Diplomacy is entirely broken

[Fisherking]

There are changes in the system I have seen for a wile now. Where as it was once possible to reload and get some different outcome, they don't seem to be altered very easily now and usually when you get a change, it is much worse than the event you were trying to avoid.

It doesn’t mean that the game is less out to get the player, it just means that some mechanism has made it less easy to avoid.

[al Roumi]

I've recently noticed a change in v1.3, having a different govt radicaly changes people's disposition towards you (AM to Rep = -140 odd relation). I was playing as Spain, had a revolution and became a republic. Everyone, even France (who had been very friendly) turned Hostile!

A couple of turns of state gifts and things were better again but I'm glad to see this has a bearing on relation scores at least (i was probably at war with anyone who would have DoW'd on me anyway.

[Didz]

Yes! I've noticed since Patch 1.3 that avoiding 'dumb diplomacy' is much harder. The good news is that the the AI is now more consistent and persistent, the bad news is that its now consistently and persistently stupid.

[FactionHeir]

There are changes in the system I have seen for a wile now. Where as it was once possible to reload and get some different outcome, they don't seem to be altered very easily now and usually when you get a change, it is much worse than the event you were trying to avoid.

It doesn’t mean that the game is less out to get the player, it just means that some mechanism has made it less easy to avoid.

More consistent than 1.2, but still very inconsistent overall.
Better than M2TW in any case, where reloading a turn would even cause the AI to unsiege your settlements!

[FactionHeir]

I love this "diplomacy"



Um hello, this offer makes no sense given that I share no borders or enemies with Russia....


In other news, my long time ally France decided to attack my friendly ally Genoa. Decided to side with Genoa as they have helped in in naval battles before. Three turns later and France is down to just Saxony in Europe, and its northern holdings in America, having lost France, Savoy, Rhineland, Württemberg, French Guyana and Windward Islands to me.

So I offer them peace, figure that since we share loads of mutual enemies and France has no trade partners whatsoever left and is at war with everyone and their dog, they ought to accept in their dire position. Well, guess what, they didn't.

In 1.0-1.2 at least, they'd accept peace once you take just France itself. If you took a bit more, they'd even throw in all their regions save their new capitol. 1.3 and they reject any peace treaty, even when I even offered to throw in a dozen techs and 30000 in cash.

They also seem to have no problem fielding 3 full stacks composed of line infantry and 12lber artillery 60-40 ratio. I wonder where they get all that money when I can barely field 4 full stacks and hold most of America, and the left side and the bottom of Europe along with all the Med islands.

[Didz]

Um hello, this offer makes no sense given that I share no borders or enemies with Russia....

Lol! it probably makes perfect sense to the Russian's. Obviously they are getting fed up with Vodka and have acquired a taste for rum. I love the 16,000 fee though thats really cheeky.

[FactionHeir]

A few turns earlier they made the same offer to me, only asking 7500

Oh, and I only have a few enemies because some of the hapless ones who managed to declare war on me didn't exactly live very long. And of course my French allies back then were ridiculously aggressive, taking out Westphalia, Württemberg, and Saxony within a few turns.

[oz_wwjd]

I also had problems with after I've just conquered the french. I moved my army down to make war on spain but westphlia decided it was a good idea to take me on for some reason,despite the fact that my army outnumbered and outgunned their Milita army. They were at indifferent before that,so I don't know what the AI was thinking as it was destoyed shortly after that.

[ZIM!!]

I agree Diplomacy just is not realistic at all another aspect of the problem is the demand surrender function . Has anyone EVER had a city surrender???

I have had a un walled/ unfortified city in India besieged by a full stack and a half stack nearby that would take part tons of artillery and had their port blockaded, them only having 1 infantry 2 mob units, there was no relief force anywhere. the nation was pretty much wiped out. I demanded surrender up until the end where the battle had to be resolved and they were crushed.

I think that the diplomacy rationale numbers are set too high and or the calculations to decide the outcome are not complex enough like they are not able to take into consideration certain factors like opposing force size, turns till possible relief, or remaining provinces that would make a more logical decision instead it seems like it just rolls the dice and if the # rolled doesn’t exceed a preset limit surrender limit value( apparently set at 99.99 across the board) the answer is No.

