View Full Version : RTW-- Diplomacy

01-11-2003, 09:17
Alot of players found the diplomacy in MTW lacking. What do you guys think any improvement/new features should be in the new game? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

If this has been discussed before i apologize

01-11-2003, 09:21
Now that u mention it heres my "two cents"

1st of all i would like a breifing in a throne room about my current alliances etc.

2nd i would vry mutch enjoy my allies to report their intentions etc. about conquering certain areas or declaring war on other factions.

3rd id wanty my allies to actualy be allies and not stab me in the back.

01-11-2003, 10:50
Well, here's some ideas...

Option to burn cities or villages, or just demand loyalty. Doing this might affect peoples loyalty, fear, chance to revolt, etc.

Have trade routes so people from distant lands pass through, generating income through different trading. For example if a city is at converging roads/trade routs and on a coast then the city is more popular and heard of, generating even more income over time.

Ability to create new cities. Depending where a city is built affects trade revenue as discussed above.

Build roads, supply lines, trade routs, etc.

And not a diplomatic option, but being able to pick different battle locations would be nice. If the maps are 32x32km then maybe be able to place an army(if defender) in the desired location. The attacker then has the option to deploy close to the enemy or further away.

01-11-2003, 11:02
It would be nice to have your allies coordinate attacks on enemy provinces. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

01-11-2003, 11:46
i was gonna start a topic on thi sonce i got thinking of how S**t the diplomacy is in mtw and stw. this is what i would like to see,...

Real allys as in you can pass though there lands to attack another province or give them money and the AI is much more loyal and as yellow said dont stab u in the back maybe you could ask them to reinforce your attack.

01-11-2003, 11:49
roman doplomacy:

Roman General: "Do you wish to join our humble empire?"
Tribal Leader: "I am not sure, what if my people do not want to? what options do we have?"
Roman General: "You can join us peacefully, or we can conquer you, take your pick...."

01-11-2003, 13:13
I wan't trade negotiations....

That's about it, i don't know if trade was not monitoroed at all back then, but i get the feeling it was

So, trade should be done via the king/ruler rather than by dumping boats in oceans.

01-11-2003, 17:02
Peace negotiations

I demand two provinces and 1500 dinarii and they get peace (it was an example). Or I demand them to be my vassals, or simply annex them

Something like that

and another thing....
01-11-2003, 17:20
Sjakihata Akechi Posted on Jan. 11 2003,15:02
Peace negotiations

I demand two provinces and 1500 dinarii and they get peace (it was an example). Or I demand them to be my vassals, or simply annex them

Something like that

That would be great - imagine saying to a provine, become our vassals and guard this part of our frontier and in return we`ll not invade and enslave you and inmprove your civilisation. The longer a province remains allied the more its standard of living improves, something like that

You could then ask vassals to supply troops or money to fund future campaigns. e.g. slingers or archers, cavalry etc units where the romans were a bit weak whilst the romans supplied heavy infantry, engineers etc

01-11-2003, 22:26
Quote[/b] (Knight_Yellow @ Jan. 11 2003,02:21)]3rd id wanty my allies to actualy be allies and not stab me in the back.
......or atleast have a 1 turn truce, where they could not attack you. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

Gaius Julius
01-12-2003, 08:02
How about reporting to senators before waging war, or making alliances. Also after wars?

Being able to pass through your "ally's" territory to fight your enemies.

Being able to bribe ally, or enemy units to join your army.
Imagine some of the choice units you could get your hands on this way.

After conquering a territory, being able to offer Roman citizenship. Possibly a way to boost loyalty?

01-12-2003, 22:55
Tribute and hostages were big things at the time - and they worked both ways.

Eg Rome might pay "client kingdoms" - Rome thinks it's maintaining buffer areas at it's border, the kingdom thinks it's being paid tribute to not attack Rome - which paradoxically makes some hotheads think that Romes a bunch of faireys so they should attack them and get rich with loot http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

similarly with hostages - young barbarians sent to Rome for "Education", and members of the Roman nobility sent as ambassadors....both were usually considered completely expendable by both sides

Then there's the mass migrations of peopls into relatively empty lands and subsequent recruitment of soldiers from them and mutual absorbtion of societies to consider too.

It could be great if done well....it will be laughable if not Here's hoping it's done well

01-12-2003, 23:31
One thing that truly annoys me about Medieval's diplomacy is that they can break an alliance the same turn as they accept it. For example, I was England and I was in a war with the Aragonese. However, I didn't want a war with the Spanish as well, so I sent an emissary to form an alliance. He accepted, but since he had an alliance with the Aragonese as well, he broke his alliance with me the second he accepted mine. I then tried with a princess, figuring he'd favour me this time, but the same result happened. A couple years later, the Spanish figured it'd be fun to attack me with their massive armies and clobbered me in the French territories I had. Bah


01-13-2003, 22:48
Why does everyone want to be able to move your armies through an allies land?

With the exception of Crusade armies (which didn't belong to a country but to Christendom) no Medieval king/government allowed his 'allies' (if there ever was such a thing) to move armies through his land.

The potental for looting and pillaging and general harrasing of your citizens is too high.

Check some history books and do some reading before you ask for something that will destroy the ammount of historical accuracy that we have in the game.

Not to rant or be a jerk, but I've seen hundreds of posts asking for this.


01-13-2003, 23:01
I think the big problem with alliances right now, is that there doesn't seem to be any purpose to them. If an alliance doesn't influence whether or not another faction will or will not attack you, it seems pointless.

I think there should be some measure of the strength and type of the alliance, as well as added benefits to having an alliance (i.e. mutual defenses and attack, trade benefits, technology exchange, etc.).

01-13-2003, 23:09
jrex has (partly) right, you know. The "right of passage" thingie, was not excactly common practice during medieval times.

When it was excercised, usually it wasn't between "equal allies" but a vassal state granting right of passage to the dominant state.

But... right of passage is not really a decisive factor, you know. There are other options that should be included:

- Truce and for given amounts of times, in exchange of certain buy-offs

- Trade subsidies

- Vassal states - puppet states

- Tribunes in gold, passage rights, taxation, exclusive trade rights etc.

- Royal hostages

- Succesor sheming and plotting (many'o times a 2nd or 3rd in line of succession was used to justify outside intervention)

- more options as for the handling of the local population of conquered provinces

I could go on for ages, but that's not my point. Just some preliminary ideas. I am sure we'll have plenty of opportunities to discuss this.

01-13-2003, 23:19
I agree. The three big things that I want are:

1. To be able to end an alliance without going to war.
2. To be able to declare war (along with 1 you would be able
to go to war with an ally without lowering your
3. The truce idea that you were talking about.

I don't care to much about having my allies fight with me or such..


01-14-2003, 05:32
I can't see any place in RTW for ending an alliance without going to war - in ancient times "diplomacy" was very much a personal thing - if you said yuo weren't going to be allied with someone then it was pretty much tantamount to an act of war.

Terhe were only a few natural states of being between adjacent states:

1/ outright war
2/ war but both are too busy to actually prosecute it (this was arguably the default state between "nations" )
3/ servitude/submission of one to the other

Diplomacy was nothing near as advanced as we think of it now - borders were pretty much non-existant except where they followed some natural boundary, banditry as rife, tehre weer no international courts, no arbitration, ambasadors/messengers were routinely executed, there was no church or other higher authority to appeal anything to, etc.

I think some of your more complicated ideas for diplomacy are quiet anachronistic to an ancient setting.

01-14-2003, 13:28
At a minimum, I would like to see a higher likelihood of having a ceasefire offer accepted. In MTW, it seems very rare - even when war from the AI's point of view is either pointless (eg you are the victim of a piracy raid) or doomed (you outmatch them).
Beyond that, I rather like the Civilisation style of diplomacy. In particular, knowing a country's disposition towards you (from their language, facial expressions, country "type" etc) would be nice. I think factions do have a disposition towards you in MTW, but inferring it seems very hard. Being able to negotiate - demand/surrender cash or provinces for tribute or peace - would be good.

