Diplomay to be fixed in the next Total War

[slippybee]

Following on from the criticism of the diplomacy system I recommend they make a United Nations Total War.

In a revolutionary step there would actually be no fighting at all. Instead players would be asked to settle their differences via a series of written submission to the UN.

No acts of aggression at all would be allowed as this would contravene a set of borders, alliances and trade rights that the player and the AI signed up to in advance of the game starting.

CA, having taken to heart some of the more hysterical requests from posters on these boards, had decided to make any sort of contravention of agreements by human or AI factions impossible.

Beautifully renderred, in stunning lifelike graphics, instead of fighting players draw up legal documents, have exciting meetings with teams of lawyers and put together stunning power point presentations designed to prove their rights to areas of resoure and population.

Imagine the excitement as you and your team of AI lawyers pour over these terms of reference, contracts and other stimulating documents looking for loopholes to exploit.

The battle engine has also seen changes, instead of huge 3d maps we will have the inside of the UN building in New York where the player can make submissions and if successful have resolutions against his opponent made.

Occassionally a player may be asked to send some of his troops to far flung points of the world, however they would no longer be under his control but would be forced to wear blue hats during their tour and be controlled by the AI. Humanitarian work including the provision of clean water, tents and blankets would merge seemlessly with education programs on the dangers of HIV.

Imagine the excitement as the player has to deal with the free distribution of condoms in one area whilst at the same time searching for weapons of mass destruction on the other.

This would allow for a diverse set of mods including Parliament Total War, Hague Total War and less ambitious titles such as House Conveyancing Total War and Hire Purchase Agreement Total War.

Marriages would also be changed. Instead of the meaningless marriages we currently have, players will sign exstensive pre-nuptial agreements with the other faction. A wedding list would be circulated and the player's merchants would have to scour the globe to complete the list within a set time before the marriage can take place.

Itineries of your factions possessions will be submitted at the announcement of the marriage and following any territorial transgressions the player will find himself in a lengthy Heather-Mills / McCartney-esque divorce scenario. Reporters will camp outside your castle walls and the player will be forced to answer searching and personal questions before a turn can be completed.

Your factions rating would be based solely upon your success in the PR battle that ensues.

There's clearly a requirement for a more "realistic" diplomacy system rather than any of his warfare nonsense.

C'mon CA, your public have spoken.

[Copperhaired Berserker!]

There is one fatal flaw with your idea. That is, that the whole point of the TW games, is have WAR! No one could really care about making documents and powerpoints, all they want to do is build a empire, make armies, have huge battles, and conquer the world, hence the name TOTAL WAR. Diplomacy was put there because it would be realistic. And besides, what would think is cooler, watching your infantry charge into the enemy line, while your archers use fire arrows, while your siege engines take down the enemie's walls, or giving a document to some other country and hoping that will pass your law?

[Daveybaby]

@slippybee : :laugh4:
@berserker : :rolleyes:

[slippybee]

Irony alert, irony alert :wall:

[Beefeater]

Mock ye not, I think Slippybee may be onto something here, provided that we have full multiplayer support by this point, and some control over the apparently random distribution of bugs. Let me expand on this.

How many of us have played a simple board or tabletop game, only to chuckle with delight as one of our fellow players acts out of turn? The memory recalls cheerful games of 'beats', a card game played with a simple 52-card pack and the meaty fists of a class of 17-year-old males, in which the penalty for purporting to act out of turn was to be rapped painfully on the knuckles with the edges of the pack of cards. In similar, if nerdier, fashion, it was a core rule in the far less macho game of Blood Bowl (a sort of fantasy version of American Football) that if a player moved his pieces before moving on the turn counter, he forfeited his entire turn. This was the cause of a great deal of amusement amongst experienced players at the expense of their less savvy opponents.

Indeed, the innocent pleasure in watching someone else's frustration mount toward boiling point as minor lapses of concentration render them increasingly helpless is one of the main pleasures we draw from playing face to face against other people. Think of how annoyed your friends and family get when they land on your three hotel corker in monopoly, and are forced to mortgage their whole carefully-assembled property empire - and then, the next turn, when you land on one of those now-harmless properties. Sheer bliss, I think you'll agree. Yet, until now, this core reason for playing against other humans has been puzzlingly absent from online games. There is a clear gap in the market here!

