Diplomacy Issues

[Crimson Castle]

One thing that MTW seems to lack is the AI's role in diplomacy and strategic planning and also a bit more complexity.

You can't seem to bully your lesser rivals into forming alliances or mergers. Although, you can use the alliance and assasin trick to try to get more territory.

I remember some of the old games like Romance of the 3 Kingdoms where you could bribe (for a reasonable price) rival generals into joining your side. They would be more willing to join your cause if they had a historical enmity with their current ruler. IIRC, French rulers always had the knack of getting a good rebellion in Scotland going.

[Lord Of Storms]

Quote[/b] (Alita @ April 19 2003,13:30)]I remember some of the old games like Romance of the 3 Kingdoms where you could bribe (for a reasonable price) rival generals into joining your side. They would be more willing to join your cause if they had a historical enmity with their current ruler. IIRC, French rulers always had the knack of getting a good rebellion in Scotland going.
I remember Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Ghengis Khan,Nobunagas's Revenge. All great games I miss playing them. You can turn a General with the right bribe in MTW depending on the size of his army it can get kind of pricy , but if his loyalty is low chances are good he will turn...

[A.Saturnus]

It`s not as if the lack of diplomacy hasn`t been noticed before http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif but it can`t be said often enough so the devs can`t say "we never heard about that"...

[Crimson Castle]

I'm no programmer but if RTK and those other old Intel386s games could employ a decent amount of diplomacy in their game... I am baffled why the makers of MTW can't do the same. After awhile, the game gets a bit boring when you build up this huge preponderance of forces.

[The_Emperor]

I wish that some the proposed Alliance options for RTW make their way into Medieval... An expansion maybe? (demanding tribute from other factions, co-ordinating attacks with an ally)

That would be real class (I still think that the Medieval period sounds more fun than this proposed Roman one)

[Crimson Castle]

It would also cool if you weren't able to view enemy troop strength numbers without a good spy.

So if you send a poor spy he would report/map show enemy has 10 armies - 1 army... basic information. A good spy would reveal more detail - 3 longbow archer units, 3 horsemen units, 1 five star general.

Good spy units should also be able to suppress rebellions.

(In this configaration, the 3d map of mtw wouldn't probably work, a 2d map would be better)

As someone else suggested, being able to demand tribute would be great too.

As would hiring shipping (ie Venetians) to transport your troops around.

Trade should also play a more major role. Remember the old games like Taipan, Odessy, RTK etc..) Bartering your way and trying to dominate trade routes ...

Then you have advisors who depending on their ability would be able to sus out the capabilities of your governors and generals. So you wouldn't actually see the true vices or intelligence of them. Really good spys should be able to blackmail rival generals and administrators.

[USMCNJ]

Well they already said that "some" changes were made to the diplomacy in the Viking Invasion. But from they way they said it, and from all the reviews it doesn't sound like its going to come even close to satisfing our wishes.

As far as bribing enemy officers, the cost depends more on his royalty then anything else.

I agree that the medieval period is more exciting then the roman one. But the good news is that RTW is suppose to be mod friendly, so i'm pretty sure that you will see a Medieval mod for RTW withing a few weeks of its release date.

I hope that CA reads your spy idea.

[Brutal DLX]

Mind you, but personally I think that MTW is quite mod friendly already, compared to other games.. you can do new maps, units, change stats. There will always be some hardcoded features though.
The diplomacy isn't a strong point of this game, I agree, some things could be implemented, like a requests to your ally for assistance in defending, or doing a concerted attack on some other faction's province.. or the often mentioned possibility to pass through your ally's territory.

But if diplomacy would work as some people suggested, it would only benefit the player as the AI factions would hardly go to war anymore, and all conflicts would be resolved sooner, so the human player will be even quicker in attaining superpower status. It's still a wargame, after all, and not a historical simulation.

[Emp. Conralius]

Planning an attack with your allies would be great in MTW. I actually thought that when I got the game that it would be a feature. At lest it's gonna be in RTW http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif


In MTW, though, I'de like to see a system of insults, tribute, or even some a$$-kissin'. Similar to the one found in Lords of the Realm 2 (another great, turn-based RTS).

[HindSight2020]

Quote[/b] (Alita @ April 24 2003,20:41)]It would also cool if you weren't able to view enemy troop strength numbers without a good spy.

So if you send a poor spy he would report/map show enemy has 10 armies - 1 army... basic information. A good spy would reveal more detail - 3 longbow archer units, 3 horsemen units, 1 five star general.

Good spy units should also be able to suppress rebellions.

(In this configaration, the 3d map of mtw wouldn't probably work, a 2d map would be better)

As someone else suggested, being able to demand tribute would be great too.

As would hiring shipping (ie Venetians) to transport your troops around.

Trade should also play a more major role. Remember the old games like Taipan, Odessy, RTK etc..) Bartering your way and trying to dominate trade routes ...

Then you have advisors who depending on their ability would be able to sus out the capabilities of your governors and generals. So you wouldn't actually see the true vices or intelligence of them. Really good spys should be able to blackmail rival generals and administrators.
I like the idea of a good spy - bad spy. Like Pinkerton in the American Civil War. "Yes sir The enemy has 200,000 men over that hill" when there are only 40,000. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

[NewJeffCT]

True, it would be nice to be able to ask for help from an ally - or, in turn, if you are the Spanish and are invaded by the Almohads, to appeal for help from fellow Catholics...not wait for the Pope to ask for a Crusade, and then 4 years later, one starts marching.