I think maybe its this same issue with the rest of diplomacy, I imagine they set it so high in case you are able to mass an overwhelming force and attack a poor or weakened country or theater the game would be over too quickly?

[Didz]

Just once. but that was patch 1.2.

[FactionHeir]

Me too in 1.2, but all it did was swap some of the citizenry (arab) for other types of citizenry in defense....

That said, the AI demanded i surrender in 1.3 twice, but each time it was inferior to my force (IMO, not according to balance of course)

[Marquis of Roland]

Um hello, this offer makes no sense given that I share no borders or enemies with Russia....

What doesn't make sense about it, the Russians want Jamaica. Nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't mind having Jamaica in my Prussian campaign, and the only interaction I ever had with Spain was requesting a trade agreement 40 years ago. I agree that the terms are crap.

I think its a good thing that they fixed the factions accepting peace if you take their home region. Its an exploit to take someone's home region and then get a peace treaty.

As for the AI getting income bonuses, don't you think it's better that they do? I mean, right now the AI is not sending enough stacks to challenge you, if they're more restricted, there won't be much fighting in this "total war" game. Or you'll see factions attacking with their lone stack of troops and leave their capital totally undefended, then we'll all blame the dumb AI for leaving their capital completely wide open.

I am getting the feeling that some people want this game to be another type of game. In the end, ETW is not a STRATEGY game, it's more of a war game. Diplomacy is not great in this game, never meant to be great, nor do I think it will EVER be great. I think most of you guys not happy with the diplomacy just needs to accept that fact. The game is centered on fighting battles in battle mode; the campaign map is merely a means to get you to battle mode. Even all the technologies in the game are more or less geared towards fielding a full stack, to be used in battle mode. Not a single tech promotes diplomacy. This game was never meant to be won with diplomacy (no diplomatic victory conditions either. In every game I played with good diplomacy, there was always a diplomatic victory option).

For those that say this ruins their roleplaying - I also like to roleplay my campaign, but if you expect this to be even loosely based on historical interactions, then you'll be disappointed. If you roleplay you ought to be comfortable with making stuff up. I have never gotten a DoW that I cannot make up a reason for.

[Fisherking]

It seems as though we are going through some very odd diplomatic gyrations in this game.

As far as I can remember the best we had was the first ideation in 1.0, from there it has just been down hill.

Yes there was a problem of factions swapping lands in a rather strange fashion but at least most of the rest of the diplomacy was somewhat sound.

Now the DoWs are not as fast and furious as they were but they will not make peace nor exchange regions even to save their little lives.

It seems that each time they take one step forward and two steps back, not to mention the occasional sidestep.

The closest I have come to a peace agreement in my current campaign was from Spain. I offered them Spain, half a dozen or so techs for Mexico and peace.

The counter offer was all of the above, less Mexico and I give them 7200 cash. Needless to say I was in the position to name terms, not them, so now they hold only Lombardy and that will be for maybe another three turns before they die, that is if I bother with them at all.

France bought it pretty much the same way. The would not give up Newfoundland for France and so were eliminated. They were under siege and refused the offer of peace and France. Not very reasonable of them now was it?

The minors never offer or except peace now!

[FactionHeir]

What doesn't make sense about it, the Russians want Jamaica. Nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't mind having Jamaica in my Prussian campaign, and the only interaction I ever had with Spain was requesting a trade agreement 40 years ago. I agree that the terms are crap.

I think its a good thing that they fixed the factions accepting peace if you take their home region. Its an exploit to take someone's home region and then get a peace treaty.

As for the AI getting income bonuses, don't you think it's better that they do? I mean, right now the AI is not sending enough stacks to challenge you, if they're more restricted, there won't be much fighting in this "total war" game. Or you'll see factions attacking with their lone stack of troops and leave their capital totally undefended, then we'll all blame the dumb AI for leaving their capital completely wide open.