Think how this would work in relation to TW. The screams of frustration as, thanks to your opponent's careless failure to read every SINGLE one of the five hundred amendments in your blackline of his draft peace treaty, he finds that he has ceded control of half of his empire to your violent militias. The fury he would feel as his troops' charge fails - again - thanks to your masterful deployment of the 'break formation' bug.

Overall enjoyment could be enhanced by including a webcam feature, so you could see the mounting horror on your enemy's face as he realises that, by placing a priest on that bridge just there, you have caused his full stack to use up its movement for the turn trying to walk from Paris to Rouen via the antarctic instead.

Come on CA, this is your moment. Act now and you could clean up the market for schadenfreudespiel.

[slippybee]

Gentlemen, we are moving quickly towards a completed outline design document.

We need to decide whether to sell this gem to CA or possibly open up the market to outside bidders.

Your feedback is appreciated as always.

[GFX707]

Slippybee:

Is it really too much to ask for an alliance to actually mean something in this game? Or are you content playing medieval:total deathmatch?

[Ludivico Sforza]

Oh I see...it's a joke...har...har...

Now really, fix the diplomacy.

[Shadow_Wolf33]

just as long as I can mod it, so that I can make longbows and use them to shoot the enemy diplomat type folks. :knight:

[TheFluff]

Slippybee:

Is it really too much to ask for an alliance to actually mean something in this game? Or are you content playing medieval:total deathmatch?


HAHA! nicely said ^_^

[slippybee]

@ FFX707

Firstly, I can't answer on the Devs behalf (and as I'm not getting paid by them I'm not going to try).

Secondly,I'm not sure I can be bothered (with the greatest of respect to you) re-hashing arguments that have gone back and forth across this board and every other one about the diplomacy......................but OK I'll give it a go.


The diplomacy system is not bugged. The diplomacy system works as designed (as I understand). The fact that the system doesn't work to your liking or my liking doesn't mean it doesn't work.

The aims of the game and the idea of diplomacy are entirely at odds. You cannot have a meaningful alliance between 2 factions when their ultimate goal is not survival, it's destruction of all of it's rivals.

For diplomacy to have a real bearing on the game you need to change the objectives behind the game as far as the human player and the AI are concerned and give factions a mutual interest in helping each other or goals that do not involve destroying every other neighbouring faction.

For instance (and the details are kind of irrelevant, it's the principle I'm hoping to explain );

if the Scottish faction had these two objectives;

By move 50

a) Hold Endinburgh, Stirling and York.

b) Ensure France holds 10 regions including Caen, Rhemmes, Paris, Marseille etc

and the French faction had these 2 objectives;

By move 50

a) Ensure France holds 10 regions including Caen, Rhemmes, Paris, Marseille etc

b)Scotland hold Endinburgh, Stirling and York.

and the English faction had this as one of its' objevctives

By move 50

a) Hold Endinburgh castle for 10 years

This scenario allows for both Scotland and France to have a mutual interest in fighting off English aggression and in ensuring each others survival.

France can't win unless Scotland resists, Scotland can't win unless France resists. You can imagine playing as the French, giving assistance to the scots via cash and troops and as the English tryin to sink the French troop transports on their way to Scotland and assassinate the French diplomats trying to pass cash to the Scots.

In addition supporting the scots puts a break on France's ability to expand.

Multiply these inter-relationships across all the factions and you have yourself a reasonably interesting scenario.


We do need to understand that at the moment if the AI acted in purely self preservation mode they'd all be vassels to an aggressive player inside 50 moves or so.

Fear of betrayal also makes me keep troops in reserve to deal with back-stabbing neighbours. Take away this need and a good player (and I'm a very average one) can conquer the map even quicker. Although it would be refreshing to see someone post that the game's too easy for a change (Irony alert).

You will never get a complex and satisfying diplomacy system in a game like this unless you accept that conquering all of europe and the middle east, wiping out all other factions is a ridiculous scenario. You'll need to accept real curbs on the expansion and agression of your faction and some really scaled down goals with lots of inter-dependencies on other factions involved in mutual assistance.

Or, I understand there are some really talented guys putting together a UN Total War game ( see post 1 ), shall I put you down for a couple of games for Christmas 2007 ?

[Handel]

You forget fighting for better parking lots in the UN Total War AND if your man gains the post of UN secretary general you must be entitled to get bribes.

[Doug-Thompson]

@slippybee:

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[JFC]

How big would the deplomacy screen be for Illegal Immigrants, Counter Drug Trafficking and the Hunt for WMD? I have this mental image that instead of a 'Battle Map' you would have Armies of 'Inspectors' in white coats that wonder aimlessly on the Campaign map.