What I would also like to do is more actively be able to help out an ally - i.e., if I was the English, I would want to help out the Spanish to keep them as a buffer between me and the Islamic factions. So, if the Spanish are on the brink of being wiped out, and put out the request, you can sail in with a few hundred men to help them out.

Or, how about this for spies/intelligence:
Watch Towers tell you how many troops in a neighboring province only.
Border Fort tells you that, plus the buildings/improvements in the province
1 star Spy - the two above, plus divides the troops between infantry, cavalry & artillery pieces
2 star Spy - all that, plus more specific troops info - light/heavy cavalry; light/med infantry; missile troops
3 star Spy - all the above, plus specific troop types (spearmen, pikemen, ghulam bodyguards, mamluk cavalry, etc)
4 star Spy - all that, plus command & valor level of the general & governor...

[Crimson Castle]

As for bribing generals: sometimes you should be able to persuade generals to revolt (esp. if they have royal blood) and set up a rival factions.

A case in point. King Richard 1st was sidelined by his father for the royal throne; he was going to pick someone else. Dick1 then threw a fit and together with King Phillip of France overthrew his father from the throne.

So your emissaries or spys or even princess and bishops should be able to get rival generals to rebel. Not necessarily joining your faction but creating their own rebel faction.

[Dogmeat]

i wish the diplomacy was improved. I've seen many times when an enemy refuses an agreement of a ceasefire as they can see no advantage to it, while i reduced their empire to one province and a small group of frightened peasants. With two full stacks of my good troops just waiting to attack on their border. And they can see no advantage to peace http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

but bare in mind. It is Medieval total war, not Medieval total diplomacy.
Still... i would prefer more peaceful options http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[A.Saturnus]

Quote[/b] ]
It's still a wargame, after all, and not a historical simulation.


I wouldn`t mind if it evolves a bit that direction. A good start would be to fix the diplomatic features that are in the game. When the AI tells you they would consider peace when you reduce border forces and their only province is Rhodes (&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif, you know something is really wrong.

[Brutal DLX]

Yeah right. Perhaps you have to read between the lines then, Saturnus http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif. Perhaps the Byz just wanted to let you know they couldn't care less about your emissaries and telling them whatever nonsenses came to their mind.
(a la "So what you wanna do? Come and hit me on my little island. heh")

On account of accepting peace when down to one province, I wouldn't do that myself. It's better for that faction to get eradicated and maybe respawn a few years later than to slowly fade out in that tiny province after they controlled a large empire. Yeah right. I would accept those peace offers NOT.

[Dogmeat]

Well realistically, if i was stuck on a little island with a much depleted empire and surrounded by fleets of enemy ships with 1000s of enemy troops just waiting to be shipped in and destroy me. I would accept the ceasefire and regain in strength. I'm talking in realistic terms here, of course the AI is better off if they are destroyed overall, because they tend to reammerge, but realistically i doubt they would have thrown away their lives so easily.

[Brutal DLX]

Heh. How realistic is it to "regain" strength when you are on a tiny island with little resources, your fleet destroyed and your army gone?
Either you get wiped out right away by those "1000s" of enemy troops or you will get ignored from now on since you pose no threat. Why ask for peace? It's all the same, no matter what.

[A.Saturnus]

You can gain strength by loyalty rebellions. Especially the Byz ones are usually big with lots of VGs.

[Brutal DLX]

And how realistic are those rebellions? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Besides, they're outside of your influence, other than if you still had some spies left in some territories.

[Dogmeat]

True, as the player, if i had "1000s" of troops and my enemy had only one weakily defended province left, i would usually crush them straight away.

But saying i felt merciful and offered them a ceasefire so no more blood need be shed, as they for all intensive purposes are defeated. As the AI, i would accept. Who says the island has a small income or resources? But with little or no army to maintain you are bound to make a profit, you might have good reserves of cash left anyway. Start your empire up from scratch, use this time in peace to rebuild your fleets and defenses and expand once again. Surely its better than being erased from existance with no guarantte of reemerging. From the AI's point of view of course http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Brutal DLX]

Heh. Yeah, keep saving your ~200 per annum profit and you actually might be getting somewhere. In about 400 years.

[Dogmeat]

Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ April 30 2003,03:21)]Heh. Yeah, keep saving your ~200 per annum profit and you actually might be getting somewhere. In about 400 years.
[quote]Heh. Yeah, keep saving your ~200 per annum profit and you actually might be getting somewhere. In about 400 years.

The sarcasm meter is off the charts http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

Yes but if it was 'realistic', they would rather do that than be killed by rampaging heavy cav.
Besides they might have loads of money stored up. Who knows?

[Brutal DLX]

Yeah. I know that's one of my vices. The "you" in my posts was a passive one, though, you knew that, right?

The point I am trying to make is, that there's no reality involved in a computer sim. And although one might not like certain aspects, they are there, and they have their pros and cons, like it or not.

(And if you are the island, in reality, you think you could trust such a peace offering? You can accept it, sure, but you don't have to, as you will still have the same income from your island, nothing changes for you in the short run, and the long term future is quite unpredictable to plan ahead on, sim or reality alike. In reality, not attacking anymore is already sort of a ceasefire, btw. And as attacker, well, you (active 'you' now http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif)explained what you would do, and somehow, I just can't get rid of the suspicion that your merciful feelings are just a concealed form of wanting to keep that faction alive and peaceful in a one province state so as to prevent respawns. What a perfect world that would be... Wicked politics & diplomacy, eh? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif)