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.
2. 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.
3. That I like. Having some kind of memory and not coming back from a blank slate seems both logical and better gameplaywise.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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).