diplomacy ideas...where to start...

[jajknight]

In reading these forums I've noticed that nearly everyone wants better diplomacy. I feel the same so here are a couple of my ideas.

-Diplomacy pre or mid battle: have an option where pre or mid-way through a battle your general can request a meeting with the other general and negotiate some type of settlement with him. Only a 7+ star general with certain virtues/titles may request a meeting and the opponent may or may not accept the meeting. This way it is kind of rare and is both appreciated and strategically important. Assuming he does, there would of course be a cool animation where you meet in some smoke filled tent filled with a banquet of food, maps and of course, plenty of beautiful belly dancers http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

The following choices (feel free to add to them) would appear:

A) You are an impetuous fool [opponent’s name here]. My forces are superior to yours in number and quality. Even as we speak I have [x number] of reinforcements waiting on the horizon Lay down your arms and kneel before my God and country. If you refuse then on my solemn oath - the fields will turn red with the blood of your men and your head will rest on my spear.

B) Your battlefield tactics are admirable [opponent’s name here]. Surely a general of your stature and experience can see that we are at a stalemate. Let us prevent a senseless blood bath and call a mutual truce.

C) My emperor has wealth second only to heaven itself. Please accept [enter florins here] as a tribute to your leadership and join my forces. If you decline, then may God have mercy on your soul.

D) My emperor fights on many battlefronts and requires my skills elsewhere. I surrender to you now and trust that a reasonable ransom will buy my freedom.

Can you imagine the emotion it would add to the battle when he brashly refuses your offer and you see an animation of him laughing at you? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Depending on a variety of factors (dread, force size, etc.) the AI will make a LOGICAL decision. You won't see crap where you have the entire map, 8,000 troops invading a little hut and the AI says no thanks. Oh and the AI can request a meeting of you as well.

One other diplomatic idea: being able to swap provinces with other emperors. Imagine for certain reasons you really need a provice that your ally has. You don't want to invade him because you're too busy fighting the 50 stack almos. In order to trade a province it will automatically cost you x number of florin. (There needs to be other ways to spend money - what do you do when you have like 700k florin?). The trade could involve two for one deals, last a limited number of years, cannot be abandoned etc.

[FesterShinetop]

I like the idea of the belly-dancers... but seriously, I don't think we need diplomacy on the battlefield/strategy map. I'd like them to just concentrate on better diplomacy on the campaign map. So, an alliance is really an alliance and you can move troops over an allies' lands. Stuff like that

[Alrowan]

its a very nice idea, and could make the game a lot more intersting. But i think there are other issues that ned to be adressed first... the diplomacy in this game in my opinion is worse than Lords of the realm 2

[FesterShinetop]

Yes I agree, the diplomacy is terrible in this game which is a huge shame. It could be sooo nice if we had some more complicated diplomacy Really gang up on one other Faction leader; stuff like that would be really cool and a real enhancement to the game.

But I think most people allready agree the dimplomacy sucks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif , so let's hear the great ideas.

[Foreign Devil]

I'd like to see the alliance system improved. I like fighting in battles where more than one faction is involved- the AI should be allowed to help you in battles (I know you can help the AI- I was allied with byzantium once, and constaninople was invaded witha force that could easily defeat the byzintines, but i moved a large army to assist, and afterwards, byzantium kept the province even though my army was several times the size of theirs). It would also be cool if you were able to shore up an ally by say, giving them florins. (as I like to try to keep the byzintines alive as kind of a buffer in between me and the golden horde... when I'm playing a western faction, that is http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ).

[Musashi]

Multiple levels of alliance would be nice (See Space Empires IV or Starships Unlimited for an example of this) from simple non-aggression treaties to partnerships which would allow for the abovementioned military cooperation to full fledged federations which would be completely unbreakable once entered into. A few negative relationships like tributary and protectorate would be cool too. Politics is fun http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

-Musashi

[Xiahou]

It would be nice to have a few alliance options. The simplest being just an agreement to leave each other pretty much alone and then a more complex one allowing for pre-planned joint invasions and things of the like. Also, as stated above- a bully-type alliance like a protectorate would be a nice touch too.

Itd be very cool to be able to band together and fight common enemies and things of that nature. One particpant gets the conquered territory and the others get some financial compensation for their assistance. (ala Romance of the 3 Kingdoms, for those who've played it)

[rasoforos]

well i cant say i like this in-the-middle-of-the-battle option , i wouldnt bother to use it. However the idea about joined invasions is really good , moreover it would be nice if you could request from your ally to send a portion of his army to help you and get paid for it. Or if you could send armies to help your opponents and get money or land as compensation.