I am getting the feeling that some people want this game to be another type of game. In the end, ETW is not a STRATEGY game, it's more of a war game. Diplomacy is not great in this game, never meant to be great, nor do I think it will EVER be great. I think most of you guys not happy with the diplomacy just needs to accept that fact. The game is centered on fighting battles in battle mode; the campaign map is merely a means to get you to battle mode. Even all the technologies in the game are more or less geared towards fielding a full stack, to be used in battle mode. Not a single tech promotes diplomacy. This game was never meant to be won with diplomacy (no diplomatic victory conditions either. In every game I played with good diplomacy, there was always a diplomatic victory option).

For those that say this ruins their roleplaying - I also like to roleplay my campaign, but if you expect this to be even loosely based on historical interactions, then you'll be disappointed. If you roleplay you ought to be comfortable with making stuff up. I have never gotten a DoW that I cannot make up a reason for.

I would ask you to take off your pink glasses and actually look at my screenshot. There's nothing wrong with Russia wanting Jamaica, but offering me mil access and demanding Jamaica and 16000 from me is hardly a reasonable offer.

[Fisherking]

I would ask you to take off your pink glasses and actually look at my screenshot. There's nothing wrong with Russia wanting Jamaica, but offering me mil access and demanding Jamaica and 16000 from me is hardly a reasonable offer.

Indeed it is a very unreasonable offer!

And if refused I guess that means they declare war.

I have not tried counter offering these proposals yet to see what happens.

I just think this process is turning out to be one of those steps back and sideways.

[Didz]

I am getting the feeling that some people want this game to be another type of game. In the end, ETW is not a STRATEGY game, it's more of a war game.

Suggesting that ETW is a wargame is actually an insult to wargaming. It most definitely is NOT a wargame. If it was it would accurately model the warfare of the period and the campaign system would work, diplomacy included.

At best ETW is a strategy game, and at the moment its struggling to even meet that standard.

[NimitsTexan]

The campaign difficulty level does have some small effect on things. On Hard, for example, just about every European nation and their dogs DoW on Austria in the first couple of turns. On Medium, while Austria does eventually get itself into wars, Central Europe takes a little longer to get itself into a total war.

[Lemur]

I have to say, the extreme difficulty of securing peace is making the game a lot less fun. When Britain attacks Denmark, you now know that if you defend your ally you'll be at war with the limeys for another seventy years. Ugh.

[Husar]

The campaign difficulty level does have some small effect on things. On Hard, for example, just about every European nation and their dogs DoW on Austria in the first couple of turns. On Medium, while Austria does eventually get itself into wars, Central Europe takes a little longer to get itself into a total war.

Well, that's just another problem, if I play on normal or easy, I get less declarations of war but the AI will only have small armies which are no challenge once we do go to war, if I got to Very High, every faction is finally a challenge(well, somewhat) but they will all go to war with me at the same time like a bunch of zerglings or whatever, and then I can't just destroy their army, take a city and make them accept peace, no, the black knight routine makes them fight to their last city so if I can't afford to have two big stacks standing around in their corner and a few small ones to hunt their little pillaging parties then I will have to expand through all of russia which completely defeats all sorts of roleplaying I might have planned which is a major part of the enjoyment.

I also had the idea that introducing non-aggression pacts might be a splendid idea and while you're at it, make them binding for the human AND the AI, set number of rounds, no need to help them when they get themselves into pointless wars like it's the case with alliances and they can't backstab you either.

That would make up for a few of the AIs stupidities, given the factions would actually accept such proposals now and then.

[Durallan]

What doesn't make sense about it, the Russians want Jamaica. Nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't mind having Jamaica in my Prussian campaign, and the only interaction I ever had with Spain was requesting a trade agreement 40 years ago. I agree that the terms are crap.

I think its a good thing that they fixed the factions accepting peace if you take their home region. Its an exploit to take someone's home region and then get a peace treaty.

As for the AI getting income bonuses, don't you think it's better that they do? I mean, right now the AI is not sending enough stacks to challenge you, if they're more restricted, there won't be much fighting in this "total war" game. Or you'll see factions attacking with their lone stack of troops and leave their capital totally undefended, then we'll all blame the dumb AI for leaving their capital completely wide open.

I am getting the feeling that some people want this game to be another type of game. In the end, ETW is not a STRATEGY game, it's more of a war game. Diplomacy is not great in this game, never meant to be great, nor do I think it will EVER be great. I think most of you guys not happy with the diplomacy just needs to accept that fact. The game is centered on fighting battles in battle mode; the campaign map is merely a means to get you to battle mode. Even all the technologies in the game are more or less geared towards fielding a full stack, to be used in battle mode. Not a single tech promotes diplomacy. This game was never meant to be won with diplomacy (no diplomatic victory conditions either. In every game I played with good diplomacy, there was always a diplomatic victory option).

For those that say this ruins their roleplaying - I also like to roleplay my campaign, but if you expect this to be even loosely based on historical interactions, then you'll be disappointed. If you roleplay you ought to be comfortable with making stuff up. I have never gotten a DoW that I cannot make up a reason for.

Pulled this directly off the official Empire total war site...

"And the Campaign Map -- for many, the heart of Total War -- introduces a variety of new and upgraded elements, including new systems for Trade, Diplomacy and Espionage with agents; a refined and streamlined UI; improved Advisors; and a vastly extended scope, taking in the riches of India, the turbulence of Europe and, for the first time, the untapped potential of the United States of America."

This also directly off the offical Empire Total War site

"Empire: Total War is set in the 18th century, a turbulent era that is the most requested by Total War’s loyal fan base and a period alive with global conflict, revolutionary fervour and technological advances. With themes such as the Industrial Revolution, America’s struggle for independence, the race to control Eastern trade routes and the globalisation of war on land and sea,Empire: Total War promises to be the richest and most dynamic PC strategy game of all time. Empire: Total War will be released from the 3rd of March, exclusively for PC."

They reiterated it on release day...

"Empire: Total War is set in the 18th century, a turbulent era that is the most requested by Total War’s loyal fan base and a period alive with global conflict, revolutionary fervour and technological advances. With themes such as the Industrial Revolution, America’s struggle for independence, the race to control Eastern trade routes and the globalisation of war on land and sea, Empire: Total War promises to be the richest and most dynamic PC RTS game of all time."

The developers think its a strategy game...

[Prodigal]

@Hussar, no what I wrote wasn't bollox you just didn't get it.

This whole thing seems based around people who don't see a major problem, & another bunch who want to prove that its a game breaker.

The fact that the AI does not sue for peace, or form new alliances is a bug, but it does not mean that the game is unplayable, and doubt it would have a great affect on the game dynamic even if they did.

Wait till after the summer, 1.3 cannot have been the last patch, think everyone would agree that there is room for considerable improvment and no doubt it'll be addressed sooner or later.

[Didz]

Geisha diplomacy

Geisha's Rule..and the cut-scenes were awesome.

[Husar]

@Hussar, no what I wrote wasn't bollox you just didn't get it.

Oh, I got it and I will take the rest as a joke.

The fact that the AI does not sue for peace, or form new alliances is a bug, but it does not mean that the game is unplayable, and doubt it would have a great affect on the game dynamic even if they did.

Wait till after the summer, 1.3 cannot have been the last patch, think everyone would agree that there is room for considerable improvment and no doubt it'll be addressed sooner or later.

Oh it would, AI factions who constantly take eachother out are a lot weaker when they get to fight with the player than AI factions which are otherwise at peace and have big armies for use only against the player.

I actually managed to make peace with Poland and Austria in my current Prussian campaign but Poland keeps attacking me no matter how often I crush their armies or which settlements I take.
Maybe I'm a bit spoiled from EUIII but in that game the AI is a lot more reasonable and when it has lost, it is even willing to pay, a lot, for peace, while the AI in TotalWar will very often not accept peace under any circumstances much less pay for it, they'd rather make the player pay even if the player is already besieging their last town.

And concerning patches, this problem isn't new, it has existed at least since RTW IIRC, you'd think that after they promised to completely redo the AI for ETW that it would actually be somewhat reasonable by now, I've been rather patient you know, but this is the third game in a row with completely stupid AI diplomacy and there is a point where I just have enough. A lot of the diplomacy seems random, within about ten turns my relation to Poland has been switching between friendly, hostile and war, peace several times and they never ever gained anything out of it, in fact they lost quite a bit yet they refuse to give up their stupid crusade of idiocy. I don't even want to crush them, I dont want their stupid regions, I just want them to leave me in peace after I showed them who's boss, even offered to give them their capital back for a peace deal after their attempt to take it back horribly failed but no, they won't accept, I thought about giving it all to Russia after crushing Poland but I'm somewhat afraid they might attack me as well then. Oh and this is on Very Hard campaign IIRC, the armies are nice and big and challenging(normal battles after I noticed the AI gets laser muskets on hard).