01-14-2003, 13:45
well in defence of the moving through teritiories allied to u (witch is in the game, read the 8 page rtw preview in pc gamer). wat if ur allie needs help and his capital is under attack but u cant possibly help since moving into his lands means war.

01-14-2003, 15:08
I very much agree, that changes should apply to the historical period. On the other hand, this is not a simulation, but a game, made in order for us to have fun. So balancing these to parametres should be the object (that is as an example: U.N. negotiations is surely a bit out of hand - right of passage could be fun, even not that used historically)

It seems diploming in both MTW and RTW are being discussed. I'm no expert in either medieval or ancient times, but a few comments or ideas. Please forgive if something isn't historical correct.

RTW/MTW: Diploming and alliance should inflect much more on the game. Currently it just reflects status of war, as there's little real difference between neutral and allies.

I would like an increased number of levels or different states of relations between the factions. There should be a difference between "peace" and "ally".
The following is an example to explain the point, where historical correctness is ignored:

Alliance: PRO'S: Better trade outcome, exchange intelligence information etc. CON'S: Three years span to call of alliance, impossible to attack one another, have to get a positive answer from ally in order to attack a third part, assasins caught attacking ally causes major crisis.

Peace: Similar to current "alliance" in MTW

Vasal: A minor faction can seek protection from a larger neighbour. I can't see how it should work excactly. Perhaps a minor form of alliance, but added some goals for the minor state, that it needs to fullfill?

Crisis: (I don't know which term is proper): State of mitrust and disharmony, but war hasn't broken out. Trade is lessened (higher taxes on trade)


Of course the main thing is: Which parametres to include? What affects these stages? Trade, assasin attempts...
I'm still too unfamilar with the game to tribute more detailed.

I believe crossing of religious and political interests could inflict more in the game. I'll think of some ideas, but please, haven't others thought about this? I mean controlable stuff, not just calculated consequences.

RTW (apart from the above): It's right there in front of us: Of course the senate could/should be an active part of RTW. Perhaps even a chance to change government structure (republic, kingdom, devine empire etc.)

That's it. Conclusion?: Hmm, just more and wider I guess


01-14-2003, 16:06
Diplomacy would play a major role in the early stages of Rome when its territory was still limited to present Italy.

Then in the last century of the Empire, due to its weakness, it could not do without truces and alliances.

01-14-2003, 17:12

1. I want a new alliances system. You'll be able to ask your allies for militar assistance, for declare war on your enemies, for money, comercial agreements, etc. An alliance must be more difficult to acquire, and i like a "intermedium" state between be an ally or a neutral, i want friendly agreements between two states.

2. I want the possibility of have to paying tributes or demand tributes, give money to allies or friendly nations, an economical assistance to allies.

3. Serfdom. Possibility of offering serfdom to lesser or defeated nations.

4. Possibility of demanding provinces from other nations, with a better chance of success if demanding it from defeated nations.

01-15-2003, 02:42
For starters there was really no such thing as an alliance in ancient times as we understand it between any major powers - an agreement between equals - or rather there was no such thing as an alliance with Rome after about 200BC.

there were alliances between smaller nations and tribes at various times, including Rome and it's neighbours, but most allied miiltary contributions were demanded from client/vassal/subjugated nations.

However such alliances would only be between single tribes - eg a Gallic tribe allied with the samnites for a b attle in 295BC that I don't recall the name of - but it was a single (largish) tribe, and the Samnites were only a single Italic tribe - much as Rome was at the time.

Various "alliances" have the appearance of beign "free associations" - eg Rome with some Greek states vs Macedonia (Aetolia I think) and Seleucia (Pergamon), but these states were faced with absorbtion by their larger neighbours and so allied with Rome as adefensive move - they really weren't big enuogh to survive on their own.

So I'd like to see alliances in RTW be much more linked to size of eth state and size and hostility of it's neighbours - it's really a very simple concept - if you'er got a big neighbour who wants to absorb you then you'll be looking for an alliance with someone who can help.

Of course this isn't necessarily a great solution - your new "Friend" might end up absorbing you anyway - as usually happened with Rome But Armenia represents a case where a small state continually played off Rome against Persia - for centuries in fact, allying with one or other depending upon how things looked at the time.

Of course eventually Rome got so brassed of with Armenia that they conquered it anyway........


but anyway - I digress - ancient diplomacy will hopefully be an awful lot simpler than medieval diplomacy, and much more closely linked to size, hostility and other fairly obvious factors.

01-15-2003, 02:49
One thing that would really be a challenge is having armies limited in size to the amount of manpower in a faction. So if the romans had a population of say 500k, then only a certain percentage would be left to fight. This would get rid of the potential for unlimited manpower if you have lots of money. Also, people would be forced to only fight when need be and not waiste an army.

It would be difficult to win doing this, so maybe just enable this on hard or very hard.

01-15-2003, 05:08
I think most ppl have little idea how large Roman military could get in times of crisis

The following figures may be a little rough 'cos I'm reembering some old studies here:

The % of male population in an army could be absolutely massive - for example when a Roman fleet was sunk off Sicily by a storm in the 1st Punic War over 200,000 men perished - this might've been as much as 15% of the total population of males in Italy at the time http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

While in the 2nd Punic War (218-203BC) Rome lost several armies to Hannibal in Italy - maybe 150,000 men killed - and still managed to put more armies into the field including taking the offensive in Spain and Sicily and eventually Africa.

In 225BC over 120,000 men took to the field agains the Gauls at Telamon - not all of them made the battlefield tho - there were 3 armies involved, and a 4th army had been crushed by the Gauls earlier and its remnants formed part of one of the other 3 IIRC.

In 110-105BC the Cimbri and Teutones defeated 3 Consular armies of maybe 30-40,000 men each so decisivly that we have little or no detail of what happened before Marius defeated them in turn with another 50,000 man army.

During the civil wars of the last century BC there were regularly 3 or 4 armies in the field for each faction - each generally of more than 20,000 men (we know of 1 defeated "minor" general who had 20,0000 men left) while the main armies (Ceasar, Pompey, Brutus & Cassius together, etc) might've been 50-70,000 each.

In the 1st century AD Rome fielded 25 legions IIRC, each with a nominal strength of 5000 men, plus at least as many regular auxiliary infantry, plus auxiliary cavalry, plus sailors, plus local levies.

02-07-2003, 06:57
I would like to see the ability to send financial aid to allies, rebels, or anywhere it may be in your interest to tip the balance of power.

coordinating attacks would be really helpful. Without that having allies fighting on your side is kinda useless.

Ability to negotiate specific borders would be cool. I'm guessing the game is based around cities and not provinces. So if the land a city controls is flexible...then it would be great to be able to trade it with terms of peace. Thus affecting the amount of revenue a city can generate.

Obviously a certain amount of land could not be given away without becoming nonviable, so there would be a game implaced limit...but being able to subtly affect borders might be cool. Dash 20 miles inland to seize that guys river and make yours. Improving your ability to defend your own territiory.

02-07-2003, 09:00
I'm not a historian but I do know that during the Peloponesian wars there was a great deal of diplomacy and power balancing occuring. It is true that this game will be set at a much later date, however that is the evidence that the ancients did practice diplomacy. It may not have been complicated, but a tribute or request for right of passage may not be unreasonable, maybe unheard of but still conceivable.

Its not just that this is a game and should be fun so some history should be sacrificed. Its that in playing this game there is an assumption that the player will make significant changes in history. The Romans may not have used alliances to their advantage, but a clever player might be able to, and therefore should be given the option.

Basically I am saying that if they wanted to play the diplomacy game they could have, but choose not to. We should have the same option.

Big King Sanctaphrax
02-07-2003, 09:44
In times of tribulation it would be cool if you could get troops'on loan' from your allies for a suitable fee. After the danger had passed they would be given back. Also , there should be some kind of penalty for breaking alliances without formally declaring war. You would then have to weigh off the penalty with the advantage of suprise. It would discourage the AI from breaking alliances with you, as well.

02-08-2003, 02:37
Diplomacy was around in ancient and medieval times, I think people are thinking of allainces like NATO and saying those didnt exist, or what not but there is plenty of alliances we can look to.

This game should all kinds of diplomatic options and they are all backed up by history.

