I don't like the mechanism with alliances.

[vasilisguru]

The mechanism with alliances sucks in all TW titles and I don’t think it will change in Empire. Players must have the ability to ask there allies to join them with there armies in specific points to give battle with common enemy and the AI mast do this also. What is an alliance for after all?
Historically, allied generals were planning there strategy together. In TW they march into battle only spontaneously.
This is a task for a great game like this! (Its not just the graphics!!!) :smash:

[pevergreen]

Agreed, in a roundabout way. The AI Does need new options (Help me attack xxx province, get off my land etc). It will not be as good as it could be if it is missing that.

[Martok]

Additional diplomatic options are great and all, but only if the AI can actually utilize them effectively and intelligently. It'd be a genuine pity to see a repeat of RTW/M2TW, where the AI factions couldn't handle the more complex diplomacy model.

In other words: CA, please don't add features to Empire that the AI can't use! :sweatdrop:

[Zarky]

Personally i think that betraying an ally should have LOT worse penalties than loss of reputation since AI tends to ignore that sometimes between other AI factions.

[Raz]

I don't think any ruler would attack an ally when they are clearly going to be defeated. Even if the ruler was twenty grand in debt. I believe rather than attacking an ally to claim land, they'd ask for land from their ally or more likely ask for some financial help in return for some of their troops or training facilities etc.

But since this is an age Total War.... :wink2:

[PBI]

Personally i think that betraying an ally should have LOT worse penalties than loss of reputation since AI tends to ignore that sometimes between other AI factions.

Agreed, the consequences of betrayal should be much worse, especially if you have been allies for a long time. Your reputation should be wiped out, for starters, such that no-one will ever ally with you again, but I think it could go even further than this. I think if you have been allies for a long time it should case severe unrest in your cities, and maybe even cause the troops you send to attack your former ally to mutiny.

[pevergreen]

If that is the case, then there should be no backfire for cancelling an alliance. Otherwise I would never ally with anyone close to me.

[Cartaphilus]

Personally i think that betraying an ally should have LOT worse penalties than loss of reputation since AI tends to ignore that sometimes between other AI factions.


This is very necessary.

In that Age, the formalities were respected, and the treaties too, at least in appearance.

A betrayal must be severe punished, with, for example, multiplie declarations of war, blockades, incursiones, etc.

[hoom]

I believe rather than attacking an ally to claim land, they'd ask for land from their ally or more likely ask for some financial help in return for some of their troops or training facilities etc.That would be really cool.
I'd love to be able to offer to transfer a few units to Allied control for cash & likewise to be offered/demand contingents for my armies.
Would be a really nice way of managing to have alliances actually be of some value.

Of course, it would need to be something that the AI actually uses/can & will accept :inquisitive:

[Lusitani]

I hope they put in again the sucession rights after royal marriages and stuff. It was a very important politic and diplomatic tool since medieval days.

[anders]

I agree with Martok, the main point isnt having more diplomatic options for the AI( though a joint attack, joint blockade etc would be great). the main point is having a strategic/diplomatic AI which behaves sensibly. thats much more important, but alas, much more difficult to achieve.

the success of your ally should also to a far greater extent be one of the players concerns, in m2tw your allies are of no interest apart from not having to wage war on them for a limited time, but once youve reached a certain level of power they dont mean squat cause you can steamroll the world. the game would be better( as a grand strategy game) if you didnt get so immensely powerful so fast, but had a real need of allies throughout the game.

I also agree that for this time and age undeclared acts of war, breaking of alliances etc should have consequenses far more severe than a loss of reputation. Either it should subtract directly from some kind of "victory points" or it should be flat out impossible without first having fixed the formalities. look to the boardgame Empires in Arms, great napoleonic game.



btw, have any of you ever played it?

[Flying Pig]

Give us a 'conditions box', so for example: 'I'll pay you $1000, for that I want a surrender or I'll burn your city.' And I want coalitions, so armies under allies that

a) cannot merge with you

b) command autonomusly on the tactical map, but take broad orders.

So we can recreate Waterloo. Also, I would like to declare war by treaty. It feels nicer to say ominously that the British Empire is going to come down upon your state, PANIC!

[Zaleukos]

Coordinating several independent allied AI actors on the battlefield, or worse, AI and human forces, would demand more than what most game AIs can deliver.

The easiest way to make AI allies helpful (in a way that wont mess you up) would IMHO be to allow them to lend you forces on your request depending on whether they want to see you prevail or not. These forces should then be retrainable for a cost inside that allies territory or in a friendly city/area that has a clear link to the allied territory. The lender should get to choose to either pay the upkeep/training cost of these forces himself or let the recipient do so. It should be possible to retake control over these forces with some restrictions (to avoid human exploits). While this wouldnt simulate real allied behaviour it would be a step forward and have at least some historical precedent in how countries let others fight for them (France subsidising the protestants during the thirty years war or the dutch war of independence are examples outside the timeframe, while Britains aid to Prussia in the seven years war is one inside).

However cool it would be to command Wellington's army and see an intelligent AI Blucher come to your aid at Waterloo I'm uncertain that its worth aiming for that goal. A poor attempt will just look ridiculous and be so useless that players wont use it. This compromise would at least give you the feel of fighting with a multi-national force against a common enemy.

And of course it all has to be tuned and balanced. You dont want your allies to spam you with expeditionary forces like in Hearts of Iron I or Victoria...

[The_Reckoning]

At least CA admitted that AI was a weak point for their last games.

[Martok]

At least CA admitted that AI was a weak point for their last games.
True. Now if they can actually fix it, we'll be doing pretty good. :sweatdrop:

I'm glad that at least the military and diplomatic AI is no longer being programmed separately like they were in the first four games, but it's still no guarantee that it will actually make smart strategic decisions. Even in MTW, few things irritated me more that having my 1-province ally backstab my 30-province empire (that it had no chance of beating). :wall:

I'm cautiously optimistic, but there's really no way to know what the AI's like until the game is released.

[Odin]

I'm glad that at least the military and diplomatic AI is no longer being programmed separately like they were in the first four games, but it's still no guarantee that it will actually make smart strategic decisions. Even in MTW, few things irritated me more that having my 1-province ally backstab my 30-province empire (that it had no chance of beating). :wall:

I'm cautiously optimistic, but there's really no way to know what the AI's like until the game is released.

Good example with MTW, yes that was a pain in the butt. I am no expert in the time period but there are a couple of gems here that almost require a robust alliance system. The war of spanish succession, The american revolution, Russian Turkish wars and then the numerous ins and outs of the napoleonic era.

they cant keep the old alliance system in place, it has to be more dynamic, not to mention potential revolutions and whom your allies choose to support. I have no doubt CA will make a superior graphic depiction of battles but the diplomatic AI is the potential hidden jewel of this title.

[PBI]

I wonder if it might help if, rather than having the existing system of global and faction reputations (which leads to situations where the AI will not surrender even to save itself because your relations are too poor), faction relations were fixed from the start of the game. After all, it seems to me that most of the real grudges between nations were already present at the start of the game; the British didn't like the French much, for example, and they went on disliking each other at more or less the same amount throughout the period.

That way, there could still be some sense of rivalry and mistrust between certain nations, but the AI would be more free to wage wars and sign alliances pragmatically, rather than because a certain faction blockaded their port 50 years ago so they are programmed to hate that faction forever. Thus, the French would almost certainly fight to the death rather than becoming a British vassal, but other factions with no particular reason to hate the British besides the recent war, might be more reasonable. As Odin says, diplomacy and alliances were a big part of many wars in the period, so there should certainly be a lot of it going on, without it always inevitably leading to "we hate you forever and will never deal with you again" type relations with all factions.

[Odin]

I wonder if it might help if, rather than having the existing system of global and faction reputations (which leads to situations where the AI will not surrender even to save itself because your relations are too poor), faction relations were fixed from the start of the game. After all, it seems to me that most of the real grudges between nations were already present at the start of the game; the British didn't like the French much, for example, and they went on disliking each other at more or less the same amount throughout the period.

That way, there could still be some sense of rivalry and mistrust between certain nations, but the AI would be more free to wage wars and sign alliances pragmatically, rather than because a certain faction blockaded their port 50 years ago so they are programmed to hate that faction forever. Thus, the French would almost certainly fight to the death rather than becoming a British vassal, but other factions with no particular reason to hate the British besides the recent war, might be more reasonable. As Odin says, diplomacy and alliances were a big part of many wars in the period, so there should certainly be a lot of it going on, without it always inevitably leading to "we hate you forever and will never deal with you again" type relations with all factions.

This is a good start and I think it has merit. I think the France England mistrust is a pretty simple one to program in. My concern is what happens if Prussia invades Sweden, what does Russia do? Whats the history between the countries (in game)? Whats in Russia's strategic intrest at that point in the game?

The AI traditionally makes its diplomatic calculations based on the probability of if it can win a war in a specific province, thats the trend in the Total war series and given the time period of empires that absolutely has to change.

