View Full Version : I wish this were changed . . .
Ok, I'm the HRE playing a GA campaign. I've only initiated one war so far up to 1204 when I "rushed" the Italians for Venice. Up to this point, every other war was started by someone else - the French, the Danes, the English, the Hungarians, the Poles, the Papacy . . . not to say I didn't take advantage of these wars - I took most of France (they really pissed me off when I kicked their butts and they refused against all common sense a ceasefire, I wanted to teach them a lesson), eliminated the Danes, took Croatia from Hungary, etc - and did a couple of slash and burns on the others. Those were my "punishments" for attacking me unprovoked. So I am now the wealthiest, most powerful military in Europe in 1204.
But, I can't get any ceasefires - and I've not fought a battle with any of these in years. They won't attack me because I am too powerful, but I can't get them to make peace with me either. I don't care about conquering them all - I just want to play my GA campaign and objectives. But it's kind of hard if I've got to maintain tons of defensive armies just because the English and Hungarians and crowd are still mad after 100 years of no war. I think ceasefires should be automatic after 5 years if there has been NO combat in that time. And they should have to last 10 years minimum before a war can be started again - for both me and the AI. I mean it's silly that all these countries are technically at war with me, but NO fighting occurs. I really wish CA would look at this for the next game. Still loving it though.
Grifman
NorseGod
12-02-2002, 14:43
I agree. In fact it seesm that there should be a facility to offer a ceasefire which presumably would immediately improve diplomatic relations.
Also - alliances are totally meaningless as far as I can see. There is nothing to stop anyone breaking them at any moment and no penalty for doing so. In the real world you wouldn't be trusted by many if you did that.
Is there some invisible reduction in influence or something?
Might be an idea that you lost influence or some trust-related stat unless you give X years' notice.
i want to see tributes in the next game... perhaps we could pay them to have a ceace fire
Alliances should be for specific time frames - whatever the players agree upon - and should not be able to be broken during that time. That at least puts you on notice that you might have a problem to deal with in so many years. That would be more realistic than alliance being broken by an attack at any time.
Grifman
Unfortunately, the whole diplomacy with the AI is messed up. As mentioned above, the AI has lots of problems.
One example, current game, early, byz, expert. Egypt attacked me. I took two provences and has two others under seige. My Empire is about 10 times the size of the Egyptians. The Egyptians were getting preassured from the Spanish (who wiped out the Almondheads) and had very little uncommited troops. I took my 2-star emmissary and asked the Egyptians for a ceasefire. Turned me down twice. I wanted to see if my seiges would be called off and my troops sent to my nearest province.
Soon, after suffering a civil war, Egypt was destroyed, reduced to their home province under control of rebels and seperating me and the Spanish.
I have found it nearly impossible to get a war to stop by using diplomacy. I must back off so I do not have any army/ship/province adjacent to my enemy to get the auto ceasefire. Note, this does NOT work if they have a crusade against you.
Riddle me this Batman, Why does the HRE (9 provinces) break alliance with me, Byz (20 provinces, largest army, most income...) because his other ally, Novograd (3 provinces) decides to invade me even considering Novograd was also my ally and stabbing me in the back?
The AI just does not see to make sense when it comes to diplomacy (or trade - why do they bunch up their fleets rather than spread them out for trade?)
HopAlongBunny
12-02-2002, 17:18
I am beginning to think the AI uses a random diplomacy generator. Most games you can never count on anything from your "allies". My latest game has been an exception: Russians Late; alliance with Byzantines lasted from day one right up until 1425. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
Of course once it broke there is no repair; but it was nice while it lasted.
LovelyHaji
12-02-2002, 17:52
The diplomacy is utter cock in this game. i always have ALL my borders defended. I rarely bother offering alliances anymore. I was dissapointed with Shogun, what with all the rich potential for being seen as dishonourable and so on. To not improve it in two years is a crime really, especially as with the patch the tactical AI is quite good fun.
MizuKokami
12-02-2002, 20:56
you do loose one crown of influence when breaking an alliance, but you get it back once you conquer the second territory. yeah...diplomacy needs work. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
I agree that tactical-AI is much better postpatch. But the strategic needs much more work.
Here is an example, (I play Italy). The Sicilian attacked one of my ships and sunk it. The Pope cancelled alliance with Sicilian. Next year, Sicilian attack 2 of my islands, Corsica and Sardina. And a flood of alliance cancellation came from my former allies. They all want to ally with Sicily for some reason.
I invaded Sicily to teach the guy a lesson (through Naple). Got the island without a fight (Sicily was busy occupying my islands). The Pope asked me to withdraw within 2 years. Fine. I destroyed everything on Sicily and proceed to attack Corsica and Sardina, left Sicily.
I still have my troops in Corsica and Sardina castles. I just relieve the siege.
But the Pope excommunicated me anyways. And the horde of French and German just came to my empire. And my empire falls...
What I gripe about is that taking back my territory shouldn't be counted toward the 2 years. I still have my force in the castle. It is a disputed territory. The Sicilian couldn't build nor collect tax (new post-patch feature) because of that. They couldn't retreat any where else.
I am replaying Italy now, with hope that if I encountered the problem with Sicily, I will know how to handle it.
(I guess I should have let the Pope excummunicate him first).
Annie
sassbarman
12-03-2002, 01:16
Ya I gotta problem with that whole getting excommed thing when your simply trying to reconquer your own province. For me an easy fix for this would be having some sort of message coming up giving me a simple explanation for the popes position. e.g. the pope recognizes so & so's claim on this province and thus sides with them in this conflict. Maybe have an info parchment on which provinces could be under dispute this would certainly be historically accurate and give some heads-up on which provinces might suffer an unprovoked attack.
DonCoyote
12-03-2002, 01:59
Some alliances do last for a very long time, but it is infuriating when a bunch of allies dump you for the faction that has just attacked you. Its at this point i lose interest in moving emmisaries around the map, & if i see "X regretfully declines your offer of marriage" one more time http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif .
Don Coyote
Is this game too hard? I don't think so
So the AI makes it harder on you than any other faction? THANK GOD
I don't want this any easier.
About 90% of the time the other faction ask for peace from me. I rarly make attempts at peace treaties. If they ask me and I feel justice has been served I will agree.
Other then that I know the limits of the diplomacy in this game and dont even really bother.
It would be cool if the diplomacy was like EUII or something though.
No Mary, I feel the game is not too hard. There are always the Har/Moderate level below Expert. However, what I am griping about is that it could be made even more challenging than the simple "pile up the inquisitor" thing.
Annie
A.Saturnus
12-03-2002, 13:03
this is not about hardness but about atmosphere
If the AI just acts silly by attacking a much superior force (not just the player, I`ve seen AI 2-provinces-factions attack large AI empires) or refusing to marry one of your princesses when they have only advantages by it or I notice that the reason why AI refuses ceasefire are random (like "retreat your forces from our border" when there is no border ) it makes you feel like "just a pc game"
Sephiroth
12-03-2002, 13:23
Speaking of being excommunicated the pope excommunicated me in my most recent game, Sicillians,Hard,High because the italians attacked me They sunk about 5 ships in one go and i get warned about my aggression??Definetely needs an improvement. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Sephiroth
12-03-2002, 13:28
I love the game but the diplomatic side of the AI must get an overhaul.I mean what is the sense in a computer faction starting a new war with its powerful ally, me, when it is desperately tryin to thwart attacks from the other side of its empire from an even more powerful enemy
I'm beginning to feel that an Excomm explaination should become a sticky http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/redface.gif
The Pope gives you the warning no matter what if you are about 50% larger than your opponent, the same is true for the AI, that is why the HRE is Excommed so often. Your stance towards the Papacy is of no consequence, if you are not at war with them that is, then you are always Excommed.
The 2 years warning means you have only got one round to do more attacks as the round where you get the warning is in fact counting as one year.
You are not allowed after the warning has run up, to do anything aggressive whatsoever. That means no taking provinces, not letting a siege run its course if you are the besieger, no sallying from besieged castles and no attacking ships. The Pope might not be fair, but he is meant to try and keep factions alive.
Whenever the Pope has sent out a warning he will only keep track of that one, same with Excomms. So if you are Warned not to attack the Aragonese any more, then go and attack another small faction.
TheLastEuropean
12-03-2002, 15:28
Sigh, you are playing GA right??? Well you are taking the homeland provinces off the AI factions and they want them back. They're not too bothered about the huge faction on the other side who is about to annihilate them - they are going for points/objectives. This is why, as the game progresses, alliances and ceasefires are harder to come by - factions shift their positions due to losing their starting provinces and conquering other provinces. Noticed how it's not as difficuly to get ceasefires/alliances in the early periods. Kicking factions out of their homelands then turning around and saying "Let's kiss and make up now I have all your territory" just won't work in GA (don't play conquest so wouldn't know about it there).
That's not to say if you do respect the other factions GA objectives they will all come rushing to ally with you , but it's quite logical that they refuse a ceasefire in those situations. In fact, what exactly would be the point in accepting. They would only attack next turn or the turn after that - because they want their GA objective, their homelands, back. Either they refuse your ceasefire or they accept it then immediately break it (which is another gripe). Tough call
But when it comes to breaking alliances - do you never do that either?? I imagine you do - so why not the AI too?? You shouldn't look on an alliance as a concrete promise that they won't invade. I see it as a chance to work together to defeat a mutual foe - an agreement of convenience. But when you leave 1 peasant unit in a province bordering 2 of your allies stacks then the convenient alliance doesn't look that conenient anymore. No, what is more convenient is your neglect of a garrison so wave goodbye to your province http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Yes, there are quirks in the diplomacy (having a ship attacked on the other side of the map by a faction you haven't even met yet) but generally I see some reasoning behind the motives.
Ok, another AI diplomatic dodiddle last night. I'm playing the HRE, I've taken over northern Italy, right next to the Pope. He excommunicated the Italians, so I sent crusade after crusade into their lands at his Holinesses request, proving my piety and loyalty http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif So then, the Sicilians attack him - and I am allied to the Pope. The following happens:
1) I attack the Sicilians to take the pressure off of the Pope - so what does he do but warn me about attacking other Catholics? What the . . . ?
2) Nevertheless in less than 2 turns we together take them out. I'm feeling pretty good about helping an ally out - even if he was stupid enough to threaten me with excommunication for doing it.
3) ONE turn later, the Pope invades my province of Tuscany Another, what the ****?? Stupid Pope I helped him out, crusaded against his enemies, and this is what I get?
I'm certain there is a reason the AI is doing this, but in context it looks totally stupid and inconsistent.
Meanwhile, I counterattack, get excommunicated, but take Rome, murder the Pope and destroy every since improvement and leave the wasteland to the rebels that soon arise. There won't be any St. Peters for the Pope to come home to when the Papacy arises again eventually. He can live in a mud hut for all I care
But I still love this game.
Grifman
LOL This tactic by the papacy must be congenital It's 79 years later, the Pope has returned, and once again is at war with the Sicilians. Once again I crusade against them, once more the Pope attacks me the turn after I defeat them. Surely he must understand what happened with his predecessor? Guess it's time to burn that new village of a rebuilt Rome again . . .
Grifman
I, for one, feel that it would be an extremely BAD idea to force unbreakable alliances/cease fires (not that its likely to be changed anyhow). Treaties are made to be broken- Im not even going to bother citing the multitude of historical examples of it. Sure, there's usually a penalty for breaking an alliance- but it was usually a very mild and insignigicant penalty.
Say you attack an ally... what are they going to do? Declare war on you? A bit late for that.
sassbarman
12-05-2002, 09:14
Xiahou you nailed it, there is no downside to attacking allies in this game and that takes alot away from its stategic depth. EUII has got it right with its stability factor, for those of you not familiar with the game every country has a stability rating which ranges from +3 to -3. At plus 3 your country is humming along smoothly do bad things and it drops. Attacking an ally is one of the worst things you can do and it results in a drop of 5 stability points resulting not only in a dramatic increase in the risk of rebellion but you will take a huge hit to your economy as well. As it stands now in MTW you lose on level of influence when you attack an ally, well later in the game when no one will ally with anyway whats the harm. AHHH if only these two great games could be merged then ah yes I would be single and unemployed.
Sephiroth
12-06-2002, 11:51
Another thing that should be introduced is co-operative attacks with your allies agaisnt an enemy. Arranging a date and so on.Would make things very dangerous i must say, and instead of deciding who attains the province by simply who has the bigger army it should be decided by who has killed the most.If this occured my life long tactic of,sitting back letting my ally get wiped and simply brush my enemy off the field and hence claim victoyr by sitting on my ass, tactic would be quite useless.
Earl of Freshly Mowed Grass
12-07-2002, 01:35
IMHO (No so humble, I might add), alliances should work such, because this is how they work (generally, in reality)
You should have a "popularity" rating. When allied to another nation, you become more popular with them and thus far less likely to engage in war. Now, should you break that alliance and attack, your popularity with them drops significantly. However, you have other allies in the game. When two nations go to war, their allies must choose side (1 or the other or neither). So each ally will either go completely neutral, or will support one other side in war. Of course, popularity changes take place, so if you break an alliance, and the victim has many allies, you are pretty much at war with the world (HAHAHAHAH) And so be it...
The Almighty God, Earl of Freshly Mowed Grass
What about something similiar to Civ3. In that game, you have a reputation rating based on how trustworthy you've been. Attacking an ally results in a huge reputation drop which results in alliances and other diplomatic agreements being less likely to be agree on.
But, the problem as far as I can see, is not so much the limits on diplomacy for the human, but rather the lack of any consequences for the AI. The Influence stat from my experience is irrelevant whether it's 2 or 9. Usually the when the AI has to choose between another AI and you, it almost always chooses another AI, even with an influence 9 ruler.
Finally given all this, the only way to get a ceasefire is to wipe out all your enemies. Why bother having diplomacy at all?
FesterShinetop
12-07-2002, 02:34
Diplomacy really needs a makeover. I played a game this evening as the English and the Byz attacked me on sea. I was going really well, getting stinking rich http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif , so I didn't need that. So I offered them a cease fire. And they accepted (after a few years). Problem was that in every turn they accepted my cease fire they also attacked one of my ships... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif So I kept being at war with them, and this happened like 4 turns in a row http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
Actually, I still am at war with them, but this pi**ed me off so much I decided to just annihilate them at sea, hehehe http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif No problem with them on land as they have there hands full with the Golden Horde.
Earl of Freshly Mowed Grass
12-07-2002, 03:55
I honestly don't even play diplomatically. My treaties and agreements vary based on how may swords my troops used to cut of the kings head. Usually only one, but there have been exceptions...
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.