to Train any troops they can afford and build any buildings they can afford, as long as they continue to pay Tribute.

If a Player finds that the Protectorate is, training or building too much, then using Diplomacy the Player could direct the Protectorate to cease and desist, and/or the Player could be given the capability to set limits upon what or how much a Protectorate will be allowed.

If the Protectorate refuses to keep within the limitations and/or refuses the directions of the Protector, then the Protector should do what was done throughout history. That is march an army over and teach the Protectorate a little lesson; part of the that might include destroying whatever buildings necessary with the proceeds going to the Protector.

In the alternative, if the Protectorate is especially problematic, there's always the alternative or additional option of *Extermination*. Extermination would provide a nice monetary compensation for the trouble, and along with the destruction of buildings, the Protectorate wouldn't be much trouble, at least for awhile.

For example, with little population, it won't matter what buildings are present the Protectorate won't be able to build a force large enough to be of concern; or, if the mililtary buildings are destroyed, it'll be awhile before the Protectorate is capable of building a formidable force. Doing both would render the Protectorate pretty amiable. Of course, one would leave the economic buildings.

---

Additionally, Protectorate should not be allowed to place its family members as govenors. They should normally be auto-governed, BUT, the conquering faction can place *its* family members as Govenors. Placing Govenors from the conquering faction would allow the Player to choose the level of Taxes.

For example, with a conquering faction's family member in place as Govenor, then the Player would have full control over the Protectorate's City, including control of its troops. Just as if the City had been fully conquered.

[There would be instances where a Player would choose to place a Govenor in a Protectorate's city, rather than one of its own.]

But with no family member Govenor in place, then the Protectorate would control its own affairs, including troops and troop production, etc.

With a family member Govenor in place, troops inherent to a particular faction, could, not only be trained, but then be placed within the Conquering factions' Army(ies).

With no Govenor, then the troops would only be for the use of the Protectorate, as is the the example cited:

3.Foreign politics of protected faction will depend fully on protecting faction, for instance you can’t attack factions which are allied with protecting faction or you automatically get a war stance with a faction that was attacked by protecting faction.

The Protectorate would move his Army(ies) just as above, but none of that army could be under the direct control of the Conquering Faction, nor be a part of the Conquering Faction's Army(ies).

Playing the Romans (as well as playing other factions), this would lead to (and mimick more truly), true *Auxillary* forces (w/o the mercenary cost).

---

Getting Protectorates *righ* would lead to shorter campaigns. Possibly, short enough, to have Campaign Mulitplay implemented (hint, hint, CA).

Whaddaya think?

Tribute would be required in each case.

[dedmoroz]

Thinking on this more, Protectorates s/b allowed to Train any troops they can afford and build any buildings they can afford, as long as they continue to pay Tribute.

If a Player finds that the Protectorate is, training or building too much, then using Diplomacy the Player could direct the Protectorate to cease and desist, and/or the Player could be given the capability to set limits upon what or how much a Protectorate will be allowed.

If the Protectorate refuses to keep within the limitations and/or refuses the directions of the Protector, then the Protector should do what was done throughout history. That is march an army over and teach the Protectorate a little lesson; part of the that might include destroying whatever buildings necessary with the proceeds going to the Protector.

In the alternative, if the Protectorate is especially problematic, there's always the alternative or additional option of *Extermination*. Extermination would provide a nice monetary compensation for the trouble, and along with the destruction of buildings, the Protectorate wouldn't be much trouble, at least for awhile.

For example, with little population, it won't matter what buildings are present the Protectorate won't be able to build a force large enough to be of concern; or, if the mililtary buildings are destroyed, it'll be awhile before the Protectorate is capable of building a formidable force. Doing both would render the Protectorate pretty amiable. Of course, one would leave the economic buildings.

iI think it's too complex and will need a lot of additional coding and sorting things out.
When I wrote my wish list I tried not to step out too much from the already existing features in the game.
Your suggestions are very interesting but can be rather tricky to implement.
For example, how would you direct the protectorate to do specific actions? You need to add a lot of different negotiation options which will depend on a current game situation, which is quite complex by itself.
Let's hope CA will make 20% of the things we talked here - the diplomatic part of the game will be so much better then...

Additionally, Protectorate should not be allowed to place its family members as govenors. They should normally be auto-governed, BUT, the conquering faction can place *its* family members as Govenors. Placing Govenors from the conquering faction would allow the Player to choose the level of Taxes.

Now u dont want AI faction to run tax rates for you, in case you will become protectorate, so i dont think this idea is a briliant one. i think it will mess the game too much, simply because AI is too stupid to do such tasks effectively.

Getting Protectorates *righ* would lead to shorter campaigns. Possibly, short enough, to have Campaign Mulitplay implemented (hint, hint, CA).

i hope too for campaign i actually love this game so much i bought 2 copies of it - hope i can fix some MP at my work place

[ToranagaSama]

Additionally, Protectorate should not be allowed to place its family members as govenors. They should normally be auto-governed, BUT, the conquering faction can place *its* family members as Govenors. Placing Govenors from the conquering faction would allow the Player to choose the level of Taxes.

Now u dont want AI faction to run tax rates for you, in case you will become protectorate, so i dont think this idea is a briliant one. i think it will mess the game too much, simply because AI is too stupid to do such tasks effectively.

Not sure what you mean by, "in case you will become portectorate"? Do you mean you, as the Player; or, you, as the AI Faction? A Protectorate is/would always be an AI Faction.

The challenge here is in trying to find *good* govenors to run the cities of the Protectorate.

Tribute s/b a percentage of Profit. Consequently, set to Auto, a city would provide the lowest level of Tribute; with a Govenor the Tribute would be greater. The better the Govenor, the greater the Tribute.

Additionally, the Population of the City would need to be *controlled* and kept satisfied, or, at least, appeased. Just as with a regular city, the condition will effect Income, etc.

Again, set to Auto, the needs of the population would be minimally met, with the resultant minimal results; with a Govenor in place, as above, things would be improved commensurate with the quality of the Govenor.

In effect, Protectorate Cities would function just as normal cities, except with the consequent penalities of being a conquered and protected city.

No! I don't *want* the AI to run the tax rates. This is why the Player would need to get his family membes installed as Govenors, in order to reap the full benefits.

Simply adds another level of challenge. Admittedly, it also adds another level of micro-management. For those who don't want the micro-management, they can leave things set to Auto.

This is doable within the existing mechanics of the game.

---

iI think it's too complex and will need a lot of additional coding and sorting things out.
When I wrote my wish list I tried not to step out too much from the already existing features in the game.
Your suggestions are very interesting but can be rather tricky to implement.
For example, how would you direct the protectorate to do specific actions? You need to add a lot of different negotiation options which will depend on a current game situation, which is quite complex by itself.
Let's hope CA will make 20% of the things we talked here - the diplomatic part of the game will be so much better then...

Yes, it would be a bit tricky to implement, and more *thought* time is need than, of course, I applied, but that said, I believe its FULLY doable.

Of course, additional Diplomatic *options* would be necessary, but then since you're dealing with a (potential) Protectorate, there would really be much *negotiating*, more like *Directives*. A beaten enemey must submit or suffer the consqeuences, simple as that.

All that being said, no doubt, a good bit of extensive AI work would be involved. This is something not for a Patch, possibly for an Expansion, certainly this should be done for the next version of TW.

---

Yup, they've simply GOT to get Campaign MP going. RTW's Campaign Map is certainly a step in that direction. The more I play on the Map, the more I see it.

In some interview I read/watched, someone from CA stated/implied that they have a working Campaign MP, but they, apparently, *choose* NOT to release it, as the person *said* it was too long.

Accepting this, then Protectorates, as we're discussing has to be a Key, if not THE Key to shortening a MP Campaign.

Utilizing Protectorates in the manner we're discussing, would allow for a number of different *Win* scenarios. Some would involve a rather long Campaign, others would allow for relatively, if not outright, short Campaigns. This would be so, for both SP and MP.

With something like the *Percentage* system I suggest (btw, what do you think of this???), in both types of Campaigns, particularly a MP Campaign, the immediate focus for Players would be to attack a Human Faction with the aim of conquering enough cities to meet the *Percentage* requirement to Compel a Human Faction/Player into Protectorate status.

In the case of CMP (Campaign MP), with all Human Players/Factions, the Faction could function primarily as outlined in the thread. Yet, would function even better, as the Player's Brain :) would serve in place of the additional AI coding that would be necessary in SP Campaign.

The Dominant Player would simply issue/communicate Order/Directives to the Player functioning as a Protectorate. In effect a CMP would evolve into a sort of *Team* Campaign, with the Dominant Player serving as *Team Leader*, with the intitial and all subsquent Protectorate Players compelled (by the game's mechanics as discussed) to follow the Orders/Directives of the Dominant Player.

Obvisouly, there'd be a bit more to it all, but, I'm thinking, the general outline would work toward the goal of a realistic time frame for CMP.

It would be dependant upon a certain *genius* involved in creating an appropriately configured Map with the appropriate number of Faction Cities/Territories/Provinces,

Simply put, and just for examples sake, each Player might start out with 2 to 6 cities (balancing the cities economic and military strengths and potential *right* would be extremely important). The requirement for compulsion of Protectorate states might be 50%.

A Player establishing *Dominant* status would only be required to Conquer in varying cases, as little as a single city to 3 cities.

A CMP would invovle a period of intial economic and military buildup (watch out for the Rushers); and the a scecond stage with a flury of Combat, where Player would attempt relatively quick Strikes with the goal of making one neighbor or another a Protectorate.

Then together, then would begin a third (more strategic) stage, where they would attempt to use their combined strength. A Dominant Player would attempt to make the most of his Protectorate's stengths, but be wary, as the Protectorate could turn on him, be bribed, or possibly enter into a conspiracy with another Player, for the promise of being released from Protectorate status, etc.

Treaties/Alliancess would be another Key, as well. In the first stage making the right Treaties/Alliances would be important, with the penalies of breaking a Treaty/Alliance being EXTREMELY severe, to the point of being, intitially, probhibitive. This is necessary in order to move the game along relatively quickly. It would be an absolute must to make Treaties of Non-Agreesion, in order that a Players could focus upon specific Target Factions/Players. Otherwise a CMP game would devolve into Total Chaos with protacted fighting and taking WAY too long, probably with no true win scenario being achieved.

A strong Treaty/Alliance function, would allow the game to evolve into just a few *strong* Factions competiting against one another in a *race* to conquer everyone else, as opposed to beating up upon one another. It would simply take to long to beat down another strong player.

The same sort of *Percentage* formula could be employed as an ULTIMATE win scenario. A Player would be required to either Conquer outright a certain percentage of the Campaign Map; or, put a certain percentage of Factions under Protectorate status; or, some percentage combination of Conquered and Protectectorate cities/factions.

---

Sorry, for all that, just started thinking and typing. Time to start a new CMP thread! Sorry for the typos too, of which I'm sure there are plenty!!

~ToranagaSama