We NEED a 'Get the hell off my land!' Diplomacy Option! [Archive]

OMGLAZERS

12-19-2006, 21:16

With the introduction of the new AI which is exponentially more aggressive, I think that CA's top priority among the other bugs and such is to add a new diplomacy option in which you inform other countries that their army is on your soil, and they have to immediately leave or declare war, and it's THEIR fault.

How silly is it that the player must get military access permission from countries in order not to piss them off, or the Pope, but they can march their troops right through your country and you cannot do a damn thing about it. And if you do, you are blamed by the Pope!

Also, with naval invasions, you are blamed once again! How can you be expected to stop a naval invasion without this option! You will ALWAYS get blamed for starting a war.

I am also going to copy-pasta this post into the 'Mod Requests/Ideas' section because I think it is the one thing every single member of the TW community would love to see right now.

Thats it from me for today. :wall:

PaulTa

12-19-2006, 21:38

I completely agree. I am the one who gets the reputation hit for defending my own territory, when XYZ is the one that violated our alliance by invading my territory.

I'd really like to see, if not a new diplomacy option, then a computer that will cancel alliances before invading or something of that sort. That way, it takes the diplomacy hit and I don't.

Kobal2fr

12-19-2006, 21:47

There is a way to do this (although of course a diplomatic option would be more handy) : park a military stack in the "red zone" around his troublesome stack (or a fleet next to his fleet). This will send a "I'm watching you, you little git !" message to the AI and will make it reconsider it's invasion plans.

Then it'll either retreat, or declare war, depending on both your overall strengths+production possibilities compared to his, and said stack (a single militia unit will usually entice him to attack outright if you are both equally powerful, while a huge army will send him back wimpering to try and invade someone/somewhere else).

Either way, your reputation is safe.

mor dan

12-19-2006, 21:51

i think that is exactly the problem. crossing boundries isn't considered "an invasion". but yes, a "pardon me, but you are tresspassing' option certainly seems in order. i can't tell when i need to beef up a defense or just watch them as they march by.

honestly, i think it is a pathing problem. they take assigned routes, no matter what that might mean. it would explain why if you block a bottleneck path a unit will either choose another action, or just sit there until you move instead taking a different different and longer path.

Bob the Insane

12-19-2006, 22:23

Well I saw something interesting in my latest post patch game. As the HRE I made the effort to Ally with the Polish (and a bunch of others). PLaying on H/VH (H campaign) I maintained the alliance for many, many turns with lots of gifts to keep them sweet. While their territory lapped around mine in an L shape they never took the short cut and rarely ever entered my lands and never left a stack there at the end of the turn.

I think that when the AI is on your land it is a direct challange and an agressive act by the AI. You put troops on their land and it annoys them, you should feel the same why when they put troops in your land. The shadowing with a large stack works and I am wondering whether attacking a neutral stack on your land is an agressive act. Many have seen that attacking enemy stacks on your own land when the Pope has started a mission for you to stop fighting that faction does not tigger the failure of that mission and thus (as far as the mission functionality is concerned) it is not an attack as such...

But M2TW is a game of bullies that rarely back down or blink. And once one targets you conflict is almost unstoppable...

RussianWinter

12-19-2006, 22:25

I wish the armies simply couldnt cross borders unless:

1.) They declare war on you.
2.) You have an alliance/ military access
3.) It is a crusade army (though this obviously creates pains after crusade disbands and has to walk home, thats another rant.)

The porous borders are a huge gameplay complaint of mine, its a joke that an army can just waltz anywhere.

Is this moddable in any way?

GotGame36

12-19-2006, 22:26

I couldn't agree more.

I have had 4-5 half stacks of a "neutral" country just sit by my capital for turn after turn.

Again.....what you said about the naval units.....I get attacked from a country....then attack them back and the Pope get's mad at me and not the original attackers. That is messed up.

todorp

12-19-2006, 22:30

Yes, we need such option, because enemy troops in your province add to devastation and lower the income and the order.