And instead of the Diplomacy screen opening up with "What can we do for you today, trusted ally?" It would say random things like:
"The only way we can win is to leave before the job is done." --George W. Bush, Greeley, Colo., Nov. 4, 2006
"I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me." --George W. Bush, talking to key Republicans about Iraq
"No question that the enemy has tried to spread sectarian violence. They use violence as a tool to do that." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., March 22, 2006

Edit: Borat could make a guest appearance as a diplomat?

You see where I'm going with this?

[peri]

I am really looking forward to this game but at the same time worried about the inevitable bugs and glitches and gameplay issues.

If the ai puts his lawyer in the door way and blocks my path will I have to shimmy down the drainpipe to get to the conference chamber?
Will enough attention be paid to skinning so they dont all wear the same pinstripe suit?
If you spam diplomats will you be able to always have the Sec Gen from your nation?
Will I still get my expenses bonus if double click the lawyers to sign treaties?
And above all what spec computer will I need?

I hope you can help with these questions Slippybee
Thanks

[JFC]

If the ai puts his lawyer in the door way and blocks my path will I have to shimmy down the drainpipe to get to the conference chamber?
Will enough attention be paid to skinning so they dont all wear the same pinstripe suit?
If you spam diplomats will you be able to always have the Sec Gen from your nation?
Will I still get my expenses bonus if double click the lawyers to sign treaties?
And above all what spec computer will I need?

I hope you can help with these questions Slippybee
Thanks

I think you can find the Answers in UN RESOLUTION 514 or 515 can't remember which.

[slippybee]

I do sir, and I applaud your vision.

I'm thinking if your faction was desperate for money you could make an application for Bono to get involved in some sort of fundraising event for you. Perhaps we could have Gerry Halliwell as a kind of Uber-Diplomat stumbling round the map in a Union Jack dress and platform shoes.

Keep the ideas coming I'm working up a feasibility doc as I write.

[Daveybaby]

The diplomacy system is not bugged. The diplomacy system works as designed
I agree totally - there is a fundamental problem when designing AI behaviour for this kind of game - there are two things that need to be addressed which are fundamentally incompatible - i.e. do you want to:

(1) Have the AI play like a 'realistic' medieval nation would do. I.e. the AI is roleplaying a medieval king.

OR

(2) Have the AI play the game to try and win, try to make it play as much like a multiplayer game as possible. i.e. the AI is simulating another player.

So is the AI roleplaying, or does it 'know' its playing a game? Note that YOU CANT HAVE BOTH. A roleplaying AI is at a disadvantage to the player, because the player knows its only a game - a gameplaying AI will often do things that arent 'realistic'.

CA have (sensibly IMO) implemented a gameplaying AI.

A lot of the complaints about the campaign AI on this forum seem to be of the form "the AI wont do what i want it to do". Why the hell would it? Newsflash: ITS TRYING TO BEAT YOU. People want the AI to be hamstrung in ways they wouldnt be, e.g: "ooooh the AI just broke an alliance cos it felt like it", "boo hoo the AI keeps bribing my armies its not fair" - but at the same time you as a human player want carte blanche to do all of these things to the AI with impunity.

[peri]

How about special missions from the security council?
If you do well you could be given better parking spaces.

And If things are going against you you could use your veto

Or oil for food programs to suplement your income

[slippybee]

@ Davebaby

Agreed sir, however we no longer have an excuse to complain about the Diplomacy system when UN Total War meets so many of our requirements for a more satisfying and realistic diplomatic game without the need for any sort of armed conflict at all.


Davebaby, you need to ask yourself, are you part of the diplomatic problem or part of the UN Total War solution ?

Cofee Anaan pm'd me a few minutes ago. He's up for the role of narrator - I think if we can't get Brian Blessed or Jo Pasquale we'll go for the Anaan fella.

I've already thought of the advertising slogans

"UN Total War, when we say peace we mean PEACE. Game not currently rated"

Or "UN Total War. Y'al play nice now y'hear"

However the floor is open to the more creative types here to advance more powerful slogans.

Gentlemen, the floor, as they say, is yours.

[Daveybaby]

As long as the bureaucracy simulation is in realtime 3D, and i get to see the glint of harsh overhead lighting reflected off the balding forehead of the belgian minister of excessive paperwork, as he proposes yet another amendment to directive 974/32 subpara 3 dealing with the permissible colours of post-it notes, then you can count me in.

[JFC]

UN Total War... The time for Talking... Has started. (James Earl Jones voice)

UN Total War... Total Diplomacy (again James Earl Jones)

UN Total War... The Resolution has begun... (Jo Pasquale voice.. actually James could do it better)

UN Total War... I see dead people (Kid from sixth sense voice)

UN Total War... Time to Bloody Talk! (Micheal Caine)

UN Total War... I like.... It's Nice.... (Borat)

[ZachPruckowski]

One of my apartment mates does Model UN. My personal favorite part is the insults. Since you have to be respectful of the other members, it can be quite a laugh to hear people mocking each other respectfully.

This could fully replace the pre-battle speeches in every way.

[slippybee]

@ JFC - loving the first one.

How about

"You can talk the talk, but can you talk the talk a bit more"

"In a world of paper cuts, are you the man with the bandaids"

"You don't need to be a Green Beret but you will need a Blackberry"

nope, the first one of yours is the best we have so far.


@ Davebaby

good to see you share the vision, lovin' the overhead light decal.

Could we have those green shades over them and the perpetual ticking of a grand-father clock in the background ?

Gotta be careful here and keep a handle on the scope.

We are not boiling the ocean here people

[Djurre]

There is one fatal flaw with your idea. That is, that the whole point of the TW games, is have WAR! No one could really care about making documents and powerpoints, all they want to do is build a empire, make armies, have huge battles, and conquer the world, hence the name TOTAL WAR. Diplomacy was put there because it would be realistic. And besides, what would think is cooler, watching your infantry charge into the enemy line, while your archers use fire arrows, while your siege engines take down the enemie's walls, or giving a document to some other country and hoping that will pass your law?


errrrr.... joke?

[JFC]

Slippybee,

Movie cut scenes...
1: When you fall out with a nation, it pans out of a triangluar room chock full of people arguing in their native tounges and going harumph....
2: When you ask for finacial assistance it pans out of a square room chock full of people arguing in their native tounges and going harumph....
3: When you demand that the Truck blockade be lifted from the Chunnel it pans out of a circular room chock full of people arguing in their native tounges and going harumph....
4: When you demand subsistance for economic aid for farmers and the like it pans out of a dodecohedral room chock full of people arguing in their native tounges and going harumph....
OH and NO option to skip movie which is important.

I can think of more....

[slippybee]

@ JFC

Do you think we'll need to get accurate dialects for the "harrumphing".

I know some of our potential customer base have strong feelings about the correct accents being used in all circumstances and I'm wondering if a Milanese and a Scicilian "Harrumph" in the same way. We'll need to think through in the Definition phase.

As for thinking of more, there's always room in the UN Total War stew for the more meaty ideas.



@ Djurre

Either he's using some new "super-reverse-irony" technique I've not seen before (and if he is, then he's darned good at it ) or it may be that he just won't form part of our target demographic. I'll memo marketing before close of play and get them to work on some population segmentation analysis.

[Daveybaby]

OH and NO option to skip movie which is important.
I agree, and its also important for REALISM that cutscenes last the same amount of time as the arguments would take in real life. e.g 3 to 4 hours.

[peri]

What would be the victory conditions?
What would be the the time/ turn ratio?

[JFC]

Dialects will be very important. I think that this game will be clearly accepted as an 'English' version. The foriegn embassadors will clearly have to be addressed as we all know by shouting English S L O W L Y and vigourous generic pointing with naming ALL the afore said foriegn dignatries as either 'Panyo' or 'Philleepo'.

[ZachPruckowski]

What would be the victory conditions?

Abolish 2/4 - War, Death, Famine, Pestilence


What would be the the time/ turn ratio?

In the "world map", one turn equals about a month. In "negotiations", one hour equals about a day of negotiating (so expect most summits to take an afternoon).

[Lycan]

Abolish 2/4 - War, Death, Famine, Pestilence
Nah. That would be the goals you'd tell your citizens... but really the victory conditions need to be more realistic. Stuff like use using your diplomatic genius to trick the North Koreans into abandoning thier nuclear weapons program in favour of a space program that would lead to them relocating enmasse to mars, or even better, alpha centuri.
And for bonus points; blocking every proposal made by the French.
You could even use subterfuge and agents like maybe stalling UN meetings to buy time for your devious schemes by switching around all the nameplates in the UN meeting room causing chaos and much "harumphing".

