Seleucid Generals and Client Rulers

[Ravenic]

Hay thar, I've been around for awhile, left, and now I'm back and playing EB 1.0. Must say, it looks awesome, and I've been playing since 7.2-ish!

Naturally I had to pick up my favorite faction - Arche Seleukeia. Unfortunately, I am very disappointed in the 'Babylonian New Years' trait, where the Faction Leader and Heir take a -100% movement penalty one a year. It's like the Olympics every year!

Personally, I find this trait disgustingly annoying. Since the Babylonian New Year is only in April, I think it'd be more appropriate to give a -33% movement penalty to show that your general isn't taken a whole three months off, and instead just the month of April. Of course, I doubt he spends an entire month celebrating...so maybe just a -10% to show he's taking a week or so off. Maybe it could be reworked and have the trait actually give bonuses, instead of being a royal headache.

My next order of business is 'Client Rulers'.

First let me make the case *against* the supposed 'Puppet' governments. When I build a level four government it's usually an 'Allied Free State', which I interpret to mean a completely separate faction (in roleplay terms) without actual AI control, and a very strong alliance with your main faction. Therefore, instead of a 'Client Ruler', I think that you should be given a 'Autonomous King' (Working title :P) who works the same way as the current Client Rulers, but has an ethnicity corresponding to whatever region he happens to be spawned in (If that's possible. If not then oh well I guess). He should also have a 'King' trait, that doesn't given the -100% movement penalty, but rather gives a few bonuses and maybe a slight movement penalty.

In return, I think it'd be good to make 'Client Rulers' only for level three governments, as most level three governments have the 'Semi Autonomous' designation, this goes more in line with a 'Puppet Ruler', which is what the 'Client King's' designation says he is.

That aside, I think the mechanics of Client King's should also be changed. I personally don't believe a City would go to hell in a handbasket if the Client King took a step out of his cities' gate. I think a -50%, even a -60% or more movement penalty would be far more appropriate than a -100%. This is very practical, since it allows the Client King to conduct at least limited operations within his given province, recruit mercenaries, sally out in the event of a siege, and also allows you to check out his bodyguard's upkeep and stats.

Thank you all for reading my long post, I hope I've given useful feedback that will be considered for implementation in 1.1.

-Ravenic

[Perturabo]

The 'Babylonian New Years' trait actually has my Ruler and Heir locked in their respective cities for life, seemingly. It has been discussed in the bugs forum and is a major problem at present with the only fix being to remove it from the script as far as I am aware. One season I have no problem with however.

I agree with client rulers being able to move a little also. At present defending beseiged cities with level 4 governments is irritating, requiring a field army nearby to initiate the 'sally forth' unless you want to try and sit out the siege (bad idea unless heavily outnumbered). I now only use level 4's well from the frontlines where a governer is desired and there are too few FM's to help (such as remote provinces with goldmines and/or at risk of rebelling with no governer). There is a fix in the 'unofficial mods' section to allow this, though I understand it is a bit random in function at present.
Some movement would also be nice to check out what types of bodyguards they have, escape plague and to hire mercs, though the priority would be to allow sallying forth.

[LorDBulA]

Client rulers will have some mobility in 1.1.
Take note that there will be penalties if you will put client ruler in no gov 4 settlement.

[Perturabo]

Client rulers will have some mobility in 1.1.
Take note that there will be penalties if you will put client ruler in no gov 4 settlement.

All good What true *insert core faction citizens here* would care to be ruled by a filthy provincial anyway?

[bovi]

Moved my TWC post over here, as I see it's duplicate, though LB answered some of it already.

I'm happy to say that your complaints have already been taken care of (except for the conceptual difference between gov3 and gov4).

Unfortunately, I am very disappointed in the 'Babylonian New Years' trait, where the Faction Leader and Heir take a -100% movement penalty one a year. It's like the Olympics every year!

Personally, I find this trait disgustingly annoying. Since the Babylonian New Year is only in April, I think it'd be more appropriate to give a -33% movement penalty to show that your general isn't taken a whole three months off

Due to a bug where the movement is never restored, in the next version there will be no movement penalty for this at all.

I think a -50%, even a -60% or more movement penalty would be far more appropriate than a -100%.

In the internal version, the movement penalty is now only 30%, and the settlement will have a large but limited disorder if he leaves. He should therefore be able to chase away intruders before returning to his post.