[/B]Trade Treaties[B]were common, Rome could never have supported its massive population without them, they bought grain from Egypt and Sicily (and the need for these goods probably led them to conquer many of these former trade partners), furthermore, trade was very prevalent during the ancient days, when massive empires could support and maintain the needed infrastructure for trade accross the Med.

Allainces were also common, just look to the many different Greek city states that were part of one alliance or another, Rome had many of alliances of different natures, client states were common, as well as relations with other powers, the ancient world was not a constant state of warfare as some appear to be stating. Caesar had celtic and german allies/mercenaries during his conquest of Gaul, as a matter of fact, Caesar used the excuse of an alliance with a tribe as his reason for beginning the invasion. Ancient history is filled with alliances and different polities acting together, for a multitude of reasons, but they were allances nonetheless.

02-08-2003, 02:52
Diplomatic Options I would like to see:

(a) Tribute
(b) Trade Agreements
© Territory Exchanges
(d) Requests for support, or requests for various actions/inactions "stop attacking faction A", etc
(e)Ability to annex smaller factions/rebels through diplomacy
(f) client states (send troops to war on your behalf, close trade ties, etc)
(g) Place puppet rulers in client states/vassalge
(h) war pacts
(I) no diplomatic Agents as they are now, how about a diplomatic screen, where you can intereact with other leaders, perhaps make a requirement where you set up an embassy in the court of a foriegn ruler, but after that, you have an ambassador in that court - makes things much easier and realistic.
(J) a better knowledge of the world, if you have an embassy in a foriegn court you should have an idea as to their relative strength in terms of military and economic power, etc
(k) Influence, or whatever equivalent in RTW, should be based on the power currently possessed and on past accomplishments, and future encounters, but an hier to large empire should have a powerful influence regardless of whether they are poor leaders or not (Nero had alot of influence, as did all empororers until the end times), you shouldnt own half the world and have little influence. Also influence should be based on things other than purely military.
(L) if a faction constatly breaks treaties etc that should affect influence and the likelihood of new treaties

02-08-2003, 05:49
Quote[/b] (Sjakihata Akechi @ Jan. 11 2003,10:02)]Peace negotiations

I demand two provinces and 1500 dinarii and they get peace (it was an example). Or I demand them to be my vassals, or simply annex them

Something like that
I would like to have seen something like that as well. Has anyone here played Europa Universalis II? I really liked the way that game handled diplomacy. Its one of the few games which actually make diplomacy important.

If one nation in an alliance goes to war with one nation, so do the allied nations. The nation being attacked can also call on its allies to come to its aid.(Nations can refuse to aid allies...but they basically become pariahs) The peace settlements are more detailed too. You can demand tribute, vassalation, certain provinces or total annexation.

02-08-2003, 07:08
when i think of a real diplomacy system somthing like Imperium Galactica 2 comes to mind. a screen was made to where u could:

1: make peace/war/ceace-fire/declare war together
2: Offer Non-Agression pact/Trade agreement/Alliance
3: demand anything from Money, Technology, and planets,info
4: Offer Money, Technology, Planets, info
5: Offer...For, Trade one thing for another
6: Insult (make fun of selected empire) Threaten
7: Try to improve Relationship, Report Enemy Spies in your teritory, Lie about another Empire

this system was great. and when an alliance was formed seldemly was it ever broken. i had some real fun with this kind of system. RTW needs a system somthing to this effect. thats just my oppinion

02-08-2003, 07:26
Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ Jan. 14 2003,22:08)]The % of male population in an army could be absolutely massive - for example when a Roman fleet was sunk off Sicily by a storm in the 1st Punic War over 200,000 men perished - this might've been as much as 15% of the total population of males in Italy at the time http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

While in the 2nd Punic War (218-203BC) Rome lost several armies to Hannibal in Italy - maybe 150,000 men killed - and still managed to put more armies into the field including taking the offensive in Spain and Sicily and eventually Africa.

In 225BC over 120,000 men took to the field agains the Gauls at Telamon - not all of them made the battlefield tho - there were 3 armies involved, and a 4th army had been crushed by the Gauls earlier and its remnants formed part of one of the other 3 IIRC.

In 110-105BC the Cimbri and Teutones defeated 3 Consular armies of maybe 30-40,000 men each so decisivly that we have little or no detail of what happened before Marius defeated them in turn with another 50,000 man army.

During the civil wars of the last century BC there were regularly 3 or 4 armies in the field for each faction - each generally of more than 20,000 men (we know of 1 defeated "minor" general who had 20,0000 men left) while the main armies (Ceasar, Pompey, Brutus & Cassius together, etc) might've been 50-70,000 each.

In the 1st century AD Rome fielded 25 legions IIRC, each with a nominal strength of 5000 men, plus at least as many regular auxiliary infantry, plus auxiliary cavalry, plus sailors, plus local levies.
I'm sorry, but I think you need to re-examine your figures. The seem to be a little too much Herodotus /Dragon Ball Z'ish in scale. Now, at Cannae in 216, the Romans did lose perhaps 70,000 men. This WAS the worst defeat they were ever to suffer. This definitely makes your 150,000 men who died in that sea battle a bit exaggerated. Three Romans Legions were destroyed in the Teutoburger Wald , but some did escape. Perhaps 15,000 or so died. Now, this was a disaster, since by this time, the legionaries were perhaps at their finest, taking some 5 years to train. Legend says that for months after that battle, Augustus would roam about the palace, gently banging his head against the wall moaning, "Quintilius Varus, give me back my legions."

1. Random events that may or may not come up that you have to deal with. Imagine what it was like the first time the Mongols came in 1230. I want 5-6 events like this to be available. Perhaps only one or two come up during a game. Like Plague. Something to keep things interesting.

2. AI that holds a grudge. If you back stab them they will remember for sometime.

3. Coordinated attacks. You can request an ally join you. Depending on variables, they send a percentage of troops you send. You send in 1,500, they send in at least a 3rd of that, maybe more.

4. More coherent way to see who's attacking who. Then can send help to your ally.

5. I want the AI to defend prime territories batter. IE, in Medieval, I hate to see Constantinople guarded by a few hundred men, while in Bulgaria they had a few thousand; and this is with the Turks with thousands bordering Constantinople.

6. Again, the alliance system. it must be improved. I know I'm *eventually* going to attack them, but I'd like it to be that as long as I was strong, my allies stayed true.

7. More real world consequences. If you have a couple of bad harvest or lost a few big battles or territories, I want messages to come in from your allies questioning your strength.

8. You can demand tribute, or GIVE money to an ally. IN return you could ask for perhaps navel vessels.

9. Now, perhaps this is a little beyond the means of the nations back then, but once you get mega-powerful, other nations may start to seek alliances against you.

10. I wouldn't mind more interaction between you and other great rulers. I would like to see messages pop up. Like greetings from other rulers. ( I do know that Ramses got such greetings from other rulers. The Hyksos in Turkey would send him messages telling how powerful he was)

02-08-2003, 07:32
Another thing is diversity. The different political and social status of the various factions, should be reflected somehow in the game mechanics.

For instance: Republican Rome had a mighty senate and the senate was declaring wars and generally making strategic decisions. The Greek city states had various standing assemblies, and the one that was actually making the decision was the gathering of all the adult, male free citizen with full political rights. Karthage had also a very similar institution. The succesors kingdoms, and Parthia and Macedonia had god-given http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif monarchs, who's authority wasn't questioned by anyone.

Could the guys at CA portray the differences? That's quite a challenge, like building half a dozen political models instead of one (or of none, which is the case with MTW). But it would add great depth to the game, underlining the great differences of the various cultures and providing with very interesting possibilities in conquering and holding territory of another culture than yours...

02-08-2003, 09:07
Rosacrux: That's a good idea. Maybe more democratic governments will look down upon prolonged and unsuccessful wars so that province loyalty goes down over time. While dictatorships will not be as successful economically because of restrictions or heavy taxation, etc.

Obviously I am for many more diplomatic options. But there is one that bothers me, coordinated attacks. Would this be possible considering the distances involved in some cases? Maybe something like, "help me attack this faction" is acceptable but something like "attack at x province, with x number of troops, at x year" doesn't seem possible.

