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.