The diplomatic model...

[The Yogi]

...could use some improvement.

A good way of doing it (at least in the Glory Goal game) is the way they did it in Europa Universalis I & II - when you conquer a province, it becomes occupied by you, but it doesn't become yours until the original owner cedes it in a peace treaty.

The more of the enemies land you have, the more you have beaten his armies and the more land you offer to give back, the more likely your enemy is to accept a peace treaty. If you have conquered his entire realm, you have the option of annexing it all, but this angers all countries of the same religion as your victim. You also have the option of asking for money instead of land, or even force a change of state religion.

All around, a much better model than "lets gang up on the player" I belive.

[This message has been edited by The Yogi (edited 10-28-2002).]

[maroule]

yep,
a lot could be taken from EU, but you'd need a total revamp : right now it's almost impossible to make peace, let alone force beaten faction to accept loosing territories.

Why I'm against the idea of treaties : we're in the middle ages, so the concept of nations inside an international society (the basis of EU) doesn't exist, add that the concept of treaties doesn't exist either when you think of it, England did not need a treaty to invade Aquitaine, it was de facto.

BUT I still think a lot could be taken from EU 2. For example the concept of stability points ; when you attack a country of similar faith, happiness in your provinces drop sharply, for example (no problem if you are attacked, of course).

[The Yogi]

On the contrary, the medieval society was obessed with legal niceties. It has been said (unfortunately, I can't remember by whom) that if in modern ages war is a continuation of politics by other means, in medieval Europe, war was a continuation of the lawsuit with other means.

As for your example of England seizing Aquitaine (and Anjou) it was not by military means but through marriage and inheritance - in strictest adherence to Feudal law and tradition. The Count of Anjou had married the heiress of Aquitaine before he inherited the English Crown (together with Bretagne and Normandie) Strictly speaking, Aquitaine did not belong to England, but was held by the King of England in his role as a French Duke.

One good example of this obesession with being "right" is the opening of Shakespeare's Henry V, where King Harry makes sure he's in the right from a legal point of view ie that his claim on the French throne was rightfull - the point of contention being that the "Salian law" forbade women to inherit in "Salian lands", something the English claimed should not be considered to include France.

[MonkeyMan]

would be nice to see an incentive based dimplomatic model with the option to demand/give :- money, territory, war pacts, armies etc. There should always be the option to get your way if your willing to pay for it.

[Didz]

Quote Originally posted by The Yogi:
On the contrary, the medieval society was obessed with legal niceties. It has been said (unfortunately, I can't remember by whom) that if in modern ages war is a continuation of politics by other means, in medieval Europe, war was a continuation of the lawsuit with other means.

As for your example of England seizing Aquitaine (and Anjou) it was not by military means but through marriage and inheritance - in strictest adherence to Feudal law and tradition. The Count of Anjou had married the heiress of Aquitaine before he inherited the English Crown (together with Bretagne and Normandie) Strictly speaking, Aquitaine did not belong to England, but was held by the King of England in his role as a French Duke.

One good example of this obesession with being "right" is the opening of Shakespeare's Henry V, where King Harry makes sure he's in the right from a legal point of view ie that his claim on the French throne was rightfull - the point of contention being that the "Salian law" forbade women to inherit in "Salian lands", something the English claimed should not be considered to include France.[/QUOTE]

I agree!

And wouldn't it make for a great game if MTW included this sort of background into the diplomatic model. It would also add a lot more interest in to the death of a king as the whole political situation would have to be reviewed to decide how many other rulers had a claim to their lands.


------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis

[maroule]

Quote Originally posted by The Yogi:
On the contrary, the medieval society was obessed with legal niceties. It has been said (unfortunately, I can't remember by whom) that if in modern ages war is a continuation of politics by other means, in medieval Europe, war was a continuation of the lawsuit with other means.

As for your example of England seizing Aquitaine (and Anjou) it was not by military means but through marriage and inheritance - in strictest adherence to Feudal law and tradition. The Count of Anjou had married the heiress of Aquitaine before he inherited the English Crown (together with Bretagne and Normandie) Strictly speaking, Aquitaine did not belong to England, but was held by the King of England in his role as a French Duke.

One good example of this obesession with being "right" is the opening of Shakespeare's Henry V, where King Harry makes sure he's in the right from a legal point of view ie that his claim on the French throne was rightfull - the point of contention being that the "Salian law" forbade women to inherit in "Salian lands", something the English claimed should not be considered to include France.[/QUOTE]


right, aquitaine was the wrong example, and I wasn't clear. Still, the diplomatic model in EU is more based on nations, while in the middle ages it is based on individuals and inheritance claims (and logically so, look at France in 1200 and in 1773, one is a patchwork of regional powers and weak king, the other a country strongly centralised around one dominant king = of course the notion of statehood is radically different, with obvious impacts on diplomacy). Anyway, good luck to base a playable system on the nicities of intricate genealogic trees across Europe. But if it could be done, I'd be all for it.

[Rosacrux]

Maroule is right (despite the little error) because EU is indeed based on nations, not just roayl houses who tend to hold land as possesion (which is the deal with the medieval Europe).

But anyway, we've been talking about this for ages (among some rather intriguing talks about flying pigs and other oddities), that a crossover between EU - EU2, better - and MTW would be the emperor of all games.

[The Yogi]

Quote Originally posted by Rosacrux:
Maroule is right (despite the little error) because EU is indeed based on nations, not just roayl houses who tend to hold land as possesion (which is the deal with the medieval Europe).[/QUOTE]

True, but the same could be said about MTW, its about nations, not royal houses, so what works in EU2 should also work in MTW.

Quote But anyway, we've been talking about this for ages (among some rather intriguing talks about flying pigs and other oddities), that [b]a crossover between EU - EU2, better - and MTW would be the emperor of all games.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I know its probably not realistic to expect such a vast change to MTW. But SOMETHING has to be done with the Glory game diplomatic model, or interest in SP MTW will wane pretty fast.

What's the point of having a Glory Goal game option if the AI forces you to conquer the world anyway? A historic outcome should not be forced, but it should be a plausible outcome.

Can you imagine an MTW SP campaign, from 1087 AD to 1453 AD that ends without some country or another owning half the world?

[Rosacrux]

Quote True, but the same could be said about MTW, its about nations, not royal houses, so what works in EU2 should also work in MTW.[/QUOTE]

In an abstract way, yes, it does. But we wouldn't be talking about semantics is this would indeed be feasible. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

Quote Yeah, I know its probably not realistic to expect such a vast change to MTW. But SOMETHING has to be done with the Glory game diplomatic model, or interest in SP MTW will wane pretty fast.[/QUOTE]

I hate myself saying this, but you have absolutely right. But I think a vast revamp of the diplomacy model is not something we can expect in a patch or even in the expansion. Maybe Ancient Total War - TW3 shall make it true http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

Quote Can you imagine an MTW SP campaign, from 1087 AD to 1453 AD that ends without some country or another owning half the world?[/QUOTE]

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. In one of my first campaings playing as the Poles, I restrained myself to their "physical" area (Lithuania, Livonia, Prussia, Silesia and 2-3 more)and I never tried to grow really big, played defensively, never fought a single war against any non-rebel faction, just roleplayed my way through the game. Well, I didn't finish the campaign but at 1420 nobody owned more than 10 provinces.