[NONOPUST]

tsk tsk poor SlippyBee:no:

[ScrapTower]

United Nations and Total war dont even belong in the same sentence...

[slippybee]

@ NONOPUST - I'll consider myself Tsk'ed.

@ Scraptower - See the "Irony Alert" Post

[Solo]

The diplomacy system is not bugged. The diplomacy system works as designed (as I understand). The fact that the system doesn't work to your liking or my liking doesn't mean it doesn't work.
Yes, it is. Let's be simple. Share a border = ennemies to death. Doesn't share a border = want my kings head on a silver plater ? May sound like a feature to you, but it sounds like a bug to me. It can be exploited in many ways to get ceasefires and money : for example holding Antioche isn't worth it, just give it to the pope, get ceasefire with the neighbours (a few thousands florins very quickly made and of course top relations with the pope even if you fooled him) and get it the next turn when the city revolt. Do it again and again. Even better, someone hold Cyprus or Rhodes ? Not only you can take it but they will pay you for a ceasefire next turn since an island doesn't share border (makes Cyprus 10 times more valuable than Acre or Antioche). Still think its a feature ? well ever wondered what happens to a faction lonely on his island ? well, nothing : they sit there forever, not going to crusade or declaring war to anyone, try it : No borders, no wars.
So, no, sorry but I don't believe there are "objectives behind the game" that nobody saw until today. There's just an agressive AI, relationships constantly decaying based on difficulty level and a 100x border-war-factor you can work around to exploit.

[Von Nanega]

(Camera pans down to floor, Speaker for random nation stands up)
"Gentlemen, ladies and honored represenatives, delegates...."Ad naseum for about ten minutes. "I Propose that we set forth the 1000th sanction on Far Away land because they are making Bombs!!!"
(Cut Scene) Five days of harumphing and arguing resolving nothing. Ends with the proposing nation paying bribe to delegates of the security council, and getting an uneforceable and useless resolution passed.
BUT five thousand diplomacy points to proposing nation!:eyebrows:

[slippybee]

Yes, it is. Let's be simple. Share a border = enemies to death. Doesn't share a border = want my kings head on a silver plater ? May sound like a feature to you, but it sounds like a bug to me.

a bug would suggest it's not working as the designer specified. I think it is working as speciified. The fact that you and I may not like what the game does does not mean it's bugged.

Again, I'm not here to defend the designers. I appreciate the Diplomacy system is an unsatisfactory element of the game for many people (including me).

I suppose I was trying (in a bit of a heavy handed way) to highlight that ;


a) Diplomacy and the objecives of the game are entirely at odds. The AI isn't coded to make what you and I might consider rationale decisions because the AIs objectives and motivations are not ones we would consider rational (ie survival and prosperity) but conquest and the AI factions collectively try and stop the human player.

b) Diplomacy is a facet of the game that will always split opinion. Many players want to conquer the whole map. Many others want more of a role playing experience. Many plaers want to be able to turn on the AI whenever they chose but don't seem to want the AI to be able to do the same thing. My point was that the game appears (unfortunately) to be all about conquering the map and not about simulating Medieval politics (whereas I hear there's a really popular UN Total War game in development that may be just the ticket for you).

c) If the AI didnt play aggressively on the campaign map - how long would it last against a capable human player. Thinking the Devs can give you AI which acts like a human being and makes rational decisions based upon immensely complex scenarios (many of which you and I can't see because the FOW stops us from seeing other factions at work) is unrealistic and going to lead to a deal of disapointment.

Lastly, and this is not a criticism of you directly, but if anybody finds an exploit and it upsets them that the exploit exists, may I humbly suggest you don't use the exploit any longer.

Enjoy the game - there's very little that compares to it IMHO

[Solo]

You don't design a game with intended flaws in it. If it's exploitable, breaks AI behiavour or prevents it to act rationnaly, it's a bug. What's the difference between AI not attacking on a siege and AI not moving anymore because it doesn't have any border-motive anymore ? What's the difference between battle AI making suicidal charges with general unit and campaign AI making suicide by refusing half another player's kingdom instead of being destroyed next turn ?
Relationships decay and agressive behaviour only makes things worse. I've had factions at war with me without ever attacking me : Portugal, in both my campaigns, on H and VH, never attacked me after declaring war by blocking one of my port (just couldn't bribe all of my neighbours) ... make Pampelune revolt and Bingo ! not only they accept a long waited ceasefire but also give thousands happily.