Empires should be able to protect their client states

VIPRedSirus

Kind Enthusiast

3 years ago

Nov 14, 2022, 7:43:06 PM

I've said it in a few threads, but I'll create its own thread here to consolidate discussion (and hopefully get a lot of up-votes!)

As of Metternich, we can form a permanent, friendly association with Independent People though the "Client State" treaty. It's great!

But becoming the patron of a client state city doesn't place them under the protection of our empire. We cannot reinforce them, and even our allies can conquer our client states. This is bad, especially because it diminishes all the cool work that's been done around IPs and again encourages conquest.

Proposal:

Empire A attempting to attack our client state should need to declare war on us first, as though our client state's territory were our own territory and as though the city were our city
If our client state is conquered by Empire A, it should become an "Occupied" city instead of immediately becoming owned by Empire A.
If we are victorious in the war, the city should revert to being an Independent Client State of ours (and we should probably gain a patronage bonus of +50 or more for successfully protecting their independence!)
If we fail in the war, then Empire A can conquer the city and gain permanent ownership of it. (Alternately/potentially, they could force the city to become their own client state)

[edited, added a few hours later]

Even without diplomatic protection we should be able to reinforce Independent Peoples in a fight. If we succeed, we should get Patronage with them.
Additionally, maybe our allies should treat our client states as off-limits from conquest (since we're in a position to defend them), but allies would of course be 100% free to try to out-patronage us and claim the city for themselves through Patronage and Influence.

Updated 3 years ago.

VIPAnonymous

3 years ago

Nov 14, 2022, 8:05:46 PM

Disagree. If a player decides not to have it as part of its empire/nation/country/whateveryouwannacallit, it has not the same property of a »regular« territory.
That one, I like more but I still disagree. To me, the Client State is still its own entity. The question is more if City states should take time to get incorporated by a player, if it happens through violent means.
That I like. Having some kind of memory and not coming back from a blank slate seems both logical and better gameplaywise.

VIPRedSirus

Kind Enthusiast

VIPRedSirus

Kind Enthusiast

3 years ago

Nov 14, 2022, 8:22:30 PM

Cure_off wrote:
1. Disagree. If a player decides not to have it as part of its empire/nation/country/whateveryouwannacallit, it has not the same property of a »regular« territory

I see your point of disagreement, though personally I'd still favour being able to shield Client States through the protection of our empire.

That said, even if we can't protect them through diplomacy, we should be able to fight on their behalf, which reminds me of another point that I should have listed above but which I'll post here instead:

We should be able to reinforce Independent Peoples in a fight. If we succeed, we should get Patronage with them.

Atens7

Sower Chief

Repense novamente

Atens7

Sower Chief

21 300g2g pts

3 years ago

Nov 14, 2022, 8:35:14 PM

I disagree with the proposal that it is necessary to go to war with the patron of a client state in order to attack him. But I agree that the current way, where anyone, ally or enemy can invade a client state is not ideal. However, I think a better solution would be to be able to reinforce the units of a client state in the same way as is possible with allied nations. Thus, it would not be mandatory to expand the war to other nations, and it would still be possible for the patron to defend his client states if it is in his interest.

Waykot

Tlahtoani

"For the Empire"

Waykot

Tlahtoani

31 000g2g pts

3 years ago

Nov 14, 2022, 9:22:05 PM

Cure_off wrote:
Disagree. If a player decides not to have it as part of its empire/nation/country/whateveryouwannacallit, it has not the same property of a »regular« territory.
That one, I like more but I still disagree. To me, the Client State is still its own entity.

Agreed, cliented IPs should remain independent entities, even from their owner.

But I agree that it's the owner's "job" to protect and defend them. Hence, to me, diplomatically speaking, a Major Empire owning a cliented IP should get grievances against another Major Empire attacking their cliented IP's territory and units, in order to build up war support and wage war against the attacker.

I haven't paid attention to it/tested it so it might already be the case ?

RedSirus wrote:
We should be able to reinforce Independent Peoples in a fight. If we succeed, we should get Patronage with them.

This I agree with.

Coupled with the grievances above and a bit like the ambush mechanic on the agent's side, when the cliented IP's units are attacked inside the IP's territory (as well of course as sieging the IP's city), I think the IP's owner should get a mandatory prompt to reinforce the IP's units in battle. The owner would have the option to reinforce to defend and protect his IP ; or he could decide to just let the battle go on without reinforcing, eventually risking loosing the IP.

I like the Patronage gain if the owner successfully defends his IP though. That or an increased share of the IP's yields ; and/or an assimilation cost reduction.

Updated 3 years ago.

VIPAnonymous

3 years ago

Nov 15, 2022, 12:20:19 AM

RedSirus wrote:

That said, even if we can't protect them through diplomacy, we should be able to fight on their behalf, which reminds me of another point that I should have listed above but which I'll post here instead:
We should be able to reinforce Independent Peoples in a fight. If we succeed, we should get Patronage with them.

That I like very much.

I haven't tried it yet or paid attention: do you get some WS if your CS is attacked? I'd suggest to raise it quite high in this case.
I'd also suggest to give a small amount of WS against the agressor to the allies of the CS patron.
If it is not the case, I'd even think about make it impossible to attack a CS if you're allied with its patron.

VIPRedSirus

Kind Enthusiast

VIPRedSirus

Kind Enthusiast

3 years ago

Nov 15, 2022, 4:28:24 AM

Haha, looks like I misread the room.

I'm not wedded to the "declaration of war" idea; the main goal is really just that we need to have some control in protecting independent people from third parties and especially our allies who may be nestled up next to us with idle troops. :) I think at bare minimum we need to be able to reinforce them, and allies treating our clients as off-limits would be icing on the cake. I've renamed the thread to make the goal clearer (let us defend our city states) but I've kept my unpopular opinion there for all to see. ^^;

Thanks for the discourse!

Updated 3 years ago.

Tamika

Newcomer

Tamika

Newcomer

1 300g2g pts

3 years ago

Nov 17, 2022, 2:44:35 AM

Also i would like to to allow your units to pass thru districts of the IP without being forced to siege the IP.

supplememe

Newcomer

supplememe

Newcomer

2 500g2g pts

3 years ago

Nov 21, 2022, 4:07:01 AM

There should be a grievance for attacking them. Client states should be better able to defend themselves by having the ability to tech to the next era. Right now they stick to the era they were formed in and never develop past that.

DNLH

Wannabe Amoeba

That would be cool, right?

DNLH

Wannabe Amoeba

34 400g2g pts

2 years ago

Nov 21, 2022, 7:48:28 AM

It should be treated as not-attached territory belonging to my Empire, i.e. other Empires should honour NAP and Alliances between us and need to break them in order to attack.

Big yes for being able to reinforce the client state IPs. I do wish we could liberate IPs, instead of having to release them as Rebels from our current culture (or at least not call them 'Rebels'), but that's a theme for another thread.

VIPRedSirus

Kind Enthusiast

VIPRedSirus

Kind Enthusiast

2 years ago

Nov 21, 2022, 2:08:00 PM

DNLH wrote:
I do wish we could liberate IPs, instead of having to release them as Rebels from our current culture (or at least not call them 'Rebels'), but that's a theme for another thread.

I fully agree. I've got an "Idea" thread open about that already, if you haven't seen it: https://www.games2gether.com/amplitude-studios/humankind/ideas/2752-language-liberated-cities-should-be-named-independent-not-rebels

VIPRedSirus

Kind Enthusiast

VIPRedSirus

Kind Enthusiast

2 years ago

Nov 21, 2022, 2:13:31 PM

supplememe wrote:
Client states should be better able to defend themselves by having the ability to tech to the next era. Right now they stick to the era they were formed in and never develop past that

This might have changed with the new IP rules (or it changed earlier and I didn't see). In my current game, Wassukanni, an Ancient-Era Independent People sit at the crossroads of three empires and we've all been pumping influence and money into it. Just a little bit behind the main empires, Wassukani is generating crossbowmen and knights while the rest of us are also in Era III.

DNLH

Wannabe Amoeba

That would be cool, right?

DNLH

Wannabe Amoeba

34 400g2g pts

2 years ago

Nov 22, 2022, 9:17:38 AM

The IPs and their tech levels are a bit weird, some are stuck, some will lag behind, some will keep up maybe even too nicely - during beta I had a hostile IP client state bully Early Modern neighbour with Line Infantry (which, by the way, is part of the same problem that this thread mentions, respecting NAP regarding IPs should go both ways, they shouldn't attack people you have no problems with either).

Click here to login

Comment

Characters : 0