Re: Probable reasons why certain alliances or client states treaties aren't sustainable in the long term
Yes, those make sense, and I agree that there's no guarantee that the player will keep client states or allies throughout.
In my current campaign as Baktria, my long-term ally (Arachosia) just attacked one of my satrapies, Saba. Almost all of my armies were far to the west when Arachosia attacked. Maybe their decision to attack was partly because they saw an opportunity to take some rich, lightly guarded provinces, and partly because I was reaching a level of Imperium where the player's faction gets a significant diplomatic penalty for territorial expansion. By the late campaign, there's usually at least one major war where an ally or client state attacks - I don't mind, because the ally or client state was still useful in the early campaign, and having to improvise and fight an unexpected war can be a challenge.