[Martok]

The AI traditionally makes its diplomatic calculations based on the probability of if it can win a war in a specific province, thats the trend in the Total war series and given the time period of empires that absolutely has to change.
Agreed. One of the strategic AI's main weakness is its shortsightedness. It's unable to see the larger picture when considering whether to attack someone -- all it can see is that a border province belonging to Faction A is under-defended, but fails to realize that Faction A has large armies in the provinces next to it. The AI needs to consider a faction's overall military and economic strength when determining whether to go to war with that faction, not just the local situation.

[Odin]

Agreed. One of the strategic AI's main weakness is its shortsightedness. It's unable to see the larger picture when considering whether to attack someone -- all it can see is that a border province belonging to Faction A is under-defended, but fails to realize that Faction A has large armies in the provinces next to the one that's under-defended. The AI needs to consider a faction's overall military and economic strength when determining whether to go to war with that faction, not just the local situation.

Well then we have to correct it, and based on the totalwar series thus far the simplest solution I can think of is binding treaties. Now we can add time variables "peace treaty for 20 years" during the 20 no military hostile action can take place. That wouldnt proclude the AI from preparing to invade a human opponnent, while I concede your point on the shortsightedness of the AI in its evaluation, I to rather prefer it be looking at me first rather then other AI nations.

I'm not thrilled by binding treaties, I would prefer that they could be broken but as constituted now the alliance system with the AI is useless. Now given the time period how exactly could we build a coalition against Napoleon? Suppose the Russians invade Poland and are allied with the Turks, Turks in classic totalwar form see that the russians are now extended, break the alliance and shaft the russians.

The time period absolutely dictates there has to be a robust diplomacy model, if the period is to be captured acurately.

[Zaleukos]

I wonder if it might help if, rather than having the existing system of global and faction reputations (which leads to situations where the AI will not surrender even to save itself because your relations are too poor), faction relations were fixed from the start of the game. After all, it seems to me that most of the real grudges between nations were already present at the start of the game; the British didn't like the French much, for example, and they went on disliking each other at more or less the same amount throughout the period.

Alliances were actually rather dynamic (except for the Anglo-French hostility). Most of the time they followed a pattern of "ally with your second strongest neighbour to contain your strongest neighbour". There was for instance a rather complete shift in alliances between the war of Jenkins ear (or the war of Austrian succession) and the seven years war, due to Prussia growing stronger. Smaller countries tended to simply suck up to the great power with the biggest chance of standing up to their most aggressive great power neighbour. France and England were almost always at odds since they were the two top dogs. So there is some logic to the "cut leader down to size" algorithm, but there should also be plenty of situations where countries would prefer to ally with rather than fight the top nation...

But even if there was some consistency and logic to alliance patterns it might be too hard to code an AI for it (and not worth the bother). It would be much easier to just make the AI have certain target regions and make it ally with whoever is the enemy of the holder of these regions. It should also seek alliances with the player if mutual enemies exist.... Some opportunism would definitely be logical, but it should be more constrained than in past titles (opportunism requires the existance of an opportunity, damnit!!!:p).

[The_Reckoning]

It can't be too hard for CA's staff to code proper AI, considering the extent by which the mods for M2 improve the AI.

[darrin42]

Actually your totaly Right lol. And that Always Traditionaly Annoyed me with Total war titles. Supposadly, Empire will feature a New Diplomatic System Entirely(allegidly more realistic) where by your allies, will be less likely to basicaly back stab you, and siege one of your citys. However If you think back, All of this was said about Medieval 2 as well lol, And it featured a exact Copy Diplomatic system to Rome. I Will be Suprised if The Empire system is all that diff to be honest. But Heres hoping :)

[Ignoramus]

If they could implement alliance treaties, rather than just if you're allied you're allied for the entire game, because alliance did shift frequently, just not by betrayal.

[Sheogorath]

I'd like to see reputation tied to faction leaders, myself.
For instance, every time a faction leader dies, your reputation takes a strong jump towards 'neutral'. Only being very nice or very evil would leave some reputation (one way or another) with the new faction leader.

[Robert the Kingmaker]

I agree. I actually wrote something about this in the totalwar.com forums. I think factions should able to create leagues/group alliances against a specific cause or faction such as the League of Cambrai or the Holy League. First you would create and specify an alliance, including a custom name, then you would proceed to persuade other factions to join. If factions of the league fight a battle together they get battle boosters such as moral and fatigue and experience for generals (like Crusades) to name a few.

[SirGrotius]

In the Europa Universalis series they have this "Call to Arms" function, which basically asks your ally to go to war for you and they'll send in troops. They don't always accept, but they usually do and then it's cool, but you have to balance that with them potentially taking some of your gains!!! :inquisitive: