improved diplomacy

[Bohemond]

There is a screenshot that indicates important improvements in diplomacy. It means Allies will not anymore automatically break their alliance with the human player when he'a attacked by another computer player. BTW, I found this extremely irritating in MI.


Here http://www.tothegame.com/sshotfeat.asp?id=68&pic=7

[Klen Sakurai]

hmm in MI the AI has chosen to stay with me on occasion.

but I am looking forward to improved diplomacy none the less. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
Why do I love when I still feel pain; when does it end, when is my work done? Why do I fight, and why do I feel that I carry a sword through a battlefield? (VNV Nation)

[Catiline]

One thing I'd like is to be able to honour your alliances by moving an army into support an invaded province. It'd be nice to give those allies some payback for letting hteir troops eat all the enemies arrows before mine get involved.

and it'll be a crying shame if you can't hire mercenaries.

------------------
Oderint dum metuant

[Klen Sakurai]

I agree whole heartedly Cat, and hopefully that kind of action will count for something with the AI's rated opinion of you. can we hope?

------------------
Why do I love when I still feel pain; when does it end, when is my work done? Why do I fight, and why do I feel that I carry a sword through a battlefield? (VNV Nation)

[Vanya]

The bishop's last words: "But... You can't arrest me! I have diplomatic inmunity!"

http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif

[Sir Kuma of The Org]

I also agree with Cat. Furthermore, I would also like that we could have an "allied victory" in SP campaigns like in some advanced strategic games (alpha Centauri comes in to my mind here).

That would make even more sense, especially if we marry off our daughters to ally with a faction, like it seems we will be able to do.

[Catiline]

I'm astounded everybody feels the need to tell me they agree, I took it for granted http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Shiro]

I want an ally with whom I can plan an attack on faction X with. He can promise troops, use of land, etc. That's another thing! I want to be able to stomp on my ally's land. Not stomp, but at least travel over. I also want to have different levels of being an ally as well. Like with the King of France we're very close and I can go over his land, but with the Papal states we're only not as close and they would be upset if I were to pay a visit. Of course they would have to figure out better names than "close" and "sorta close." http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

+ I want to be able to marry of sons and daughters of political reasons.

I want a lotta things. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

[This message has been edited by Shiro (edited 12-05-2001).]

[Nelson]

Allied victory should be possible. Winner take all is OK for Sengoku Japan but not for Europe. Not even the Romans managed that.

[Klen Sakurai]

Quote Originally posted by Catiline:
I'm astounded everybody feels the need to tell me they agree, I took it for granted http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif[/QUOTE]

I agree, Cat!

------------------
Why do I love when I still feel pain; when does it end, when is my work done? Why do I fight, and why do I feel that I carry a sword through a battlefield? (VNV Nation)

[solypsist]

so far there prob won;t be an option to march thru allies' territories, simply because the presence of an army (any army beside's ones own) still has teh risk of hostility no matter the intentions. would you let an enemy march thru your unprotected land with huge armies and not worry?
coordinating attacks aren't gonna happen either, it appears (so far) the usual movement/turn procedure will remain.
don't ask how i know.

[Vanya]

Well... at one time British policy was to make all things England... and that didn't happen either... Nonetheless, they still managed to open that grand new delicatessen over there... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif

[Sir Kuma of The Org]

Originally posted by solypsist:
so far there prob won;t be an option to march thru allies' territories, simply because the presence of an army (any army beside's ones own) still has teh risk of hostility no matter the intentions. would you let an enemy march thru your unprotected land with huge armies and not worry?
coordinating attacks aren't gonna happen either, it appears (so far) the usual movement/turn procedure will remain.
don't ask how i know.

_____________________________________________

Is there anything else about the diplomatic/strategic map side of the game you know of???? C'mon share http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[Sir Kuma of The Org]

FROM:
http://www.worthplaying.com/article.php?sid=1363


1."Marriage treaties now allow a player to make his character the heir to many provinces or an entire country! "

2."The detailed strategy map now includes the physical features of the European landscape - with battlefields able to be strategically chosen by attacking a region across different borders."


What is your guesses how this would be implemented in the game? How could this work?

[Target]

Anyone? Anyone at all?


------------------
Quote MagyarKhans Cham:
i even suspect Target is coming here to hype things up.[/QUOTE]

[Obake]

Quote Originally posted by Target:


Anyone? Anyone at all?[/QUOTE]

OK Target........you asked for it! BTW, you'll probably see this through another forum as well. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

I'm in the same boat as Shiro and Cat. Shiro's ideas were outstanding and I'd like to elaborate on them a bit with my own thoughts. Here's what I'd like to see regarding diplomacy, strategic functionality and the impact it could have on the game.

For starters, I would like to see each of the non-player controllable factions have their own AI controls rather than having them lumped into a single over-arching faction as STW does with the Ronin. One of the things that pleased me most with WE/MI was the individualization of the multiple Ronin factions even though they were still lumped together into a single Ronin Clan. I'd like to see that be taken a step further for Medieval.

More specifically, I would like to see all the non player controllable factions have their own starting revenue/revenue stream/infrastructure and army development routines rather than having all of them grouped into a single faction as in STW. As an addition to this, I would like to see those factions be significantly more agressive than they are even now (and not only against the player controllable factions, but other non-controllable factions as well). Perhaps the level of agression could vary based on the difficulty of the game setting. By adding this to minor factions as opposed to just the player controllable factions, the single player campaigns would become significantly more interesting by allowing the player to feel that they are taking part in something grander in scale and significantly more dangerous (exciting) as well. The varying of agression levels based on game difficulty would also create a substantially more challenging campaign for the higher difficulty levels.

From a diplomatic perspective, I would also allow for the ability to negotiate/ally with these non-controllable factions. I envision a series of defense pacts/alliances that would also include these non-player controllable factions. Here is how I see this working, and I'll use Medieval specific territories based on the published screenshots. Bear in mind that the assumption is that all I've mentioned previously has already been implemented.

We'll say for sake of arguement that you as a player character are based in Anjou with non-player controllable minor factions in Acquitane, Brittany, and Normandy along with an AI controlled opposing major faction in Ile de France. You have (as a result of the individualization mentioned above) formed alliances with all 3 of the minor factions and are currently neutral with the other major faction.

The other major faction decides to invade Normandy. As you are an ally, Normandy sends an urgent request to you (once all strategic movement is complete and before the battle phase begins) asking for assistance in defending it's territory. You being the good ally (and having a couple of spare units) agree and move those units into Normandy whereupon the battle is resolved with both you and Normandy defending against Ile de France. After the battle is over, the troops you sent are returned to Anjou (assuming you didn't turn on your ally in battle and destroy both opposing armies). Reversing the situation, you or Normandy choose to invade Ile de France and ask the other for support in the invasion.

The concern that I see with this is that the battlefields are now based on borders rather than provinces from what I've gathered (Anjou/Normandy is one battlefield, Brittany/Normandy is another etc.). The problem would be if for instance Normandy had requested help from Brittany against Ile de France. How would they get there in time? My resolution to this would be that help could only be given from territories that share borders with both the territory attacking and the one being attacked. Assuming this, Anjou would be the ONLY territory that could send troops to assist Normandy defend.

Another example would be if for instance Anjou invaded Brittany. Brittany could then send for help to both Normandy and Aquitane for help but not their ally Ile de France as IdF doesn't share a border with both Brittany and Anjou. In all of these cases, the petitioned territory could choose whether or not to send troops.

The community has made it very clear since the release of STW that one of the most enjoyable aspects of the SP campaign are the joint attacks/defends. Implementing this idea will dramatically increase the number of multi-army battles that we all enjoy and would serve to enhance the overall enjoyment of the game, along with the replayability.

I would imagine that the coding for the AI control over the minor factions should be rather easy to implement as the AI routines for the non-player major factions could be applied to the minor factions. How hard it would be to incorporate the diplomatic features is a completely different matter and I won't even hazard a guess as to the overhead that would be required and the impact that would have on minimum system requirements. Given the re-vamped engine I would imagine that those req's will be going up anyway so............

In the end though, I think that the increased strategic gameplay along with an even more enjoyable tactical aspect will generate a substantial amount of interest from demographics that did NOT show interest in STW based on reviews and word-of-mouth. I think that this broader based appeal will more than offset any potential loss of revenue from the bottom end system owners as long as things stay reasonable. I'm guessing that a 450Mhz box with 128Mb of RAM and a 16Mb vid card should do the trick as a minimum.

So that's what I think. But then again, I could be completely wrong!


------------------
Obake

Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

[This message has been edited by Obake (edited 12-06-2001).]

[Shiro]

Well said, Obake-sama! You're presence is truly a blessing to this forum. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[Hirosito]

obake there is an easier answer to the question you pose. what if the supporting country is on the side of the map where it would geographically come from. it makes sense i think

------------------
Hirosito Mori

Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.

[Sir Kuma of The Org]

1."Marriage treaties now allow a player to make his character the heir to many provinces or an entire country! "


My guess is by marrying off my beautifull daughters to a leader of a smaller faction or an army general, he becomes my retainer and serves me now. A bit like the emissary is able to buy off an army right now (final effect wise).

The part about my "character" i guess is the added RPG elements that will be added, maybe faction leaders will have more distinct personalitites with strengths and weaknesses.

2."The detailed strategy map now includes the physical features of the European landscape - with battlefields able to be strategically chosen by attacking a region across different borders."


My best guess is that depending if you attack a region from the north, south, east or west, the battlefield will be different, with different advantages or disadvantages... I am not sure i am making any sense here....help!



[This message has been edited by Sir Kuma of The Org (edited 12-06-2001).]

[Catiline]

I'll forgive Obake for not calling my ideas were outstanding because clearly he was asuming everyone took that for granted http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

Obake, your ideas are in a league with Mr Kipling's cakes

------------------
Oderint dum metuant

[Catiline]

Incidentally, do we get dowries when we marry princesses? A quick way to earn some cash me thinks http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
Oderint dum metuant

[Shiro]

What father would be stupid enough to let his daughter marry you? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif

EDIT: I've no idea how I got a frown at the top of the post. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/confused.gif

[This message has been edited by Shiro (edited 12-07-2001).]

[BSM_Skkzarg]

Oh boy.....

A set of questions right up my alley. diplomacy, mutual co-ordinated attacks, multiple battlefields for each province - oh boy oh boy OH BOY!!

First - the multiple battlefield question. My suggestion would be to create 3-5 maps per area - and create a semi-random system for determining where the battle will be fought. Few provinces had more than a few areas suitable for combat. You could assign a statistic to each general - something like initiative. The attacker and defender could each pick a battlefield they would PREFER - an initiative check is performed - if one wins handily he has forced his opponent to battle on his chosen battlefield. Defender would get a slight bonus here but not a huge one. If the check is close enough that neither wins - then one of the battlefields is chosen at random - including the ones that were picked by the various parties. One note - if they both pick the same field of battle - its automatic that is the one fought on. This will keep every attack or defense fresh as few opponents will choose the same map. Each AI general can be set to prefer certain terrain features at his "creation" or spawning, with some randomness thrown in. Thus you would never know what the AI would be attempting...
Granted - this will take alot of mapmaking by the devs (or perhaps they could allow the community to help there?????? PLUG PLUG!!!).
But it would create a replayability factor never seen before in any game. If the campaign mode makes it in - think of the fun this could be online!!! Even in Single Player - the function would add true innovation and depth like never before!

Now - on mutual attacks. Once you have an alliance with another party, it is safe to say that there is some form of constant, unobtrusive communication between you and them. You could, using a shogun type example - go to the throne room and dispatch a messenger to your ally - stating you are attacking a certain province in 2 seasons and would like his support (in troops). The AI would send the same to you, notifying you that it requests your assistance. You would get the response (a yes or no only) or be obligated to respond the next turn. If you were to say yes - and not commit at least a token force - your status with your ally would be hurt. Of course - you could go more in depth with a msg of "I will support your attack with no less than 100, 200, 500 etc #### of men!" # will depend on the scale of units in the game of course. This would allow you to support your ally, allow him to support you - would also alleviate the question of "if we win who gets the province" and would not conflict with the initiative idea since the primary attacker would use his general for all the calculations. Obake and I are almost of one mind on how to implement this it seems.

If one were to implement proper spying - a defender (Both AI and Player) could (possibly) learn of an impending attack and request aid from an ally that was close enough (stationed in an adjacent area) in the same manner.

Failure to attack when your ally sends his promised reinforcements - or using such a tactic to backstab your ally will of course result in heavy diplomatic repercussions.... 8-)

Lastly - diplomacy itself. As for marrying off the sons/daughters - it would be nice to see. However, I would like to see other things - such as payment for treaties, trade between entities, etc be implemented. This would increase both the diplomatic function, and the strategic side of the game. For instance, again using Shogun in its current incarnation as an example - I hold Musashi which borders Shinano. Shinano has iron sand deposits. So I form a trade treaty with the owner of Shinano for a certain amount of iron every season. The iron would be shipped to Musashi - where I could then build an armory. However, if the trade stopped - my armory would be useless... Now - in return for the Iron that the owner of Shinano is providing - I am paying him a certain amount per season, or per year. Failure to pay again results in no trade occuring. You could settle the trade agreement via diplomacy, as a hostile entity is not going to help you armor your men. However, a close ally would gladly do it - for a small fee. The cost would be a function of the relationship between the 2 parties. Same could go for increases in weaponry...

Now, lets say the owner of shinano is a minor faction - and I marry his daughter to my son. Given that he would not allow this unless we were already close, diplomacy in the wedding arrangements could include him relinquishing his lands to me, in return for either a hefty payout - or some equally hard to bear recompense. Like create a position for him - senior in responsibility - like a minister - say of finance - or agriculture - or trade - or war - or intel and each "leader" would have certain attributes that would give you a bonus (or penalty) in that respective area. Have a minister of Agriculture that can't even wear green, much less grow it - and watch your Koku income take a hit. Have a minister of finance who is inept - and see your buildings and troops cost a bit more to build or train. Have a fantastic minister of war - and all your generals get a bonus in initiative. Etc etc etc.... (Anyone see where i am going with this??) One could offer a lesser leader a prestigious position in hopes of gaining their loyalty - or as payment for them swearing fealty.

OK - I said the other thing was last - but I lied - this is the final suggestion. It has nothing to do with diplomacy - but is so important that I feel a need to post it here. PLEASE include the ability to connect via direct TCP without using a game service. I have posted on this in the general forum - and will gladly sit in a mature discussion of its pro's and con's with anyone in the community or with the developers and corporate powers that be. I ask this because it is truly important - it betters the community, the game's reach, and in the end, benefits the developing and publishing company as well.

Qapla!



------------------
BSM_Skkzarg
"A mind is a terrible thing to taste."

[Sir Kuma of The Org]

Well Target Obake and BSM have put up some very interesting ideas up there, what say you?


OH, and you can come and hype things up in this forum any day http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif. If Cham does it... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

I have been doing it since my icon was changed.....The next installment is looking good.

[Obake]

But of course CAT! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif I was just trying to draw more out of Shiro because he's a couple hundred posts behind you! ROTFLMAO!

BSM_Skkzarg, I love your idea about being able to choose a preferred battlefield with the result being tied to an initiative statistic assigned to each general. I see one problem with it though (well, not actually a problem, more of a philosophical difference). I see your idea as being "province-centric" in nature. From what I've read about MTW so far, the idea for battlefields is to approach it from a "border-centric" perspective.

If I'm correct, you are suggesting a pool of maps that can be chosen from for a particular province/territory. For sake of arguement we'll say 5. So using your idea, if you attack Anjou, you would select your preferred battlefield, and the defending AI general would select which of those 5 maps IT preferred based on the pre-programmed preferences given at "spawning". The game would then compare those choices and select the actual map based on an additional initiative comparison between the two generals.

If I got it right, it certainly would be something never seen before. I also think that it would not be that easy to implement (at least in time for MTW).

My understanding of how the maps will be handled goes like this and Target can either confirm/deny/stay quiet per HIS preferences. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif If we stick with Anjou as the example, there will be one map to represent the border between Anjou and Ile de France, another for Anjou/Normandy, Anjou/Brittany and Anjou/Aquitane. That would mean that there will be a different battlefield depending on where you are invading Anjou from.

I would also imagine (and this is pure speculation on my part) that there will be an additional province/territory map that is used only for castle assaults/seiges. As is the case with Shogun now, there are 4 different castle sizes and 4 different maps for each castle size. My hope would be that each teritory in MTW will have it's own unique set of maps based on fortification size. I know that that will be significantly more work. Assuming that there will still be 4 levels of fortifications, that would require 4 maps where the only thing varying is the size of the fortification. Then multiplying that by x number of territories and you've got a lot of maps.

I think the actual workload to do those would be easy though as all that would be needed would be a template map for each territory and then just modify the fortification portion of the map. I've played with that a bit by adding different size enclosures and castles to STW maps such as Harima and it beats the hell out of re-creating the map for each level of castle!

I hope that everyone can see the difference between how I understand BSM's idea and my understanding of how CA plans to implement maps in the game. I also hope that I didn't confuse everyone by my elaboration on how I would like to see castle maps implemented.

As far as BSM's ideas on mutual attacks go, he's right, we are almost of one mind on this. Where we differ is that I'm not sure that we need to allow for extended advanced planning of a joint attack. I think it would be sufficient to leave it at one season. The season before you attack, you notify your ally that you are requesting help, they respond either way, and then on your next turn when you launch your attack the ally moves in also (assuming they agreed to help). This also would eliminate any question over who gets the territory as it goes to the initiator of the attack. I also would like to see some type of penalty incurred should either you or an AI ally back out of an agreed upon joint attack, but I'm not sure that can be implemented for MTW.

As to the diplomacy/trade suggestions that BSM raises, I like them and they are extremely sophisticated. So much so that I think they are beyond the scope of MTW as with the penalties for not supporting allies after saying you would. These ideas may be more appropriate to TW3 given the current stage of development on MTW as expressed by M. dePlater in the Gamespot interview.

Direct IP connectivity? YES!!!!!!!

------------------
Obake

Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

[Hirosito]

i understand the multiple map per province concept like obake interprets it.
i don't think marrying of your daughter will immediately give you control over the lands in question. i seem to remember having read that once the ruler dies you receive his land just like with an ally in shogun

------------------
Hirosito Mori

Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.

[BSM_Skkzarg]

Obake,

I agree, the mutual attack/defence would better be implemented in a single turn. I made a turn elapse before the answer simply based on the idea that most folks would say that it takes a certain amount of time to get a response and that immediate answers would be "unrealisitic". Personally, I think a single turn is best.

As to the border based battlegrounds, I see that it would be easier to implement. However, historically, many battles were not fought on a border, but near various strategic points in the area. So its likely that an invader would battle in one area the first time, then somewhere else next attempt, even if invading from the same place. In addition, if one terrain set was most advantageous to the attacker, all attacks would be launched from there - like if invading shinano from totomi resulted in more of a flat landscape, the attacks would invariably come from there instead of say, Musashi - since any attacker is going to want to minimize the defender's terrain advantage. I may have misunderstood your explanation of the maps themselves, but it sounded like the maps are going to be roughly the same, with only minor terrain changes and some landmarks or buildings moved or changed. I hope that the maps are sufficiently different as to encourage different tactics of play per each. For instance, some being hilly, some being heavily wooded, some being open, some flat, etc. But, as I said, if this is done, and a border-centric battlefield is implemented - expect to be attacked only in the flat open lands when your opponent has the opportunity.

As for the trade, diplomacy and governmental infrastructure ideas - well I am not familiar with how far MTW is along, but I do hope that a group, preferably the guys at CA b/c of their excellence in the past, does one day soon develop a game that is as deep strategically as it is tactically. Shogun and the MI/WE pack have shown that a hybrid between the 2 genre's can be done well, now with MTW they will raise the bar. Perhaps, if this type of thing is not done in MTW, it will be done in a later game. I truly hope so. The strategic depth that a hybrid like this could have, while still remaining easily playable to those unfamiliar with the type of game, is immense. The tactical depth expanded in MI/WE, and will no doubt do so again in MTW. Let us hope the same can be said for the strategic side as well.

Thanks Obake, for clarifying some of the points. Let's see what they do.
Qapla!

------------------
BSM_Skkzarg
"A mind is a terrible thing to taste."

[Obake]

BSM,

As a quick point of clarification regarding the maps, I'm quite sure that the various "border" maps will vary significantly. What I had been referring to as being relatively static were the actual "province" maps where castle assaults and sieges would take place, and even these would vary from "province" to "province" based on the regions unique geography.

And while we both agree that battles didn't always occur at the same place, having multiple "border" maps per territory is a HUGE step up from where STW stands now. In fact, it's a huge step up from anything else that any other game out there has even attempted to do and for that I am incredibly pleased!

I agree with you totally, that in an attempt to minimize a defenders advantage, attacks may occur more often from a specific direction. Remember that as a general you may need to fight a couple of additional battles to get to that point though, unless you already own the other surrounding territories. It may be easier to just go in on the disadvantageous map and deal with it! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

This DOES however raise the issue of how invasions from multiple, non-bordering territories are handled? Say for instance that Anjou is attacked simultaneously from Normandy and Aquitane. Will the army of Anjou have to be divided to defend against both? Or will one be fought and then the second with the remnants of the first battle? What if this is true and you lose the first battle. What if the invaders are enemies, do THEY then fight a second battle for control of the territory?

Well, I think I'll leave THAT Pandora's box just where it is until we hear more!

One last suggestion that I have regarding the battle maps though is that there are no pre-defined attacker/defender sides to a map but that they are fixed in place and that deployment is based on the direction you are approaching from. For example, an attacker from Anjou into Brittany would attack from one side of the map, while an attacker from Brittany into Anjou would attack from the same side they had defended from in the previous battle.

This variant alone could provide a significant amount of additional challenge to the battlefields and eliminate the traditional attacker/defender roles, thereby encouraging more dynamic activity in combat (especially if this can be implemented in MP battles).

------------------
Obake

Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

[BakaGaijin]

I agree completely.

------------------
Disappear into the Darkness!!

[Sir Kuma of The Org]

Originally posted by Hirosito:

i understand the multiple map per province concept like obake interprets it.
i don't think marrying of your daughter will immediately give you control over the lands in question. i seem to remember having read that once the ruler dies you receive his land just like with an ally in shogun

_____________________________________________

I Agree!!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Is The "maytag repairman" having fun or what!

[Bohemond]

OK guys, I see there is room for discussion ..
You could have started a new thread for this, couldn't ya? Instead of squeezing all this wonderful ideas under the pathetic remark of mine.

[Hirosito]

even though we've all agreed i'll just quote michel de plater from PCZone: "So, if you attack a region from the north, the terrain may be mainly mountainous (and hard to capture) but attacking the same region from the south could result in a flat lowland map."

------------------
Hirosito Mori

Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.

[solypsist]

basically a marriage is the only way to become allies, a simple treaty will result only in a ceasefire.

[Sir Kuma of The Org]

Originally posted by solypsist:
basically a marriage is the only way to become allies, a simple treaty will result only in a ceasefire.

_____________________________________________

OK but do you think alliances will be "more" than in STW?

[Obake]

My preference would be to see alliances be harder to come by than in STW, and significantly more important as well.

Not sure that I like marrying off daughters as being the only way to achieve an alliance. I would reserve that as a way to make permanent an alliance and guarantee your succession should anything happen, but there should also be lower levels of alliance, such as strictly military in nature as discussed previously.

------------------
Obake

Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

[Sir Kuma of The Org]

At worthplaying they say that "Marriage treaties now allow a player to make his character the heir to many provinces or an entire country!"

So they do have a different impact than in STW, you can become heir to provinces and countries, thus the possibility of absorbing allies into your domain without conquest.