Baktria and it relations to Sogdia and Dayuan

[Kongeslask]

Something I found a bit puzzling: Baktria starts the campaign with the two northern provinces having type IV government. If this is intended to represent that these provinces were separate satrapies, shouldn't they start of as AS provinces, given that Baktria is not independent yet? What was the historical situation like?

In addition, unless you demolish the government building any family members in the towns get the "interloper" trait. Shouldn't they start with client rulers in place?

And one small thing; I asked earlier why Baktria cannot recruit any phalangites in Sogdia. The reason given was that the province was not so strongly hellenised and the locals disdained infantry. Yet if the AS seizes the province, they can recruit Kleruchoi Phalangitai there. This is an inconsistency, if nothing else.

[Geoffrey S]

And one small thing; I asked earlier why Baktria cannot recruit any phalangites in Sogdia. The reason given was that the province was not so strongly hellenised and the locals disdained infantry. Yet if the AS seizes the province, they can recruit Kleruchoi Phalangitai there. This is an inconsistency, if nothing else.

Not necessarily. Kleruchoi are Greek settlers, not part of the local population.

[anubis88]

AFAIK Baktria not having client rulers is a bug. I think it was mentioned before, and looked into it.
I guess the two provinces had some specieal relationship with Baktra.
The AS also starts with Babylon as a type 4 goverment so i guess this is similar

[bovi]

In the next version, those provinces are again part of the AS.

[Theodotos I]

You mean Baktria is going to start out in 1.1 with one province? I'll take it if that's historically accurate, but it still stinks.

[marodeur]

In the next version, those provinces are again part of the AS.

Talking about a challenge...

[Tellos Athenaios]

Boy, are you in for a surprise!

[The Persian Cataphract]

I think this change was necessary to somehow delay the powerful development of the Graeco-Bactrians, and to portray the political situation of the area before Diodotus declared himself independent with some accuracy. Historically, it was not until the era of the invasions of Mithradates I of Parthia and Eucratides I of Bactria when we observe the supplaunting of the Seleucid hegemnoy in their eastern sector; This is where the Graeco-Bactrians got their brief triumph, but also one of their most devastating defeats, which of course was capitalized enormously by both Menander of the Indo-Greeks and by Mithradates of the Parthians.

This poorly documented stage of war, symbolized the political turbulence of the East, and would repeat itself for several centuries. This change does not imply Seleucid authority, au contraire, it implies a burden.