What are Alliances for?

[Ulair]

Hi folks,

I may be missing something truly obvious here, although I have scanned the guides here at the Org (kudos to frogbeastegg especially), but... what are the benefits of alliances?

Sure, every now and then you'll see a third faction join in one of your battles and do unpredictable things like attack their ally, run around and get in the way or occasionally do something helpful, but is that it? And if so, is it actually worth allying with anyone? Is there a hidden strategic layer to diplomacy that means allies are less likely to attack each other, 'cos it doesn't seem that way :-).

I'm used to a fairly rich diplomatic model from the later Civ and CTP games, so I may just have false expectations here. I guess if I had to level any criticism at MTW (and you'd have to force me - it's such a great game) I'd want some more flesh on the diplomatic model.

Cheers

Ulair

[Jeff]

I could be wrong but I believe Alliances will boost your trade income. I am pretty sure I read that somewhere, also think about if you have boats near Genoa, Venice, Antioch, Kiev, etc etc and your allied with the factions who hold them then I'm guessing the trade is better. If your neutral then I don't think you'll benefit from the trade as much. It's the only logical thing I can think of in regards to alliances. Militarily you don't really need anyone else's assistance, nor should you want it because the bigger allied stack gets the province. I know haveing an alliance while at war will help you by not being attacked on anopther front. But the problem is as soon as you show any signs of weakness you'll be attacked by your allies.

[Mysterium]

I think that breaking alliances (not when you're forced to choose between two allies, but breaking them) causes you to lose influence, and I guess it does that for the other factions as well.

[nightcrawlerblue]

You are less likely to get attacked by an ally. Also, if someone attacks you then your ally may go to war with them (ie: French attacks the English who are allied with Germans. The Germans may declare war and attack the French because of the alliance).

I'm not sure if this is true but it is what I've seen from my small amount of time playing MTW.

[Eastside Character]

If playing as a catholic faction it is very important to be allied with a Pope. In many of my games I used allianse with a Pope against my enemies, who would get excommed for attacking me. Pope can be a very valuable ally.

Besides, your allies can aid you in battles, this happens quite often if you're at war with the same enemy.

You will be able to design some more coordinated attacks if you place some at least v2 spies in your ally's provinces.

Your spies would then inform you when is your ally planning to attack which faction, so you can also send your forces the same year into that battle, using your ally to your advantage if you only have bigger forces.

And if you're allied to a faction which is excommunicated at the time, offer of an alliance from you will be most probably rejected by any catholic faction.

I agree that MTW really lacks diplomatic options...

Regards,
EC

[Senta]

Quote[/b] (Eastside Character @ Feb. 25 2004,20:46)]If playing as a catholic faction it is very important to be allied with a Pope. In many of my games I used allianse with a Pope against my enemies, who would get excommed for attacking me. Pope can be a very valuable ally.
well, that was my reasoning as well, until yesterday, when that sneaky bastard of Pope, tried to take over Venice, while being allied with me And just after i took care of excommunicated Spanish for him... now i'm forced to deal with him http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[Ulair]

Quote[/b] (nightcrawlerblue @ Feb. 25 2004,12:58)]You are less likely to get attacked by an ally. Also, if someone attacks you then your ally may go to war with them (ie: French attacks the English who are allied with Germans. The Germans may declare war and attack the French because of the alliance).

I'm not sure if this is true but it is what I've seen from my small amount of time playing MTW.
Thanks for the replies, folks. On nightcrawlerblue's point, this is certainly what I'd expect, though in my (admittedly also rather limited) experience it doesn't seem to follow that pattern.

As a for instance, playing as the English recently in Early I'm knocking the French into submission when they counterattack, bringing along a stack of German allies. Oops, thinks I, oh well. So I'm sitting there on my hill waiting for them to arrive and what do I see? French and German allies *fighting each other* out on the field. Way to be cool I sat on my hill and the supposed allies did a whole lot of my job for me; all I had to do was mop up :-).

I've certainly not noticed a strong correlation between who's allied and who attacks whom - which isn't to say it's not there, just not as strong as I'd expect. Jeff's point on trade is interesting, though - now that *would* be worth an alliance.

Cheers
Ulair

[katank]

I too complain about a lack of proper diplomacy. Certainly would be nice if they had to go through a cool down period of a couple of years of neutrality before being able to attack you.

Alliances do have effect on influence though. If you lift an ally's siege or help him to take a province, you gain influence which usually means better heirs. You can also send more forces in which case you can sit back and let them do your dirty work for you without taking casualties.

I actually had instances of sieges lifted by allies and several provinces conquered by my friendly allies who depleted their forces while I lost none and got the province.

[AqConsul]

I have found that allies are sometimes useful, but they are often just a pest that lets you kill the enemy and then comes behind you and destroys what is left of your army. I still make alliences cuz that means that they dont attack your country.

Consul

[RZST]

LIFTING SIEGES FOR AN ALLY DOES NOT RAISE INFLUENCE.
trust me, it doesnt.
im playing italians and the egyptians are sieging constantinople, i send a whole army to lift the siege and then next turn bzy say thank you but i still dont get any influence. i did that about 5 times and not one raised my influence.

I still make alliences cuz that means that they dont attack your country.
-not true. if you leave a WEAK garrison, ANYONE will attack you if they think they can take you on.
i experimented on this and this has happened quite alot even my allies get it. just leave say 100 peasants on your borders then eventually your ally will attack you. of course you can counter attack with a large force then proceed to attack his provinces :)

[AqConsul]

Oh...hummm...I didnt know that...I thought that since you have to say Ok to attack them the comp wont attack you...humm...thanks

Consul

[Clips]

Basically an allie sometimes helps you and can if they want join you in a battle yet they will certainly help you attack someone if they can, also its good to be allied with loads as if you trades built up all round the world then you are selling good to everyone but ur enemy, they stop trading with you that why at the last minute when it usually comes down to you and another huge faction i find ur money dramatically falls as they stop trading with you and so its every man for them self.

So basically allies help you in war when they can and they trade with you like a friend :P

[Ulair]

Quote[/b] (Ky Kiske @ Feb. 29 2004,12:28)] I still make alliences cuz that means that they dont attack your country.
-not true. if you leave a WEAK garrison, ANYONE will attack you if they think they can take you on.
i experimented on this and this has happened quite alot even my allies get it. just leave say 100 peasants on your borders then eventually your ally will attack you. of course you can counter attack with a large force then proceed to attack his provinces :)

Isn't that called entrapment http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

An ally will certainly attack you given the chance (very mediaeval, of course :-) but I wonder if they think harder about it first - i.e. can you get away with a much weaker border defence with allies than you can with neutrals? So much of this game seems to be non-binary like that - all likelihoods and possibilities - which is one of its great strengths, IMHO.

As a final anecdote, my Spanish allies teed me off the other day as I bribed a rebel garrison in Morrocco for 4 grand (just for fun) and on the turn they became mine, the Spanish move a whopping big army in and demand a ransom of 8 grand+ for my garrison's safe passage out.

Batards as we Norman English say... I refused. But now they've got themselves excommunicated, and since I've just finished with the HRE... it's payback time

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif

Cheers
Ulair

[qtv]

Yes, but there are no real disadvantages to being allied with half the board - sure you occasionally have to pick one over the other, but simple rules (pick the ally on your border, pick the stongest ally) can take care of that. Now if the game forced you to send troops or money when an ally was attacked, people would have to be far more careful about who they accepted as allies.

In the early game, I take anyone, in the mid/late game, since there are only about 6 factions left anyway, simple rules are sufficient...I find anyway, but I'm a noob.

[squippy]

The only significant consequence of being allied that I know of has to do with seaborne invasions - you cannot invade a target province if the tragets ally has a fleet covering that coast. So if the French and English were allied, and you were the Germans, you would not be able to invade Wessex by sea if the French had a fleet in the Channel.