A thought on independent cities

[Hildico]

I've been playing mostly as the Greeks and one of the most obvious new features of this mod is the way relations with independent cities have been represented. When someone attacks a free Hellenic city like Sinope or Thermon you automatically end up at war with the aggressor as your people demand you come to the aid of poor oppressed Greeks, wherever they may be. This is one of my favourite features of EB and one which I would like to see built on.

What seems to be missing to me are events if the opposite happens. If I attack one of these cities, surely my citizens would get upset. If they're so worried about the freedoms of these people, they don't want to see my army killing their men, enslaving their women, burning their farms etc. Could this not also be represented by some sort of scripted event? Perhaps riots in some cities, or a small rebellion somewhere, some bad traits for my leader, some sort of economic hit....?

They way things are set up at the moment the following sequence of events is perfectly possible:
1. Epirus attacks Thermon, angering my people, who demand I do something to counter this unfounded aggression.
2. Bowing to public pressure I eventually send an army to relieve Thermon and save our Hellenic brothers.
3. Having seen off Epirus, I notice that the garrison in Thermon has been weakened by the long siege, storm the city and slaughter everyone inside it.
4. Back home, my people hail me as an all conquering hero.

Am I the only one who sees an inconsistency there?

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Help us think about some appropriate effects then within the reality of what the system can do and we would definitely think about it.

[Geoffrey S]

Perhaps you're 'just there temporarily to help the city back on its feet'?

[NightStar]

You were justing guiding a stray city back into your protection.....Your people would have thought it a crime if one of the hellenic cities would have fallen to Epeiros

[Divinus Arma]

The question would be:

"How do we peacefully incorporate allied free cities into our empire without violence or bribery?"


The answer would be:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1027241&postcount=22

[jebes]

OK, I have seen that WAY TOO many times today.

****(gouges eyes out)****

[ScionTheWorm]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1027241&postcount=22

[King of the dutch]

What seems to be missing to me are events if the opposite happens. If I attack one of these cities, surely my citizens would get upset. If they're so worried about the freedoms of these people, they don't want to see my army killing their men, enslaving their women, burning their farms etc.

Why would they not? I've been reading Polybius and Plutarch lately and well, you would be hailed as a hero! You're citizens might actually 'ask' you to go there and kick some tyrranical/aristocratic butt. (or democratic for that matter). If you see it as a city with a tyrant (which al good greeks should despise) you're a good, industrious, virtuous greek.

They way things are set up at the moment the following sequence of events is perfectly possible:
1. Epirus attacks Thermon, angering my people, who demand I do something to counter this unfounded aggression.
2. Bowing to public pressure I eventually send an army to relieve Thermon and save our Hellenic brothers.
3. Having seen off Epirus, I notice that the garrison in Thermon has been weakened by the long siege, storm the city and slaughter everyone inside it.
4. Back home, my people hail me as an all conquering hero.

Am I the only one who sees an inconsistency there?

No here you have a point. If you exterminate everubody thats not the way to do it. You should occupy them. (altough selling into slavery could mean to root out the rival party or the tyrant's supporters).

You present an interesting idea though. But i think the game is a little bit to limited to allow for such a diversity in possibilities. Till that time if you think of it as you being a hero restoring power to the people or whatever (and at the same time incorporating them in you're League/ alliance) it is perfectly oke (and historicaly valid)

[Hildico]

No here you have a point. If you exterminate everubody thats not the way to do it. You should occupy them. (altough selling into slavery could mean to root out the rival party or the tyrant's supporters).

I'm beginning to think I should have made no mention of exterminating populations. This seems to have been focussed on by quite a few people in this thread but is deflecting away from the issue I was trying to highlight. I'm pretty sure you can already get negative traits for that sort of behaviour anyway.

My point was that perhaps there should be some fallout from attacking a neutral city that your people want you to support. The way I interpret the scripted events putting the Greeks at war with anyone who attacks an Hellenic city is that it represents political pressure from the populace. Either my leader declares war or a mob burns down his palace and strings him up from the nearest tree. I just think that the same mob probably doesn't want me declaring war on these same cities. Any mention of exterminating cities was just stretching the point in an attempt to make the inconsistency clearer.

The biggest flaws with the implementation of independent cities all stem from what CA have given modders to work with- limited diplomatic interaction with "rebels", a faction cap which means independents can never be fully represented and the fact that if you want to add a city to your empire the only available options are to bribe or to invade. Unless the EB team have some strokes of absolute genius hidden away to solve these, anything that can be done is more a workaround than a solution. Mind you, some of the workarounds have been pretty impressive

If the sort of things I've suggested can't be implented then so be it, but if you don't ask you don't get! Some things have already been implemented in EB and other mods that I would never have thought possible when I first bought the game so when I have little ideas I'll probably keep posting them just on the off chance that they are possible (and worth doing.)

[King of the dutch]

I am sorry i misinterpreted you. Maybe a solution would be to have scripts that 'declare' an independent city 'worthy of conquering'. For instance a messag 'coming from an independent city stating they have been taken over by a tyrant wich would entitle you to conquer them without a negative trait (assuming that would happen which was what you were pointing at right?). Yo could even get a positive trait then for doing that. Conqering the city without such a message might otherwise result in negativepublic order bonuses or if possibel a tyrant like trait for that city (meaning revolts would occur when the conquering general would govern that city). Is this closer to what you were saying and maybe even a valid option?

grtz kotd

[Hildico]

I am sorry i misinterpreted you. Maybe a solution would be to have scripts that 'declare' an independent city 'worthy of conquering'. For instance a messag 'coming from an independent city stating they have been taken over by a tyrant wich would entitle you to conquer them without a negative trait (assuming that would happen which was what you were pointing at right?). Yo could even get a positive trait then for doing that. Conqering the city without such a message might otherwise result in negativepublic order bonuses or if possibel a tyrant like trait for that city (meaning revolts would occur when the conquering general would govern that city). Is this closer to what you were saying and maybe even a valid option?

grtz kotd

Yes, That's the sort of thing I was thinking about. Whether it's possible to implement is a completely different question, though. I think the Greeks already get positive traits for capturing cities like Korinth or Thermon. It might be interesting if these traits depended on whether or not the people there actually wanted to be "liberated."

[Malrubius]

The game lets you get a city in 3 ways: conquest, bribery, and diplomacy with the faction. Not much we can do about this. Historically, bribing a whole city was not too common. More common was coercion through display of force or intimidation, rather than outright battle. Perhaps you can think of bribery as consisting of such coercion and threats.

The way I think of these battles over allied cities is that you are fighting one internal faction trying to take over control of the city. You establish your own rule in its place (especially dependent on the type of government you install, which can be very lax and lenient). You're not defeating the city and all its inhabitants, just one political faction.

[Geoffrey S]

The game lets you get a city in 3 ways: conquest, bribery, and diplomacy with the faction. Not much we can do about this. Historically, bribing a whole city was not too common. More common was coercion through display of force or intimidation, rather than outright battle. Perhaps you can think of bribery as consisting of such coercion and threats.

I tend to think of bribing a city, and the cost thereof as representing the cost to convince a small amount of people to let in troops, vote for foreign access to the city, assassinating the leading opposition or any number of such things along those lines. Not the actual cost of convincing the entire population; this'd be why the cost rises when a loyal faction governor is present, since he'd make it harder to convince the local government or disaffected elements to overplay their hands. Paying him would cost more, yet once he was on your side the rest would swiftly follow.

It's either logical if you think about it, or I'm over-analyzing.

[Malrubius]

Good explanation. This is just a computer game, so you have to fill in the gaps with your imagination sometimes.

[Ad Dei Majora Gloriam]

The game lets you get a city in 3 ways: conquest, bribery, and diplomacy with the faction. Not much we can do about this. Historically, bribing a whole city was not too common. More common was coercion through display of force or intimidation, rather than outright battle. Perhaps you can think of bribery as consisting of such coercion and threats.

Let me just start by saying hi

Anyway, I agree with Malrubius in that military intimidation went a long way in making a bribe feasible, but I was wondering if it were possible to increase the chance of a successful bribing attempt (taking into account the skill of the diplomat, of course) or to reduce the cost of the attempt based on the number of troops in the enemy province (i.e. military presence).

Not sure if what CA has given the modders can do this but it'd be cool if it were possible...

[Malrubius]

Let me just start by saying hi

Anyway, I agree with Malrubius in that military intimidation went a long way in making a bribe feasible, but I was wondering if it were possible to increase the chance of a successful bribing attempt (taking into account the skill of the diplomat, of course) or to reduce the cost of the attempt based on the number of troops in the enemy province (i.e. military presence).

Not sure if what CA has given the modders can do this but it'd be cool if it were possible...

Welcome to the Org

The skill of the diplomat has no effect on bribe effectiveness, from what I can tell. I think bribery cost of settlements and armies is tied to their recruitment cost.