Ok, talking a lot here but it shouldn't be that hard to make some decent diplomacy possible, other games have done it before, sometimes with rather simple number crunching models, but somehow ETW has nothing like it and way too many AI decisions seem random and stupid to me, must say I have noticed a few that made some sense but there is quite a lot of room for improvement and it's about time since that room has been in TW games for about three years or more.

[Husar]

To add to that it also just occurred to me that courland is trying out the old saysing "Imagine it's war and noone goes there...", they were the first or second nation to declare war on me and since then have neither attacked nor accepted white peace which reminds me that the AI was supposed to do more counter offers now, I've gotten maybe one or two since the patch, almost all the time they just accept or refuse, if I counteroffer to anything they usually just refuse, in previous games at least one could barter with them a bit, I actually liked that.

[Razor1952]

@Hussar, no what I wrote wasn't bollox you just didn't get it.

This whole thing seems based around people who don't see a major problem, & another bunch who want to prove that its a game breaker.

The fact that the AI does not sue for peace, or form new alliances is a bug, but it does not mean that the game is unplayable, and doubt it would have a great affect on the game dynamic even if they did.

Wait till after the summer, 1.3 cannot have been the last patch, think everyone would agree that there is room for considerable improvment and no doubt it'll be addressed sooner or later.

Entirely agree. It would be great if the ai formed alliances either with or against you depending on who was too big for their boots.

Certainly diplomacy as currently implemlented has a few quirks but you just have to play the game by those rules.

[Lemur]

As I've said before, the AI in ETW is an exact clone of the Black Knight.

[Peasant Phill]

I agree that diplomacy isn't working as one should expect BUT the system itself is there. So modders (or who knows CA themselves) can tweak it to perform up to standard. As long as CA makes good on there promise to make a lot less of the game hard-coded.

Still my biggest gripe with DoW's is the passiveness of the AI right after that. What's the use of a DoW if you aren't going to act on it. That's what makes it so easy for the player.

[Husar]

Some do act on it, although often not with full force, and they're at war with half their neighbors so their forces are divided etc. etc.
If the AI would actually throw it's army at me, lose the whole army and then accept peace, I wouldn't really complain, unless they declared war again two turns after I crushed them...

[AussieGiant]

I think there should be an offical .org move to describing the AI as Black Knight AI or BK AI for short.

[Yun Dog]

I found this interesting post over at the .com

http://shoguntotalwar.yuku.com/topic...gful-play.html

Some communication of the AI's motivations would go along way to understanding whats actually broken and whats not.

Certainly the modelled AI behaviour to attain certain provinces at any cost is less than ideal - it would be nice if the AI had traits like expansionist, industrious, etc etc

also if as promised they gave the AI individual traits like UK like grenadiers and uses standard formations to exchange fire, prussia likes cav armies and will often charge, french like inf and use column fm - so what if it made some attacks predictable - no more predictable than it is now

I think reading all the blurb they promised (pre release) they made the game too complicated for the AI to cope with, it doesnt work as they hoped and now the whole game appears broken, they shouldve started simple by giving each ai scripted behaviours and got that working at least.

Im sorry but I really want CivBTS with ETW battles its a fantasy of mine

As many have said its no so much the rabid war declarations that make the game easier but the AIs own unpreparedness for those wars which makes them appear silly, also the AIs ability to 'defend its own keep' when it gets distracted and moves it army out of the city just as your army approaches.

So strategically there is no GAME

the solution give the AI huge stacks of elite men with PKMs to frustrate the player - and hence make the game vhard that way

I played against this last night - in yet another campaign restart - and its a real game killer - as you watch untrained millitia rabble slaughter your line infantry and two units of dragoons get swallowed up by line inf in line formation - sorry but the suspension of disbelief has been suspended

this could be an all time record for low replayability of a TW title - thing is I want to play it but quit out of frustration and disappoitment

this game couldve been so good