02-08-2003, 19:49
Did you guys see the PC Gamer article from the link posted by ShadesWolf in the Entrance hall? We're going to get greatly expanded diplomatic options for RTW

"Equally, being at the height of Roman civilisation, the importance of diplomacy is stressed. "The player now has the option to negotiate specific treaties and other agreements with allies," notes Michael. "The system is really easy to use, but very flexible and it lets players do things like allowing military access to allies so you can move troops through each other's territory, make trade agreements, threaten weaker factions and demand tribute - and also to trade for money, information and even territory."

Then there's the might of the Senate, which gives the players specific tasks they have the opportunity to accept or decline. "Senate missions give the campaign game a little bit more structure without limiting the freedom of the player to pursue their own strategy," muses Michael. "They are a bit like an expanded version of the Pope in Medieval: Total War. The player controls one Roman faction competing against other Roman factions for influence in the Senate while also fighting against external enemies. Early on in the game the Senate will help the player out by giving them missions and rewards for completing those missions. The missions the Senate will hand out will be things that are for the greater good of Rome, such as going to war against enemies of Rome, suppressing Rebels or building temples to the greater glory of the Empire. Later on when the player's power gets great enough and he challenges the Senate in his quest to become Emperor he will need to fight civil wars against the other Roman factions in his attempt to conquer Rome."

So, CA has been listening to our demands for more diplomatic options. I for one, am quite pleased. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif We will be able to negotiate trade alliances, our alliances will now mean something instead of being virtually useless. You will have noticed that as soon as you become powerful in this game there are no more diplomatic options: factions refuse to make peace or accept alliances, won't allow marriages, launch wars and crusades against you, even if you haven't been attacking them, etc. (at least I've found this playing on expert -- maybe it doesn't do this on normal, I don't know). Hopefully, the new diplomatic options will work much better than MTW. We'll be able to demand tribute, which is cool and threaten and bully smaller states, but if those states are allied to other larger factions, there should be repercussions, as there would be in real life in ancient times. It's all much more realistic. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

02-08-2003, 20:09
i think that a dialogue box should come up when an ally is attacking or being attacked and it should give you an option whether or not to deply troops and whom they should side with

in medieval, there was no way to really assist your allies unless it was just by chance, and if it would let you station your armies in an allies province, it would be even better cuz you could protect them

medieval dropped the ball on diplomacy i think

02-09-2003, 02:02
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif Bah Roman diplomacy was like this.... We dont care and we will invade u :P just like alrowan said. If the game is to be realistic then it wont have much of that type of thing
The romans however were great traders and we enjoy some of their products today. Mebbe an inhanced trading bit would be cool. Al i can think of for Diplomacy is ceasefires and even they didnt last. Mebbe a Timed ceasefire and timed aliances. The romans typically didnt wait around http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif I would certainly like to play historical cmapiagns such as where did the 9th legion go?(for all of u who dont know it dissapered on the foss way about yorkshire i think. Remembering yr 7 history here:))And Bodicea missions i will expect also http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Where did the first romans actually come from? ill post the answer later

02-09-2003, 02:25
Rome was aligned with celtic tribes, the visigoths, ostrogoths, huns, numerous eastern peoples, the egyptians, and many others throughout their long history, it was alot more than just kill and take

02-09-2003, 03:05
I think the AI will need great improvements for RTW to be a real success. The AI in MTW is inept, computer factions declare war on you with immediate interests in mind, with no thought to what will happen in a few turns. If the diplomacy is to be upgraded then the AI should be boosted to a level where it can use it competently.

I think a great feature for RTW would be the ability to Parley, that is to speak to the enemy commander before battle. I posted this as a thread (entrance hall) before I knew how the strategic map was going to work, and now IMO the idea sounds better than ever.

02-09-2003, 03:07
yea, seriously - the kill and take doesnt work forever

diplomacy comes from the realization that you have to pick your battles well cuz you cant fight everyone

ar at least diplomacy allowed to save enemies for later

02-09-2003, 03:14
"Where did the first Romans come from?"