I don't think the AI will honour it :) though

OMGLAZERS

12-19-2006, 22:34

I've currently had a stack of Moorish units sitting outside my (Spanish) city of Valencia for about oh, 10-15 turns now.

And mind you, i'm even playing LtC mods, so even with improved AI, it's doing this ****!

(H/VH btw)

THIS is my problem. I have units sitting in front of my forts, unable to attack, unable to leave, can't do a thing, just sitting there. So now I need to beef up massively so they don't attack, but then they just SIT there.. WAITING for me to leave.

It's just very nasty.

Bob the Insane

12-19-2006, 22:47

The AI is trying to bully you, or force you to be the bad guy and attack... I am not sure why this is an issue...

If you do not want them there and are not allied to them, then attack, dirive them out and send a message to the rest of the AI factions that you are not to be messed with. If you merely drive them out it is not to hard to get peace going again if you pay some reperations for the military units you have "damaged"...

If you are allied then grant them military acces to your lands and steal their thunder (you can probably get cash or military access to their lands for it and they will no longer cause devistation and you can ignore them).

I geuss I am just dealing eith the game as is and to be honest I would not mind if it changed a little. But I do like it messy, dark and complicated... Proper medieval history that... :2thumbsup:

grinningman

12-19-2006, 23:03

I wish the armies simply couldnt cross borders unless:

1.) They declare war on you.
2.) You have an alliance/ military access
3.) It is a crusade army (though this obviously creates pains after crusade disbands and has to walk home, thats another rant.)

I agree, I think this would be much better than the current system.

The crusade army could just get instantly transported back to your nearest border if the crusade ends and you're in foreign territory.

OMGLAZERS

12-19-2006, 23:20

If you do not want them there and are not allied to them, then attack, dirive them out and send a message to the rest of the AI factions that you are not to be messed with. If you merely drive them out it is not to hard to get peace going again if you pay some reperations for the military units you have "damaged"...

In Catholic factions, this is considered an act of war and the Pope will condemn you for it.

You will start a war, be chastised for it, and have a load of other troubles, when in fact, the Pope is at fault here.

Plus, sometimes, the AI does have pathfinding issues and as allies, you should have a non-military option to let them know you are disatisfied with their troop placement.

I mean, do you think in the real world if someone doesn't like something, they attack them?

They always have a non-military option. And the game should have them too, otherwise, it's just nonstop slugging instead of any real strategy or fun.

Besides, I don't WANT to attack.

Morindin

12-20-2006, 00:32

This option has been floating around in civ and such games for a long time now. I don't know if CA has ever played those games, but they could garner some good ideas from them.

Other such options from those games:

1) Boot out agents from your land with military forces (move a military unit on an agent and click the 'boot' out option).
2) Ceasefire for X amount of turns.
3) Non-aggression Pacts and Alliances for X amount of turns.
4) Demand factions cancel treaties and trade rights with other nations, demand they cease hostilities with other nations.
5) Open Borders treaties. Without open borders you CANNOT move into another units borders without declaring war. This is kind of represented in the engine with 'military access' and nations getting angry at you if you park your troops in their land, however I would like an option where-by if you move into my borders with military units, you will have to declare war. I've noticed the AI will sometimes go after rebels in your territory, while this is nice it does mess up relations a little.
6) Once war is declared, all hostile units start in friendly territory. This way you cannot mass 10 stacks next to someones cities and declare war, wiping them out in one turn.
7) Borders that expand into the ocean. You can have some control over who sails blindly into your waters.

Not all of these are possible with the current engine unfortunately, but some have already been implimented by the various mods out there.

Also while we're at it, I don't see why generals shouldn't be able to negotiate diplomacy options, or at the very least Royal family. I don't know why my King, at the head of his army, can't demand a ceasefire and instead has to wait 3 years for a diplomat to come along.

Alden

12-20-2006, 00:43

It can be a little irksome. In my current Venice game, I had most of my army in the field and a dinky little Milanese stack (three Town Militia) scampered onto the bridge into Venice. And just sat there forever so I couldn't get my field stack in or more units out. Couldn't even use Venice to build agents since they couldn't get out either.

A dozen or so turns later, two massive Milanese stacks parked themselves next to my field stack and I was pretty much up the creek. I didn't have the juice outside the city to beat that much army and while I could build more units in the city I couldn't bring them out to fatten up my own stack. Nor could I move my field stack into the city to turn the inevitable battle into a seige assault that I'd have a crack at winning. And all because of three lousy town militia camping on the bridge. Lame.

I guess I could have tried bribing that little stack on the bridge. I don't know if that would be an act of war or not.

Get the Heck Out was a diplo option in Rome. Don't know why it went away.

OMGLAZERS

12-20-2006, 01:01

Get the Heck Out was a diplo option in Rome. Don't know why it went away.

Thats what makes this so much worse to me.

Aggressive AI?

GREAT

No way to resolve issues without stupid stupid STUPID battles?

HORRIBLE!

CA shot themselves in the foot on this one if you ask me!

sapi

12-20-2006, 02:19

Get the Heck Out was a diplo option in Rome. Don't know why it went away.
Are you sure? I never saw it....

And OMGLAZERS, watch your language.

PureFodder

12-20-2006, 02:28

I wish there was a "Please remove your maxed out level spy from my cities" as he's the single most annoying blighter I've ever met.

Bob the Insane

12-20-2006, 02:36

I am not really arguing with anyone here and I would be perfectly fine with the dplomatic option added in. But what do you do if they agree to the option but do not withdraw? I mean we have that "or we will attack option" in diplomacy which appear to do nothing but simply annoy your opponent... In that case we would have what we had asked for but essentially nothing would have changed...

I would prefer to know why it happens and what the AI is trying to...

scourgeofrome

12-20-2006, 02:40

Diplomacy in the Total War series needs another revamp.CA has been going in the right direction,but we need some more improvements.Maybe Sid Meir could help?:san_laugh:

Alden

12-20-2006, 02:50

I sure remember getting it from the AI, sapi. Maybe it wasn't there for the human player, though. Its been a while.

Blademun

12-20-2006, 05:58

I totally agree with you guys, We need a Diplo option for booting armies out of our territory. I had a crusade army from spain march up to venice and just stop on the bridge. Apparently the AI wanted to put them on a boat but was stupid to figure out how so they just got stuck. I was wayyy to strong for spain to attack though. SO they just sat their forever.

Oh, and ALden, I hope this isn't a Doh moment for you, but you could have just built a cog. A cog works just like a bridge. Move your troops on, then off. I had to do that in my campaign with the spanish camping my Bridge to venice.

Shahed

12-20-2006, 07:53

derfinsterling

12-20-2006, 08:41

The porous borders are a huge gameplay complaint of mine, its a joke that an army can just waltz anywhere.

Well, considering how slow news travelled in those days it's not that unlikely that an amry crosses your border and you'd hear about it days or weeks later. Considering this I don't really have a problem with armies being able to cross your borders at will.
But yes, a "Get Lost" option would be great! Especially combined with the "Accept or we will Attack" option.

mrbrownstain

12-20-2006, 09:37

So you guys don't like the fact that opponent factions can place their armies in your territories without your permission? You find it unnatural behavior when they plant themselves somewhere and force you into a situation of their design?

I'll agree that the options presented are sometimes simplified in the diplomacy aspect, but landing on someone's territory only worsens the relations and does not constitute an act of war and won't lose a mission of non agression from the pope.

So far I'm impressed with the campaign A.I. It's worthwile to work around diplomacy and espionage to get the upper hand. I may get angry and reload once in a while, but that's usually 'cause I made a silly typo style mistake or forgot to move someone and lost advantage.

I just wanted to speak up.

sapi

12-20-2006, 09:58

I see your point, brownstain, but with the campaign ai being what it is (an utter pushover) it really can't afford to overextend itself, and placing its units into the territory of another ai faction starts a war it can't afford.

Barry Fitzgerald

12-20-2006, 10:24

Hmmm...well I have to say I don't find the AI challenging even post patch...sure I lose some battles..but that is more down to bad luck or sheer weight of numbers than AI skill.

As for diplomacy...I tend to agree that an army in your lands is a problem..and could be seen as a dodgy act....

Maybe we do need CIV IV style diplomacy...or least a bit of it. I was expecting more on that front being honest....what also concerns me is that the campaign AI is also crushingly daft....

Just declares war for no reason...and at a point where it i s likely to suffer dire consequences by doing so...and why do they declare war and attack a settlement with a pathetic army consisting of half siege equipment? Splat! taken out a ton of enemy armies who just had plain bad unit choices..and poor AI attacking.

I don't see mega enhanced diplomacy being honest...CA seem intent on flash and gloss...less on subtance..talking of Civ games...I still play them...years after they have been out....will I be playin this in 2 years...? probably not..

At the moment multiplayer is about the only way to go for me...least that is fun..ish (if you ignore the issues with some units)

sapi

12-20-2006, 10:40

Am I the only guy here who's never played civ? :P

OMGLAZERS

12-20-2006, 11:16

Am I the only guy here who's never played civ? :P

Yes.

....

For god sake's, whats WRONG with you. I've tossed out old versions of Cd's or made DVD backups and archived them (KOTOR, Unreal, etc.)

But I have every CD and DVD of every Civ game in my main game binder all crisp and clean.

Civilization is the peak of a what strategy games can be. Anything else is just striving to be Civ.

The sheer work, love, intensity, thought, complexity and diversity of Civ makes it a candidate for best strategy game ever, and possibly one of the best game series ever (no joke).

If I hadn't discovered Shaba Wangy's patch/mod today, I would have totally quit off Total War till I felt like aggrevating myself. The problems are so numerous it's absurd.

But, yes, we need Civilization-Like Diplomacy or borders!

Civilization had VERY VERY VERY similary invasion/border protection issues in it's first two iterations. The last two (3 and 4) have had defined, and diplomatically protected borders.

The only problem with Civ is that there's no indepth battles. If you combined Civ's management with TW's battling, you'd have the ultimate game.

Barry Fitzgerald

12-20-2006, 11:19

Am I the only guy here who's never played civ? :P

You must be! Not even one of them?

CIv is a different beast...it concentrates on diplomacy and city building, with trade and technology..no real time battles..but what is there just works, and well.

Combine that and TW games and you have the ultimate game, able to satisfy the slow burn strategy fans..and also the battle players.

But on a serious note..what bothers me most is that there is only really one way to play MTWII..and that is all out war! Sounds great..but after 20 consecutive defences of a city it can get tiresome...

Lots more going on with the campaign map compared to RTW..but the pace of the game is such that you really do feel rushed..and exploring non war options is limited. I for one would really really like to see a glorious achievements campaign brought back aka MTW I...it needs it badly IMHO. Defensive gameplay isnt really an option at present.

I hope CA are listening....

AussieGiant

12-20-2006, 11:19

Am I the only guy here who's never played civ? :P

No sapi you're not...I also have never played it.

We're both doing ok and are well adjusted guy's though :yes:

OMGLAZERS

12-20-2006, 11:58

Combine that and TW games and you have the ultimate game,

We pretty much said the same thing right ontop of each other :P

scourgeofrome

12-20-2006, 14:39

We pretty much said the same thing right ontop of each other :P
And I'll say it again.Civilization+Total War=Ultimate Turn-Based Startegy Game.What would they call the games?Maybe something like Medieval:Total Civilization.:san_laugh:

Bijo

12-20-2006, 15:07

Ooooo, a mix between Civilization and TW would goooood. I actually was thinking of getting Civ IV a while ago but I bought M2 instead. Bad choice? I don't think there will ever be a "perfect strategy game" in the style of TW+Civ. They won't give us the best of both worlds. It would make both franchises obsolete.

The "Get off my land" option must be included. You hear us, CA? Include the damn thing already and improve diplomacy. It's getting old.

I sense something. *looks around mysteriously* Something I haven't sensed in a long time. It feels like.... There's this gut feeling telling me that in the next TW installment (not the M2 expansion) there'll be a severe improvement on diplomacy.

Marius Dynamite

12-20-2006, 15:56

In M2, essentially, the settlements are the major city of the area. Their are still supposed to be little villages floating around their though. When an army is in your land, it marching through these villages. Imagine your sitting in your nice little house in a small village, which is just a few miles from Paris, and you see a huge army of Germans marching through. If they are not allies, then surely they are at war?

So you decide to talk to the leader of this army and find out why he has professional soldiers in your country ..

" Why are you here?!"

"We are just walking around because we haven't been told not to."

"Shouldn't you be on your other front fighting in a War?"

"Ja but, we are obsessed with the human player. You see, we are bad AI."

...

mrbrownstain

12-20-2006, 16:04

Remembering civ3. Excellent game. About diplomacy and tech tree as much as tw is about battle sim.
I agree that the battles are not hard to win. What does make it fun and challenging is to win with minimal loss. Troops = Florins and to optimize my finances I shouldn't. Playing within the parameters of the game is all we can do to have fun. I find the end game rather tedious when it gets to: build armies; transport; slaughter. So I try to use campaign strategy in the long run to my advantage and choose feasible allies and reserve all out war for my natural enemies based on religion and geography.

It seems A.I. factions go to scripted territories for conquest. So if I take all surrounding rebelling territories at the start, I will eventually be fighting on many fronts without any real reason other than A.I. scripted behavior. When that happens the game feels phony.

The A.I. motives, it seems, are caught between scripted conquest and reaction to opponent faction strength. It would be somewhat of an interesting improvement if faction behavior was based on Leader attributes so that you can interact a little more with faction leaders rather than soldiers (As someone brought up earlier: why can i discuss diplomacy with a foot soldier?)

cambrax

12-20-2006, 16:18

Another diplomatic model that might be easier than civ's to implement is EU2. Now, if you merged that with Civ and TW... then you'd have a game! :2thumbsup:

I'm not so fussed about enemy troops being able to cross borders without declaring war, as sometimes the gameplay driven invisible wall surrounding a territory in games like this seems very artificial. I do think, however, that you should have the option to request the AI gets off your land.

OMGLAZERS

12-21-2006, 00:34

scourgeofrome

12-21-2006, 00:49

I'm going to borrow my friend's EU2 just so I can find out what this game is about.. never played it, heard of it.
Never played it either.Looked on Gamespot about it sounds fun.

Rilder

12-21-2006, 07:02

Am I the only guy here who's never played civ? :P

Ive played it but I hate it, every faction has the same units and buildings except for 1 unique unit and there so called bonuses, its alright for 1 or 2 games but then it just gets repetitive building the same buildings, recruiting the exact same units.. plus battles are just right click and 1 side wins other side doesnt.... its like auto-resolve in TW games :sweatdrop:

Barry Fitzgerald

12-21-2006, 13:39

I think Civ 4 has to be taken on its own turf...it doesnt intend to simulate battles, and it just makes no attempt to do so...not a bad choice IMHO. Rather than then a half baked implementation.

Neither is it perfect..but it does show how a game can have great depth..be very replayable...and customizable...and have solid diplomacy. One great Civ strength for me is that it can be as deep and absorbing as you want..but if you want to take it easy..you can too. So hardcore and lighter players are happy.

I don't subscribe to the dumb it down CA way of thinking. I feel that they fear adding depth or accuracy as it could put casual gamers off...I think it would be a far better game if it took some lessons from the Civ games...some that is.

Having been playing games since pacman..almost...I can say that some games just stand the test of time..and rock the boat even now. One such classic is Paul Woakes and his Mercenary series....Geoff Crammond, sentinel, F1 etc, David Braben, Elite.. Sid Meier and the civ games....the real small guys that knew how to shake the scene up and give people something different..and innovative.

Great graphics is a bonus...you have to have the gameplay and substance to back it up.

CA IMO need to re-define the genre...and they can do it if they really try.