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