[Sandy-San]

The AI makes up its mind to fight or not before the battle, so being able to reconsider halfway would just confuse things, not to mention being a tad unrealistic... I think its fair to assume that any negotiations are taken before the armies line up (unless they run off before they fight)

but we need better diplomacy and management of diplomacy. Civ3 (a personal fave) has a simple range of options: non-aggression pact, mutual protection pact, right of passage, as well as trade partners, which would seem to fit well with what people want. and it provides a lovely little chart to show who hates who, and even gives some idea of why the faction distrusts you, fears you, took you off its Christmas card list etc.

it would be nice to know why no one ever wants to marry my princesses, or why the dumb hungarians suddenly attacked my shipping, then refused to call a ceasefire (ever) despite my only sinking one ship in retaliation, or even to be able to have some sort of 'diplomatic' victory, instead of the end-game situation where a faction with two provinces suddenly makes a suicide attack, or you have to turn on a faithful ally who has only got half a unit of peasants and a fort left - there is a difference between holding 60% of provinces when the rest are all heavily armed enemies and holding a majority and having military domination, - so if the only provinces left are my allies, or protectorates then game over. (I do like the protectorate idea what about annual payment of tribute like the danegeld? or forced contrubtion of men to armies?)

CA needs to decide if it wants to put more into the campaign, to make it a 'domination' game, or to stick with the 'total war' ideal of having the campaign game as supplementary to the core wargame.

all IMHO, of course... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[A.Saturnus]

in some of my campaigns, there was no diplomacy at all after 1300. No one allies with me despite I`m the strongest power and known to be a trustworthy ally. The reasons they give for not alling with you are random. Strategic actions often seem totally confused. The AI should choose allies and stay with them unless there is a major advantage for falling in their backs. Factions endangered from mutual enemies should help each other with money and troops. If a faction gets destroyed an ally should be able to help remaining loyalist to start a rebellion. Factions should be able to trade provinces that are not part of their homeland for other provinces, money, troops or treaties. The diplomatic possibilities that are not used in the game are legion.

[jajknight]

I agree it is probably a little unrealistic mid battle. Also, the way the game is structured some people may not use it at all. If it were a lot harder to win a battle and if generals were a lot rarer and much more important then I think it would have more relevance. There needs to be more of a consequence for your decisions in the game I think. And the decisions can't be trivial. I won my most recent campagin (hard level) by clicking the Check (Yes) box to every single message I saw. That alone points to the uselessness of alliances. Anyway, even if some people didn't use it, it would be cool to have the option.

I remember reading something about an Afghan warlord halting the bombing in afghanistan so he could negotiate a surrender with the taliban and Osama BL. Turns out he was playing both sides and many think this is how Osama got away. That's where I got the mid-battle idea.

[Musashi]

I'd also really like the ability to invade territory without conquering it, as in, attack, crush their army and everything, but simply not claim the territory afterward.

The ability to take provinces in the name of another faction would be nice too, so if my pals the Byzantines get one of their provinces taken by someone, I can invade in the name of the Byzantine Emperor and if I win the battle, the province becomes a Byzantine province again.

I guess really just the ability to give provinces to other factions as gifts would really deal with a lot of this. It's just always frustrating to me when one of my allies is under attack and there's not much I can do about it... I mean I can break sieges for them, but generally the enemy will retreat when my boys show up to break the siege so it's not like I'm really depleting the enemy forces any. If I could conquer in the name of another empire I'd often have marauding armies running roughshod over enemy territory just giving the provinces to my weaker allies.

Or maybe the ability to give money and/or troops to other factions, that would be one way to prop up a faltering ally as well. It just seems unrealistic to me that my allies go under when they have an ally as powerful as my faction sitting on their asses looking the other way. There's plenty of historical precedent for one faction lending troops to another, or conquering lands in the name of allied rulers. We should really be able to do these things.

-Musashi

[PSYCHO]

I for one love the idea jajknight.
I have often thought the same myself but as others have stated, best if we can get some of the 'strategic map' diplomacy sorted out first.


Cheers

[TheViking]

I think they can take some ideas from europa unerversalis 2 Theres some good ideas. The best i think is, b4 you actually get a province you conquerd you must negotiate peace and then you can claim that territory, and the enemy can say no and hope for some help from his/hers allys to come to help. but they must be able to go thru its territorys.

Damn have to play that game now. hehehe

[PatrickNeil]

A lot of things are a tad unrealistic, but I like jajknight's idea. The leaders, or representitives definatly did meet before and after the battle to propose options. It's not a mid-battle meeting if that's the end of the battle.

My humble suggestion was to have a battlefield emisary. He'd work this out, and propose one or two options, like if there's no point in asking of thier surrender when your outnumbered, he wouldn't do it, or he might rout. This goes with, by the way, my desider to have vices and virtues for agents.

Patrick