The legends say Rome was planned by the gods themselves it was the gods who led a band of Trojans to the promised land in the West...

02-09-2003, 12:20
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif The Romans actually came down from switzerland in the alp region http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

02-09-2003, 15:50
yea i would like too se alot of good dimplmcy like going though borders makeing real allices wher eu attack togeter

Toda Nebuchadnezzar
02-09-2003, 17:40
The Right of Passage thingy has to be implimented. Even if It means just helping to defend an ally who is being attacked.
The longer an alliance is kept, the stronger it becomes, even if it is with a smaller faction that is losing.
More interaction between allies. Not just im allied to them them them and them. Allies should ask each other for things as much as possible, but not all the time. Whether it be military, monetary, trade rights, technology of some kind, etc.
Co ordinated attacks on enemies. Not just flukey movements that ended up as you and your ally attacking the same province of an enemy because it was empty. Afterwards, you would have to decide who claims the province via http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/argue.gif with your ally.

This could be done one more than one level. Each Province on the main map, could have when zoomed in on, say 6 smaller provinces inside it. You could split these smaller provinces up between you. This would also make the game a lot more "allies are important" and not so much, wow I have another ally arent i lucky(sarcasm)

Vassal states would have to lend you things if you asked for them.
But how to impliment diplomacy???

Early stage...messengers
But when Rome becomes Christian...?
The Princess card again? Marrying your sister off to a tribal cheiften?
Marrying a Carthaginian, and being scorned by your citizens.
Illegitimate sons via liasons with prostitutes?
Giving part of your territory to your son who sets up his own kingdom in alliance with yours.(Make a good buffer state)

anything could be possible, and these things would be great I reckon.

02-13-2003, 21:41
I would like to know the feelings of another leader towards your faction and also see some kind of trust rating that reflects their history in breaking alliances.

02-24-2003, 15:17
It's mainly diplomacy in the bilateral sense, that is being discussed here. What about internal affairs?

The desription of RTW at gameplanet (or what ever it is called), states this amongst other features in the game:

Quote[/b] ]The senate will be implemented in the game, dictating you and your plans until you become strong enough to overpower it **

That sounds like a infobox popping in to the screen, telling you that the senates won't allow the actions you've made. Couldn't there be more interaction?

Something like this:

The balance of power in the senate is concentrated on a number of "natural leaders" (four or five), where you represent one of these. You then have to focus some of your time and energy on strengten your leaders position, by both convincing senators to be a part of your group, and to advocate for your course of action before a poll.

Ultimately, when your power is strong, you can try to change government from republic to empire, but that should take a lot of effort.


02-25-2003, 13:06
option to execute oppo's emissaries and send back their heads as a threat

02-27-2003, 13:42
Exactly what happend with the Roman emissary to Illyria.

They asked the Illyrian Queen to stop or prevent their pirate vessels from attacking Roman mechant or allied merchant ships. She said bugger off. The Diplomat insulted her about defying the Roman republic, and she had him executed. Well if I recall the details correctly from Polybius.
Anyway, you can guess the Roman reaction. They came in force, humbled the b***h, installed a client ruler (who subsequently defied Rome later on) and signed some treaties with other local cities. They didn't annex the place initially.

language edit, kids TV folks. Cat...

02-27-2003, 13:49
Teuta, who 'gave way to a fit of womanish petulance' http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif had Lucius Coruncanius assassinated as he was boarding his ship home.

Sir Black Raven
02-27-2003, 15:06
After playing Shogun and Medieval here's my considerations:
A trone room equal to shogun.
Full passage trough other provinces, countries without need to conquest.
An option to when besieging a city or a fort that allows to conquer by other means such as surrender without kills...
anexation of a country by diplomacy
generals that fail in the battlefield after long should go to the Colesseum to entertain the mob ( to the lions )
Improving the trade routes giving bonus to the best cities.Actually trade should be consider free from war.
More diplomacy with allies and alliances should be stronger.The right of passage should be implemented so that allies could back up eachother.
Killing enenmies by poison or other means should be improve but i would like to watch it like in Shogun.
ans so on.... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif