I've been away for a while so I forgot about the region integration mechanic. I suppose that is the answer and will have to see how that plays out

The people who originally mapped out the Seleucid faction considered direct ownership the best historical representation of that faction. It isn't the only way one can envision the empire though. My buest guess - Antiouchus had reasserted control of his empire at this point in time, making "Allies of the King" government a good compromise that gives the player choice while still pertaining to accuracy.

I'm personally open to different interpretations of Seleucid control over their domains, even if it might mean a little extra work. The most accurate representation isn't necessarily the most interesting from a gameplay perspective. Our current plan was to add custom events for the Seleucids that focus on Persian discontent within the empire. If there are solid ideas for making the Seleucid faction more interesting, definitely share them and we might be able to implement them

Oprindeligt skrevet af Philip:

The people who originally mapped out the Seleucid faction considered direct ownership the best historical representation of that faction. It isn't the only way one can envision the empire though. My buest guess - Antiouchus had reasserted control of his empire at this point in time, making "Allies of the King" government a good compromise that gives the player choice while still pertaining to accuracy.

I'm personally open to different interpretations of Seleucid control over their domains, even if it might mean a little extra work. The most accurate representation isn't necessarily the most interesting from a gameplay perspective. Our current plan was to add custom events for the Seleucids that focus on Persian discontent within the empire. If there are solid ideas for making the Seleucid faction more interesting, definitely share them and we might be able to implement them

Well one of the things that I feel is most interesting about the Seleucids as a potential game mechanic is that their main area of control was Syria, Babylon and parts of Anatolia. Everything to the east was effectively semi-independent and they could attempt to break away whenever things went badly for the Seleucids and often times the Seleucids were too focused on their main power base in Syria and Babylon to do much about it. Thats why I think the vassal system from R2 is best for that and how the vassals could break away. What might be cool would be if there could be a way for military power to play into vassal loyalty so that, for instance, if you suffered a major loss or downsized your army, the eastern vassals would have a chance that they would break away.

The native unrest that is in its place ATM I feel doesnt quite capture the reality as often times as I said the east was effectively semi independent and so the discontent on a local level wasnt terrrrrribly strong but the local governors would often scheme to control their given province. Those are just my thoughts though

Antiochus the Great had just spent 1/3 of his lifetime cracking down those treacherous rogue lords in the east, and can finally return to the shores of the Mediterranean to reclaim the legacy of Alexander. And you are saying that he should do that all over again? Dude, that's cruel. (joking)

I do agree that is was pretty fun in R2 to try and keep the empire together sense you didnt own it all directly but on the same hand if you did one thing wrong they would all just turn on you which was a pain lol. Looking forward to seeing where this goes though :)

Oprindeligt skrevet af CountDL:

Antiochus the Great had just spent 1/3 of his lifetime cracking down those treacherous rogue lords in the east, and can finally return to the shores of the Mediterranean to reclaim the legacy of Alexander. And you are saying that he should do that all over again? Dude, that's cruel. (joking)

Well thats the thing though, Antiochus did all that but as soon as he lost to the Romans at Magnesia it all collapsed again in the east. He in fact was killed while raiding a temple that he was trying to get treasure from to fund his campaign to tame the break aways in the east. As such the vassals were tamed, not conquered during his Anabasis in the east. now I can perhaps understand the desire to demonstrate Antiochus's enhanced control over the east but I still feel that at least some more of the east should be vassals rather than all of the east.

Also why isnt Bactria a vassal of the seleucids here? they likely still would have been at this time although I can't swear to that, would have to look back through my books at that