Why doesnt dipomacy work?

[Afkazar]

I mean in the early game of course everyone was my ally.I betrayed and killed milan.Then every faction i was allied with betrayed me.EVERYONE
It annoys me too because my relations are worsend just for walking through their territory. I remeber having this problem in rome total war as well.So far i have only EVER fought with an ally in all my total war games once.And why are the papal states such asses? Its like christ i recaptured jersualam.Cant i smak around an asshole whose betrayed me?

I may not be doing it right but i just dont know.I suppose the popes leverage has been the main reason I havent been sieged by anyone other than the Byzantines. I just dont know religon pisses me off.(total war speaking)

[Atticus Finch]

If you're playing on VH, everyone will attack you pretty much no matter what, especially if you attack an ally. If you want to walk in their territory, get military acess, and if you don't like the Pope - kill him (thats what I do)

[PseRamesses]

I mean in the early game of course everyone was my ally.I betrayed and killed milan.Then every faction i was allied with betrayed me.EVERYONE
You betrayed your ally Milan which will cause your reputation to go down. What comes around goes around. Why do you find it unrealistic that the AI backstabs a backstabber?


It annoys me too because my relations are worsend just for walking through their territory.
Don´t you get pissed when other factions wanders through your territory? Get an military access treaty.


And why are the papal states such asses? Its like christ i recaptured jersualam.Cant i smak around an asshole whose betrayed me?
You can smack them around as much as you want in your own territory. If your reputation is bad and your standing with the pope is lower than the aggressor then you can not pursue them into their territory, take their settlements or blockade their ports.

[Foz]

Another big reason for diplomacy not working is that the variables that control how much the AI trusts alliances are completely disabled in the game code. Normally the code would have the AI trust (and respect, i.e. not break) your alliance if you have an okay reputation and high relations with that faction. All the variables that control those threshold values, however, are set above the max attainable value of 1.0, and therefore the AI will never respect an alliance no matter how hard you try. Kobal2fr is working on a diplomacy fix right now that address this particular issue as well as others I'm sure. If you want to enable the code for AI to trust alliances on your own though, I think the appropriate thread was in the mod chat forum... something like "Diplomacy, I wonder..."

[Doug-Thompson]

I mean in the early game of course everyone was my ally.I betrayed and killed milan.Then every faction i was allied with betrayed me. EVERYONE

PseRamesses was right.

Players have a lot of complaints about diplomacy. Some of them are valid. This is not one of them.

[supadodo]

Well this game was called Medieval 2: Total War and not Total Diplomacy for a reason. tbh alliances are pretty much useless in this game. They won't bother moving in an army to aid you, they won't give you any money as a gift(mostly becoz they're all bankrupt), they backstab you without warning and they ruin your rep just becoz you sally out to attack them. I say screw alliances. Kill all who oppose!! It is better to reign in hell than serve in heaven: quoted from some guy whose name I can't remember.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

To be able to go into battles with an ally or against two enemies adds a whole new dimension to the game. The battles can really be epic.

Total war is only a name and if it was meant to be like that then they wouldn't have bothered spending the time and resources to include diplomats and princessess regardless of the fact that they are near useless.

[Daveybaby]

So you want to be able to betray allies whenever you feel like it, but you complain that the game is broken when your allies betray you? How very odd.

[Von Nanega]

Currently playing as Sicily. Warfare vs HRE & Milan in N Italy ended with me owning N Italy. Spent some time with housekeeping up there. After a little while of no fighting, both gladly went to ceasefire and traderights. It just takes time.

[Aaron A Aardvark]

Some players have foud that the AI is a bit less psycho on lower difficulty levels. If you want to play Total Diplomacy (and there's no reason why you shoudn't) perhaps M/VH might work better.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Some players have foud that the AI is a bit less psycho on lower difficulty levels. If you want to play Total Diplomacy (and there's no reason why you shoudn't) perhaps M/VH might work better.

You can do that or edit descr_faction_standing.txt and change the normalise settings on Trigger 0095_Update_Very_Hard_Difficulty to a value that is the same as hard or medium. This way you retain all the VH settings except for the "Dogs of War" diplomacy.

[Nellup]

It is better to reign in hell than serve in heaven: quoted from some guy whose name I can't remember.

Sorry to go a bit off-topic but that was part of Lucifers speech in Paradise Lost by John Milton.

[GrandInquisitor]

Some players have foud that the AI is a bit less psycho on lower difficulty levels. If you want to play Total Diplomacy (and there's no reason why you shoudn't) perhaps M/VH might work better.

I've played on medium difficulty, and reputation/diplomacy are just as worthless.

[Afkazar]

You betrayed your ally Milan which will cause your reputation to go down. What comes around goes around. Why do you find it unrealistic that the AI backstabs a backstabber?


Don´t you get pissed when other factions wanders through your territory? Get an military access treaty.


You can smack them around as much as you want in your own territory. If your reputation is bad and your standing with the pope is lower than the aggressor then you can not pursue them into their territory, take their settlements or blockade their ports.
1.The rapid succesion in which they did it was simply appalling.They also really didnt try to work things out.They went straight from ally to enemy.It also never tells you that "walking in allies territory" is the direct cause of the enemies unhappiness

2.No not at all.They are my friends i will treat them as such.I would even offer to house their troops!They got business of their own and if they have to fight wars throught my borders then thats fine with me.
They may not give it to me.

3.I took the holy land...BY MYSELF.No help. poland went on a crusade but i got there and conquered jersulam.
I do most of what the pope asks other than killing milan. Its not like im murdering papal states left and right.
I think conquering the holy land is quite glorious.Like I mean surely the pope should let some stuff slide here and there If i conquer jersulam.



So you want to be able to betray allies whenever you feel like it, but you complain that the game is broken when your allies betray you? How very odd.
When like 7 do it at once yeah i kinda do.It never tells you directly "STOP WANDERING IN OUR TERRITORY" it just keeps saying your relationship is getting worse. They never say yo look were kinda nervous you killed milan and now your roaming in our territory.Please stop or we will reconsider our alliance. Maybe im just not good at medieval politics.Even neutral sicily came after me.

[Yun Dog]

1. well now you know

2. only a fool would welcome an allies army into their territory and house them in their city - trust only goes so far especially with 'allies'

3. As has long been known peace is a costly business - you want to keep some people loving you - pay them money and they will love you till your generosity runs dry.

[Foz]

Agreed, it's out of hand, but playing with a more informed idea of how things work is clearly going to help you with some of your diplomacy problems. You've obviously picked up not to walk in their lands without securing military access... so put it hard to work now.

Btw the reason for this upsetting them (which you called into question) is quite natural if you consider yourself as the ruler of a nation. Primarily, it's that it makes you nervous as hell when a neighboring country brings a friggin army onto your sovereign lands!!! It can easily be the precursor to a full scale invasion, and just isn't polite to boot. If you would allow the computer to do this to you with how little it respects alliances... then you need your head examined, b/c they'd definitely try to gobble up some underguarded central province of yours while they seemingly wander around aimlessly. I can see it already:

French commander, landing at England: Hello there!
English commander: Well hello. What are you doing here?
French commander: Well, we thought it would be a nice day to go sailing.
English commander: ...and land heavy infantry?
French commander: Oui. We find it most comfortable to travel with our heavy armour and weapons on. After such a wonderful voyage, it only seemed appropriate to take a nice peaceful stroll through the woods to see... where was it I said we were supposed to be going today?
French flunky: To Scotland, sir!
French commander: Yes, we're going to see Scotland. Most of the men have never seen it. I hear it's beautiful this time of year.
English commander: Oh yes, quite beautiful. Full of... hills. And goats. Yeah. Very well men, let them pass!
*French army lays siege to London*
English commander: BLAST!!! They said they were going to Scotland, and I believed them! FRIGGIN FROGS!!!!!!!!!

I'm sure you get the point.

In other news, It's wise to avoid making aggressive moves on factions that have high pope-o-meter ratings, as it seems when I've done so it causes substantially worse hits to my pope-o-meter, and is seemingly more likely to draw sanctions as well. It helps to have a very high pope rating yourself as he messes with you less. Sending a diplomat to tribute him dough and building big-ass church buildings are good ways to help this along. Of course it's also nice to have a pope from your country, so actively training up priests to become cardinals and control the college of cardinals that way can be amazingly useful to this end too.

I would also strongly advise against making alliances with any faction you intend to wage war with relatively soon, as breaking those alliances really makes your reputation plummet. If you do find yourself in a situation where you want to start a war with an ally, the least damaging bet is to try to draw them into attacking you. I don't know if actively trying to piss them off hurts pope rating or global reputation, but if not then for instance military trespassing would definitely be a good plan. I don't believe assassins trigger war either, and they do seem quite effective at sinking those relations.

[PseRamesses]

As Doug-T stated many complaints regarding diplomacy is valid but my advice to you Afkazar is to not enter any alliances. When I´m playing as a catholic faction the only alliance I seek is with the Pope, no one else. My games have been more "peaceful" since I adopted this policy. It seems the AI is more cautious when I´m not allied with them.
When if comes to walking through other factions lands you´ll receive a drop-down message on the left hand side telling you that your relations has worsened. On the other hand you can exploit this by constantly walking in and out of another factions land thus eventually making them the agressor when they get pissed enough and attack you.

What I find more frustrating than anything with diplomacy/ reputation is that there are few ways of improving your reputation, that an ally can attack you directly without warning and that relations aren´t improved when you enter an alliance.

[Von Nanega]

When if comes to walking through other factions lands you´ll receive a drop-down message on the left hand side telling you that your relations has worsened. On the other hand you can exploit this by constantly walking in and out of another factions land thus eventually making them the agressor when they get pissed enough and attack you.

Yes, that is my number one favorite way to make the AI be the agressor. I do this even to Muslim factions because the reliability meter is global. The key to way and reliability is to always be the transgressed against one. After all, now you are just defending yourself against other factions evil imperialist moves. Muhahahahaha!!! :2thumbsup:

[RussianWinter]

Wow, some of these replies just make me scratch my head. The AI could be sitting around having rabbit orgies and some of you would still consider it normal. When you play a single player game one of the ceilings to how much fun you have is the AI, and in this game its just terrible. If it was any one facet (bad at defending, bad at diplomacy etc.) I might be able to squint my eyes and deal, but its so pervasive throughout every aspect.

As diplo is now its just broken, broken, broken, and calling the game "total war" isn't a (good) excuse. Unavoidable war with every bordering nation with no hopes of reconciling doesn't feel like a good strategy game, it feels like Pac-man.

I've abandonded a few great games because after being an an already very challenging situation against 4 factions I've been backstabbed by 2 others in a couple turns. I was never the provoker, I really REALLY tried to get a ceasefire with anyone over the course of 15 turns, and its obvious the game, as coded, just would have none of it.

[Ar7]

I´d have to agree about diplomacy being useless, one will still end up at war with all the factions. The game is biased towards this by a) Setting the victory conditions to conquering 45 regions b) simply having a dumb AI.

To be honest I am surprised at how many things don´t actually work the way they were supposed to, most of them are core aspects of the game and the result is the lack of any strategy in what was supposed to be a strategy game. Look at the list: diplomacy, AI, characters traits, inquisitors, some of the units (cavalry, 2h), it is easier to say what actually works! The game is linear beyond belief, with an early rush the best answer for every faction.

I actually noticed this with many new games, somehow old games had better value and replayability to them, these days too much emphasis is put on graphics.

Having said that, I will still play the game because I enjoy the battles, even though the AI doesn´t really shine.

[zerathule]

French commander, landing at England: Hello there!
English commander: Well hello. What are you doing here?
French commander: Well, we thought it would be a nice day to go sailing.
English commander: ...and land heavy infantry?
French commander: Oui. We find it most comfortable to travel with our heavy armour and weapons on. After such a wonderful voyage, it only seemed appropriate to take a nice peaceful stroll through the woods to see... where was it I said we were supposed to be going today?
French flunky: To Scotland, sir!
French commander: Yes, we're going to see Scotland. Most of the men have never seen it. I hear it's beautiful this time of year.
English commander: Oh yes, quite beautiful. Full of... hills. And goats. Yeah. Very well men, let them pass!
*French army lays siege to London*
English commander: BLAST!!! They said they were going to Scotland, and I believed them! FRIGGIN FROGS!!!!!!!!!

I'm sure you get the point.

While this made me laught, i'ts a bit forgetting how things where in the medieval days.
First, kingdoms are not nations, they dont have the same territorial integrity a country has today.
You have to take into account that most rulers where related by blood to one another (i mean rullers of different countries).
A lord asking to cross some lands with his armies and finaly breaking his word would be up for much troubles : loosing alliances with other powers, loosing trade rights, forming coalition against him etc ...
War had a lot of rules, and two things kept people in line : honour and the pope.
Bye honour i dont mean some kind of ethics, but more of some kind of public face to maintain.
The pope would be more of a referee during conflics.
At least this was true in fightings between catholic nations, except for england that did not care most of the times about those rules (or should i say that it was for them a matter of survival to break the rules).
Anyway, to have some kind of feeling of what "should" be a good diplomacy AI and gameplay, check out Europa Universalis, even if its flawed, it's quite a good exemple of how should the diplomacy be handled : attack an ally with witch you have a royal marriage and exellent relation, and you're good for loosing a LOT of reputation (that affects your relations with the whole world) and more importantly will raise considerably your unrest ...
Add the fact that blitzing in this game means world domination toward the end of the game period (400 years), i guess that this is the kind of improvement some players would like for M2TW's diplomacy.

[Foz]

To be sure. I wasn't trying to comment on historical politics or war, but rather on the situation I find myself in in the game: if AI military units come onto my land, allied with me or not, it invariably means they start a war. Apologies if I blurred those lines.

Glad you had a good laugh btw :beam:

[Kraggenmor]

if AI military units come onto my land, allied with me or not, it invariably means they start a war.


Bingo.

[The Stranger]

they some times even attack you while your relation is PERFECT and the turn before you just agreed to give them a 1000x10 turn tribute... i had that more than once... so giving them money wont work but it will get them more troops...

[baron_Leo]

What does annoy me is, when the frogs bring some troops into my territory, and do nothing with it. Really nothing. They do not intend to attck me, they are not allied, they don't do anything. They park there for 40 rounds and then leave. Theres is absolutely no point in doing that. Okay when Milan parks some armies in my terf I know what he is up to. He brings another army. And another. And another, Joins them, and attacks me and gets horriby beaten in Tolouse. (I would be so glad if they would attack Bordeaux one time - less troops and another scenery, maybe it would add a challenge:-).

[gardibolt]

But there is a point. If they're parked on your lands 40 turns, they're causing devastation and reducing your income from farming (and trade, if they're sitting on a road). So it's a very hostile act to go onto another's lands.

[Quillan]

Neutrals and allies don't cause devastation, only enemy armies. At the beginning of my Byzantine campaign, I had a Hungarian stack parked in the Sofia region for 20-30 turns that just wouldn't leave. Eventually they decided to attack, which started the long march to their extinction.

[econ21]

An AI army camping in your land is surely an indication that the AI is thinking about attacking you, just that the time is not quite right.

I've seen them march off sometimes, when I move a big army nearby - it's like they decide there's no point waiting for an opportunity to arise and go elsewhere.

I quite like the AI camping behaviour - it's sort of menacing. I just wish there were some diplomatic options for dealing with it - e.g. a "get of my land" type threat to force the issue.

[Joshwa]

I'll buy that even allied nations will look to shaft one another given the chance, but what i can't fathom is why the AI doesn't seem to comprehend what a Vassal is. Surely, once i become their vassal, they will leave me alone, at least for a while, right? Wrong. As the Byzantines, I have had the Hungarians attack me, demand i become their vassals, and then attack me again within 5 turns at least three times running. I could understand them getting in first if they percieve i am building up forces to attack, but within three turns? What was the point in asking in the first place?

[Snoil The Mighty]

An AI army camping in your land is surely an indication that the AI is thinking about attacking you, just that the time is not quite right.

I've seen them march off sometimes, when I move a big army nearby - it's like they decide there's no point waiting for an opportunity to arise and go elsewhere.

I quite like the AI camping behaviour - it's sort of menacing. I just wish there were some diplomatic options for dealing with it - e.g. a "get of my land" type threat to force the issue.


Hear hear!
I've thought since they upped the diplo options in RTW that the most glaring options that were not present at all were were: Not having a diplomatic way to warn off other soldiers, as well as the fact that there is no way to declare war diplomatically. Both options should be feasible without excessive coding issues. They would also be nice to further differentiate between whether your leader in that campaign was pursuing 'dreaded' as opposed to 'chivalrous' behavior and also both would make the reputation rating more meaningful. Taking a world-wide reputation hit because some snert faction keeps sending his soldiers into my countryside is something that should be remedied.

On a side note, I have to say I applaud the vision of M2TW even though it appears to have exceeded CA's reach. I like the direction even if the execution is currently a bit off, or more likely, rushed to sale for holiday time.

[Zuraffo]

actually, I find the diplomacy in this game was quite realistic. I was playing as Moors (H/H) and France, Venice and some other factions offered me alliance at the beginning of the game. Since at the beginning I was taking my time to conquer Iberia and fend off sicily, I accepted. Now that I have cleaned up Milan, I am actually waiting for France to break their alliance with me. But even though they hated me to boot (I think it's something like Abysmal), they are holding on to the alliance because they fear my armies.

It seemed to me the AI only uphold the alliance when it's beneficial to them (i.e. when they are weaker than you). In a situation where an alliance with you would be a hinderance to their expansion, the AI won't give much thought about upholding the alliance. Anyway why should they? If I have a weak alliance, I would want to attack them as well. Dogpiling on an already besieged target is good, realistic behavior. IMO, in order for diplomacy to work in your advantage is to maintain a strong army and scare everyone to your biding.

[Empirate]

For me, diplomacy seems to work just fine, with one exception: It's not very transparent, although better than Rome.
As for allied armies camping in your terrain: I (English, H/H) was awed by the way I felt threatened when my Milanese allies moved first one, then another high quality stack into southern France. I had just cleared out the French, taking Marseille, their last settlement. The Milanese had driven the Venetians out of Venice and the HRE out of Bologna, the Sicilians being very strong and cozy with the Pope. The Milanese actually sent a diplomat to negotiate an end of our alliance, their priority being "war". I declined and even sent them home with monetary gifts, as well as a princess. Still, having one of the most powerful militaries in the world, and no other easy route of expansion, they sent those two armies over into my territory. I assembled a stack of high quality troops, led by a six-star prince, and just kept it near them. I always sent that army right into the red zone of control of the bigger Milanese armies, and also kept a spy near the other one. The wandered about a little, only a few squares per turn, whereas at first they had marched directly at Marseille and Dijon at top speed. Then, after five or six turns, they decided to leave and try their luck elsewhere. They've never bothered me since, but I keep a sharp eye on my southeastern border now (towers and spies).
This might be a glitch, but I saw a danger, reacted to it in an intuitive way, and this solved the problem in exactly the way I wanted it to.
On a different note, I have been at war with the Danes for decades now, and only one big battle and one siege ever happened. Other than that, it's been a staredown. We both have very high relations with the pope, and it seems, both sides are trying hard not to risk too much there. Even their fleets seem to try to avoid an engagement.

EDIT: I just remembered one thing I don't like about the diplomacy: The AI easily gives up much you would have to fight long for otherwise, at least on H difficulty. The Spanish have just given me two settlements (one of them a heavily defended citadel at Pamplona) just for a ceasefire after I wiped out 2500 of their men in the field. Earlier, the Scots were so keen on cancelling our alliance that they gave me Oslo. A few turns later (they had, predictably, attacked and been beaten bloodily and repeatedly), they sued for peace. I offered them a new alliance if they gave me Brugges, which they happily accepted. I had gotten two settlements, one of them too far away for my inferior fleets to reach, in exchange for nothing at all. Well, I did bruise their field armies, but their situation wasn't that bad!