Diplomacy is broken

[Corka]

It might be a bit better than in Rome, but I swear diplomacy in Medieval is just plain broken. I am talking about version 1.2 so you know. The AI controlled nations of Europe are moronic. The only way to keep them peaceful is to constantly feed them gold. It doesn't matter that you are the strongest military power in the world, and that they are the weakest.

Lets give an example. I decided to give Egypt a go on a long campaign M/M with diplomacy in mind. I was happy to find so many rebel provinces nearby, and I managed to secure quite a number of them by taking advantage of Jihad. I come in contact with the Turks and Byzantines. I get trade rights and alliances with both, and they were happily content with one another as well. I decide to sit tight with the provinces I captured in my little corner of the world, building up my cities and increasing my treasurey. To keep things amiable, I was paying 400 gold a turn to both byzantines and turks.

Then Turkey decides to be a moron and blockades one of my ports. WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS? If you wanted to evilly betray me, why not launch a surprise army against my cities? So I immediately go to my diplomat in Turkey, and get him to try and get a ceasefire. Wait, its 'very demanding'? You turned down my entire treasury of 10k florins for a ceasefire? Fine. Be an idiot. I invade, take half their territory, and ask if they want a ceasefire now that its clear they really don't have the advantage. What? You refuse? Okay, what if I offer you lots of money and one of your cities back? ..... No? So I let them sit there with their two remaining cities, while feeding them gold to make them happier with me (even though we were at war, I'm quite the generous fellow hey?). Then the pope declares a crusade on Antioch. England, France, Poland, Denmark, and Spain all join. I'm now at war with /all/ of them and I had yet to see a single one. The only crusading army that ended up arriving was Poland, with only 4 units in it.

I kick them out, and go back to trying to get Turkey to like me. I got relations up to reasonable, even though we were at war. I look at my repuation.... somehow I'm very untrustworthy?? Even though I've been doing everything in my power to be a nice guy? Giving money to nations i'm at war with, always releasing prisoners... yet I'm very untrustworthy. I check what it takes just to get a ceasefire with the Turks- all my gold, and about half of my kingdom. What?? For 4 turns of peace which they would likely break ANYWAY? Seeing it seems impossible to resolve friendship with them, I conquer them.

I notice then that Hungary takes Constantinople. Not with a particularly large army mind, and Byzantine has a full stack nearby. So what do they do with it? They march it into /my lands and lay siege to one of my cities/. Their ally. The strongest empire in the world, who has been feeding them gold every turn since they first met. When they just lost their capital and could have taken it back instead. Then its the same story- Byzantine refuses for a ceasefire, relations plummet, and I have to take their territory. Allying with the catholics seems impossible now, in fact theres no ceasefire option for any of the nations that took part in the crusade. Russia and the Moors both refuse to ally with me for some unknown reason, even though I started feeding them gold and we share the same enemies. And why should I have to constantly gift all neighboring nations anyway? Its not like they are giving me a dime, and they usually turn on me regardless.

Diplomacy in M2:TW sucks.

[Sheogorath]

<snip> ~sapi

[Corka]

:inquisitive: you can't intimidate your opponents into doing what you want either. Creating a large army and killing everyone isn't really diplomacy at all.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Diplomacy may work partially only if you have Reliable or Very reliable rep and that is simply not possible as a Islamic faction.

[Zarky]

If you would have allied Moors in start and feed them gold, they probably would have stayed in your side when others attack (their other allies maybe)
But later on in the game all Islamic Factions fight pretty much alone, and thank Allah they&#180;re capable of doing that (Turks maybe not when Mongols and Timurids come, but player would manage it)

[CMcMahon]

Who needs diplomacy when you're trying to dominate Europe, anyway? Kill, kill, kill.

[Durallan]

BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

Seriously, you registered an account JUST to make THIS post? On a topic which has been adressed REPEATEDLY throughout the course of the forum?
Search moar, n00b.

In regards to diplomacy, I find that the best sort involves lots of men with swords on horses. Or cannons.
I believe the Devil's Dictionary defines 'Cannon' as "An instrument for the rectification of borders," as fine a definition as any I've heard. Consider well the applicatiation of copious amounts of steel and gunpowder to your problem, followed by a handy dose of slaughter and maybe a bit of tourture here and there.
Remember, manical laughter is satisfying, but it leaves you vulnerable to erstwhile heros who manage to slip past your outer guards. ALWAYS carry a pistol crossbow, just in case you need to shoot some sword wielding punk in the head.

And finally, I have this to say:
in b4 lock
I don't know whether you have woken up on the wrong side of the bed or something but there is absolutely no reason to be this rude to a newb to the forums, his posts aren't in capitals they aren't full of hate spiel and they ask why is diplomacy so stupid? which is a fair question. With a post like that it wouldn't surprise me if it got locked.

@ Corka I suggest you read this thread,
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=87816
it may give you some answers as to why you are very untrustworthy, also if you really don't like the way the alliances work at the moment you can PM me and I will send you a little fix to the ai diplomacy file which will make the ai more trusting of you, although that won't fix your global standing, allies shouldn't go against you so easily.

[Yun Dog]

your preaching to the choir Corka

what I want to know is how the guys that posted how much diplomacy had improved with v1.2 can sleep at night because it is clear to me that very little has changed in the AIs behaviour when it comes to diplomacy

they may consider that the AI piece meal attacking you in 5 turns instead of 4 is an improvement - I do not

and for the 'its TOTAL war" sayers - yeh your right and soon it'll have progressed to being an AOE3beta - YAY :balloon2:

if thats the case why not turf diplomacy all together and religions and just have a series of meaningless battles without context

then we could spam resource collectors and tank rush

oh! thats what the games like now isnt it

[Noir]

Welcome to the .org Corka,

I've read/heard that some modifications particularly tweaked that aspect of the game to be much better than as it stands in vanilla. It might help a lot to play with a mod in any case. You can find mods here:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=172

and at the total war centre.

Many Thanks

Noir

[TinCow]

Whether you agree with the OP or not, there is no reason to use personal attacks. Please keep this thread civil.

[Didz]

Then Turkey decides to be a moron and blockades one of my ports. WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS? If you wanted to evilly betray me, why not launch a surprise army against my cities?
I'm convinced that this is a consequence of the mission system overriding the AI. Certainly, when playing as a Catholic faction you will frequently get Papal missions to blockade ports for one turn in return for a reward and these ports are often owned by a faction that you are neutral or even allied with just because they annoyed the Pope. Its not so clear why when playing Egypt your ports would be targetted by missions but that still seems to be the most likely cause.

BTW: I have frequently found that if you immediately offer the blockading faction a cease fire it will accept willingly and simply withdraw its fleet. Suggesting that having earnt its reward it is only too willing to go back to its AI controlled strategy.

I'm surprised that this would not work with Turkey if they blockaded your port from a status of ally, but clearly for some reason they were very unhappy with you over something. Did you attack their blockading fleet?


I notice then that Hungary takes Constantinople. Not with a particularly large army mind, and Byzantine has a full stack nearby. So what do they do with it? They march it into /my lands and lay siege to one of my cities/. Their ally.
I must admit I'm surprised that you are getting this much aggression from the strategic AI on Medium Campaign setting, but then I've never played Egypt so I don't know if its a factional variant.

I found the AI behaved like this on VH campaign mode which was the main reason I went back to Medium. I can understand the fact that the Catholic actions would become intransigent given the Papal demands for crusades and the fact that you occupy the holyland but that doesn't explain why the Moors and Turks are being so hostile.

I haven't had that problem playing Turkey and I never give anyone money except the Pope when I'm playing Catholic. Are you sure your playing on Medium?

[Kobal2fr]

As Egypt, you have to wipe the Turks to win. They know this. Is that such a big surprise that they don't really trust you ? Don't expect people you need to kill, or who need to kill you to be your bestest friends ever.

As to why Hungary attacked you... well, you *are* a filthy heretic :clown:. And a powerfull filthy heretic to boot. No one likes number 1.

EDIT : Also, consider this : you most likely have taken Jerusalem by now. Everybody, their mothers and their dog want, nay, NEED Jerusalem to win. Capturing it AND being a filthy heretic is just asking for pain.

@Didz : he took half their cities. That might piss them off a smidgen :wink:

[Didz]

@kobal2fr
I thought he only did that after they refused to ally with him.

Do the Short Campaign goals really influence the behaviour of the AI in the full campaign?

Finally, my understanding was that Corka is complaining about the fact that the Byzantines preferred to attack him rather than defend or retake Constantinople with their massive army, not that the Hungarians captured Constantinople. That does seem a bit odd particularly as the Byzantine reaction is not limited by papal edict.

I also wonder if there is a clue to the behaviour of the AI in the fact that Corker admits to using Jihad's to capture rebel states. It strikes me that constantly using Jihads or Crusades to capture settlements and then repeatedly beating the other factions to acheiving the rewards is going to be pretty annoying for the other factions involved. But I have no evidence that this is a fact in the game.

[Kobal2fr]

@kobal2fr
I thought he only did that after they refused to ally with him.

Do the Short Campaign goals really influence the behaviour of the AI in the full campaign?

Yup. Almost all "want peace" lines in the AI file have AND IS NOT SHADOW FACTION as a prerequisite. Also, factions will never offer their shadow factions to become their vassals, nor will they accept to become the vassal of their shadows. This leads me to assume shadow factions are the ones you need to off in a short campaign.

[Didz]

Yup. Almost all "want peace" lines in the AI file have AND IS NOT SHADOW FACTION as a prerequisite. Also, factions will never offer their shadow factions to become their vassals, nor will they accept to become the vassal of their shadows. This leads me to assume shadow factions are the ones you need to off in a short campaign.
My question was whether this is also true of a Long Campaign, where no shadow factions are specified.

[madalchemist]

I think the problem is the lack of sense of the "tall poppy" effect (in short, the system who makes AI factions improve their standing with little facions and worsen it with larger factions, every turn).

I'm with those who accuse it of being irrealistic: if your neighbour is thrice your size, army and economy, how in the Nine Hells would you have it as an enemy instead of having it as a trusted ally (or liege lord)?

There's no way in real world you'd attack him. And this policy is what in history all the nations did.

No need to speak about it further as it has been debated to death, but such is the "tall poppy" system (but Diplomacy Mod removes it).

[Kobal2fr]

I assume so - after all, the descr_sm_faction file or whatever it is that says "this faction is that shadow" is the same no matter what campaign type you select. Besides, short-campaign target factions are set as they are because they're the most likely/easy/immediate road to expansion for your own and it's a safe bet you'll be wanting to run them through first in a long campaign as well, so I really don't see why a dev. would disable them.

[Corka]

It would be pretty dehibilitating if it was made so the only other two islamic factions are extra likely to backstab and invade you. The Catholic factions sure aren't friendly, so that leaves the Byzantines and the Rus. Having a read up on how reputation works, it would seem that the crusades probably made my reputation tank. The problem with getting to either of them early is that well, they are quite a way aways. Actually, I have the suspicion that the crusade against me is still ongoing which might explain why I don't even have the option for a ceasefire. Is there a time limit? Do I have to wait until all crusading armies reach me? What if one of them manages to get lost along the way, but keeps it populated with mercs?

I honestly don't know why Byzantine launched that full stack against me as soon as Constantinople fell. Maybe they already had it prepped to go against me, and went ahead despite the Hungarian incursion. The garrison wasn't particularly strong, but it was stronger than the Hungarian force at Constantinople- Byzantine had left only 2 units defending it, and were conquered by 3 Hungarian units.

The AI must treat the player faction differently from its AI neighbours. Since they aren't coining out to each other, and attack their allies and the like, you'd think Europe would be in utter anarchy and every nation would be at war with one another.

[Kraggenmor]

Diplomacy would need to exist in the game, before it could be broken.

[diotavelli]

It might be a bit better than in Rome, but I swear diplomacy in Medieval is just plain broken. I am talking about version 1.2 so you know. The AI controlled nations of Europe are moronic. The only way to keep them peaceful is to constantly feed them gold. It doesn't matter that you are the strongest military power in the world, and that they are the weakest.

I decided to give Egypt a go on a long campaign M/M with diplomacy in mind. .......Then Turkey decides to be a moron and blockades one of my ports. WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS? .......I invade, take half their territory, and ask if they want a ceasefire now that its clear they really don't have the advantage. .......Then the pope declares a crusade on Antioch. England, France, Poland, Denmark, and Spain all join. I'm now at war with /all/ of them .......I look at my repuation.... somehow I'm very untrustworthy?? Even though I've been doing everything in my power to be a nice guy? Giving money to nations i'm at war with, always releasing prisoners... yet I'm very untrustworthy. .......Then its the same story- Byzantine refuses for a ceasefire, relations plummet, and I have to take their territory. ......Russia and the Moors both refuse to ally with me for some unknown reason, even though I started feeding them gold and we share the same enemies.

Diplomacy in M2:TW sucks.

There's two issues here, as I see it. The first is seemingly senseless and/or random port blockades by the AI. This is what tripped you up in the first place: the AI doesn't necessarily need to have any ill-intent towards you to blockade one of your ports, so this can happen even when you're playing the good guy. This is what happened here.

The second issue is maintaining a trustworthy reputation whilst being at war. The game is designed to make this very difficult. Essentially, every turn you're at war, your reputation drops. The more your reputation drops, the more inclined other factions will be to avoid allying with you and to think of attacking you. There are two routes around this.

The first is to become good at blitzkrieg and make sure every war you get dragged into finishes very quickly; however, if the faction you're fighting has lots of allies, you'll struggle to maintain a trustworthy relationship (they'll still keep their alliance with a destroyed faction, for some reason). The second is to avoid wars - but as you've shown, that's easier said than done.

Does this mean diplomacy is 'broken'? That depends on what you think a working diplomatic engine should offer. I get the impression that some people would like an engine that allows them to maintain great relationships with everyone when they want to but also allows them to go on the rampage when they feel like it too. I can't see how that can work.

A diplomatic engine that was nice when the player was nice and nasty when he was nasty would be no challenge at all. Imagine it: turns 1-20, be nice to everyone, grab all rebel provinces and build up your economy; turns 21-40, be nasty to factions A and B thereby causing them to attack you, allowing you to maintain good relations with everyone else; turns 41-60, repair relations with badly bruised factions A and B, turn up the heat on C and D so they attack you without your reputation being damaged; and so on. That may be a gross oversimplification but it sounds like what people seem to want.

Historically, alliances between genuine rivals and neighbours in medieval Europe and the Middle East where very, very rare. Most retainers were bound to their liege by loyalty alone (from a legal point of view, anyway). You had to be suspicious of your neighbour because you were in competition with him for the loyalty of powerful vassals and the territory they held. You might work together on a Crusade but this worked better in theory than in practice (cf. Richard oc e no and Philip Augustus and the 3rd Crusade). As for the Muslims - well, you might think they have more in common with each than with the Christians but why? The Egyptians and Turks disputed the Caliphate and the Moors had little to do with the other two. And inter-faith relations? They were shocking for the most part. The game reflects all this.

In medieval Europe, a state of undeclared war existed between close neighbours for much of the time. It was highly unusual and very difficult for neighbouring monarchs to maintain good relations for long periods. Most didn't bother to try, although they'd avoid outright hostilities for the most part too. Hence the state of undeclared war I mentioned earlier. Border raids, cattle rustling, etc. If either side ever wanted to build a case for a 'just war', they normally didn't have to look far.

So, is the diplomatic engine broken? Yes, in so far as you can't tell opposing armies to get off your land and you can't broker ceasefires easily enough; no, in so far as being able to easily manipulate factions to behave as you wished simply on the basis of how you behaved to them would be one-sided, unrealistic and unchallenging.

The real problem, as I see it, is the pesky one boat blockades that tend to start all these things snowballing in the first place. Get rid of them and the whole thing makes much more sense.

[Durallan]

I think it would be fixed by a statement that was added to it like it should say

IF target_faction is ENEMY and SHARE BORDERS = 0 then SET PREFER_NAVAL_INVASION = 1
else SET PREFER_NAVAL_INVASION =0

or whatever I'm not too sure how the prefer naval invasions thing works I'd have to look but it seeem ABSOLUTELY rediculous that the mission generator would generate missions for the AI against nations that you have high standings with, or are allied with! they really should have done something along these lines and that should have curbed the random naval attacks and sieges.

[atheotes]

I agree with what Diotavelli says...
In my last campaign, i played the Scots and managed to maintain alliances with Spain, France and Papal states throughout the campaign and with Russia till they were wiped out by the Mongols. Sicily was also an ally for 100+ turns who then blockaded a port and broke the alliance... Even when i finished the campaign (barely managed to get the 45 cities required) i was at war only with Sicily, Denmark (perenialy excommed), Turks and Egypt.

[WhiskeyGhost]

A good way to get your old allies off your back is that when they decide to siege/march troops into your lands, do the same, and they will almost immediately retreat their forces.......in fact, i've broken long powerful sieges simply by placing a decent sized (yet inferior) army near one of their towns without actually attacking it. Also, they seem to be a little more receptive to a ceasefire if you actually pose a threat on their cities (as apposed to being on the defensive in your towns)

[HoreTore]

The OP simply hasn't figured it out yet. When you figure out what does what, then it's a lot easier and makes a lot of sense.

Also, the problem isn't so much the diplomacy, it's the campaign AI, ie. when they declare war they don't send enough troops(though they do send a lot more if you bump their money). Remember, the AI shouldn't just attack because they hate you, it's logical that they backstab and attack a close friend on the simple grounds that they want more land/cash. The problem though, is that they don't attack properly.

[John_Longarrow]

Personally, I wish that alliances would reflect what they were really used for during the time period; attacking someone. In reality alliances were not about defense but were about attacking a mutual threat or enemy.

The French and the Scots allied not because they liked each other or to ensure peace between themselves. They allied against the English. Nothing in there was a "To help each other" concept outside of getting rid of the English threat.

I do wish that there was more of that in the game. It would still seem "Broken" to anyone in the lead as no one would want to be the "Ally" of the largest power around. Sure, they would want to stay friendly to avoid having you destroy them, but they would not ally with you against someone else.

[Sheogorath]

:inquisitive: you can't intimidate your opponents into doing what you want either. Creating a large army and killing everyone isn't really diplomacy at all.
Thats 'cause the AI is stupid. The saying "The Pen Is Mightier Than the Sword" only applies in the 17th century and beyond. Up until 1600 pointy bits of metal carry the day.
And of course you can indimidate the AI into doing what you want. You want their country to cease existing, correct? Therefore, the best course of action is to kick its digital arse back to Timbuktu and kill everything that gets in your way.

[Tyrac]

It is actually rather sad. But simple.

If diplomacy was "logical" (and therefore easy) the human player would crush and dominate even MORE!

Do you really want LESS of a challenge?

[John_Longarrow]

Originally posted by Sheogorath
the best course of action is to kick its digital arse back to Timbuktu

Back TO Timbuktu??? I try to kick them OUT of it so I can get all that Gold and Ivory!!! :evilgrin:

[Aaronontheweb]

@Corka,

I just made a new post about building Coalitions, but so far that only works when you have:

1. Reliable Status
2. Supreme Power Status
3. An alliance with the Papal States
4. The Papal States are Supremely Powerful (two Supremely power states allied together makes for a tough combo, plus the Pope won't backstab you)
5. Use a "Crusade" to fight against a common enemy, preferably one of a different Religion (although I did get the Milanese out of the game pretty quickly after they got excommunicated for attacking me)

Here's the post I just put up:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=87879

Hope it helps. It's made for a VERY fun Middle Eastern 6 (me as Venice, Hungary, Denmark, Papal States, Egypt [yeah, they wanted in on it too], Poland) on 2 (Mongols and their strong Byzantine allies) skirmish so far!

[Aaronontheweb]

Yup. Almost all "want peace" lines in the AI file have AND IS NOT SHADOW FACTION as a prerequisite. Also, factions will never offer their shadow factions to become their vassals, nor will they accept to become the vassal of their shadows. This leads me to assume shadow factions are the ones you need to off in a short campaign.

Pardon me for asking, but what is a "Shadow Faction?"

In addition, yes, the AI doesn't have much of a sense of self-preservation.

[John_Longarrow]

Aaronontheweb

The term ShadowFaction in the game refers to an "Enemy" faction that you are required to destroy in the short game. As such each faction is a Shadow faction to one or more other factions.

As an example, France is a shadow faction to England because England must eliminate France to win in the short game.

[Kobal2fr]

Thanks, Dio. You're absoluuuutely right.

And the "one boat blockades", as well as some silly sieges with weak armies, are pretty much all started by ONE decision in the AI file.

"If they have more than 3 times as many men as us on their frontlines, and their total strength is more than twice ours, and their economy is much better, and they're our strongest neighbour, then raid and want_allies_against_him".

Now, don't take this at face value, because obviously it's a low priority decision, and the AI will deal with more pressing matters first... but nevertheless, it's geared to annoy the strongest around if possible and there's nothing else to do/no other war going on. It's not suicide, it's just the only thing they can do to fill the gap between you and them. If they didn't they'd just be waiting to be steamrolled. Commenting out that line should make them stay put when completely overpowered, but since the player is number 1 very easily, it might make every other faction very passive towards you, which is a bad thing.

There's also something new in 1.2, that wasn't there before, in the declaration of variables at the start :


<use_cheat_overrides bool="true"/> // determines if cheat overrides (force peace with ai, force attack with humans) are applied

It's set to true by default. If I understand this correctly, it means the AI will go for the player first thing, or maybe "if there's a choice to be made between two equal priority decisions, go for the player". Or even if the two decisions have completely different priorities, which would explain some raiding silliness. Anyhow, sounds very fishy to me, so I disabled it for now.

[Corka]

We've already established though the allies will not attack your enemies, if they do it has nothing to do with you. So the AI gatherine allies and then attacking you if you're much stronger than them IS suicidal, especially when their allies don't even share borders with you.

I mean at the moment its insane. Why would you declare war on the worlds greatest super power when you are piddling weak and have no chance of victory? There is no grand alliance of nations to unite and wipe them out since the different factions just work independantly. Further, they offer to forgive your transgression and end the war when you're about to be wiped out, but *refuse*?

Personally I think it needs to be restructured a bit. They need to really tweak reputation. In my mind I would think the following should affect reputation:
Declaring war on an ally should obviously drop it significantly, more so if mil rights were granted to you.
Declaring war on someone that is neutral but which is not at war with any of your allies should drop it.
Sticking to a ceasefire should raise it.
Gifting a city back to a faction that used to own it should raise it.
Belonging to alliances should raise it slowly.
Ending alliances or traderights should lower it, except when it is forced due to war on an ally.
Killing rebels / enemies in allied territory when mil rights are granted should raise it.
Doing deals which are generous or higher should raise it slightly, but not including gifting .

I think that relations should not be able to decay past reasonable/so-so. As it stands there are other nations in the world which are just so far away that you cannot have diplomatic relations with them without some serious effort. As it stands you can finally defeat your enemies and meet some new nations that you had never seen before, only to discover that the relations are already very poor and they are itching for war just because of the natural decay in relations.


If reputation worked that way, then it would be good if their decision to go to war with you was dependant on the reputation of both sides. The decision of going to war should be a balancing act- how much stronger is this nation? How much can I trust that they won't attack me? How unscrupulous am I to take advantage of them if their borders are weak?

Also, they shouldn't suicide at your walls if they recognise you as being a much stronger nation. Wouldn't it be smarter for them to garrison up and wait for an incursion that may or may not come? If it doesn't, maybe the political situation will change and the whole world will ally against the super power and you can join in later.

[Kobal2fr]

Errrm... pretty much all of your points already affect reputation just that way. And relations decay to so-so on Medium, only on H/VH do they drop below par with time alone.

As to the bit about allies not attacking your enemies, well...there's also a variable (set to false by default) that forces trusted allies (that is, allies who like you, are not untrustworthy bastards, and you're not a traitorous scum either) to instantly declare war on enemies of their trusted allies, which is fine and dandy... but it causes problems in the long run if no well defined powerblocks emerge FAST.
If there aren't, then there will be a lot of alliances made then broken two turns later and in the end everyone will be at war with everyone save for one or two allied factions. Then everyone will become untrustworthy overtime, and it's all downhill from then on. The way it is right now is more subtle.

As to the raids being suicidal for them, well, I'm not 100% sure. If they raid you, and you get really pissed off and mobilize to attack them, someone may seize the opportunity and attack you from another angle now that your forces are tied somewhere. Especially if there's an alliance going on. I haven't yet tested a campaign with the raiding behavior commented off the file, so I don't know for certain what's a better idea FOR THE AI to do.
Oh, I know for the player it would be swell, only having factions he wants to be at war with him, and everybody else cowering inside their puny lands and letting him rampage and grow as he whims... but that's not good diplo nor good AI, is it ?

"garrison up and wait for the possible incursion" is no path to glory. The best you can hope for with such a strategy is "not lose". And "not lose" is not the same as "win", not by a long shot. Think about it from the AI's point of view : it buckles up, grits it's teeth and waits. It can't take other regions because he's *already* at a disadvantage against you, and can't free any of his troops. He needs those to buy some time for other factions and allies to attack you should you attack him.
Case A : you do attack him, and he might as well have attacked you first and done some economic damage to you with a few expendable units before you were fully ready.
Case B : you don't attack him, and invade someone else instead. Now you're even richer and even more powerful, and the situation's the same for him, only worse than it was before.

So it's either "do something and risk losing" or "lose". Not so irrational a choice now, is it ? That, plus if you're going to lose anyway, might as well ruin the leading player's game while you're at it. Keeps the game interesting.

[Askthepizzaguy]

<snip> ~sapi

Note to administrator:

Please do not lock an entire thread because of one bad apple. The rest of us can ignore him.

Thanks, and sincere respect.

[sapi]

Note to administrator:

Please do not lock an entire thread because of one bad apple. The rest of us can ignore him.

Thanks, and sincere respect.
We will not close a thread because of that; I'm very happy to see the maturity of the majority of this community.

There's nothing wrong with such discussions as long as they remain civil.

[Didz]

There's two issues here, as I see it. The first is seemingly senseless and/or random port blockades by the AI. This is what tripped you up in the first place: the AI doesn't necessarily need to have any ill-intent towards you to blockade one of your ports, so this can happen even when you're playing the good guy. This is what happened here.
As I've already said, I'm pretty much convinced that this is a consequence of the mission system, not a diplomatic or strategic AI initiative.

We all get these missions either from the Pope or the council to blockade port X for one turn and earn a reward. My theory is that the computer controlled factions get them too and that when they do they are forced in some way to comply with them thus triggering rather silly wars with their neighbours.

The reason I beleive this is the case is quite simply that if you ignore these blckades they are frequently just lifted and the enemy fleet just sails off. But even before then if you send a diplomat to your new enemy and offer a 'ceasefire' they are frequently only too happy to accept, and will actually lift a blockade immediately. To me this suggests that the intention was never to start a war merely to grab the reward.


"If they have more than 3 times as many men as us on their frontlines, and their total strength is more than twice ours, and their economy is much better, and they're our strongest neighbour, then raid and want_allies_against_him".
In many ways this makes a lot of sense.

I was trying to think how I would deal with that situation if I was in control of the weaker faction. The problem seems to be that the strategic AI isn't up to the task of forming and commanding an effective raid and the diplomatic system doesn't provide much benefit from forming alliances.

So, whilst the theory is sound the practice is poor.

[diotavelli]

As I've already said, I'm pretty much convinced that this is a consequence of the mission system, not a diplomatic or strategic AI initiative.

Apologies - I thought my post made it clear that I considered the blockading of ports to be a separate issue to the diplomatic engine: the engine may not be broken (depending on your POV) but the random blockades are the real problem.


We all get these missions either from the Pope or the council to blockade port X for one turn and earn a reward. My theory is that the computer controlled factions get them too and that when they do they are forced in some way to comply with them thus triggering rather silly wars with their neighbours.

I agree.


The reason I beleive this is the case is quite simply that if you ignore these blckades they are frequently just lifted and the enemy fleet just sails off. But even before then if you send a diplomat to your new enemy and offer a 'ceasefire' they are frequently only too happy to accept, and will actually lift a blockade immediately. To me this suggests that the intention was never to start a war merely to grab the reward.

And this is where the blockades-as-rewardable-missions function is clearly broken, regardless of them being senseless in terms of the specific strategic situation when undertaken. The Pope, Council of Nobles or whoever request a blockade and offer a reward. The faction goes for it and claims 500-2500 florins (typically).

They have also started a war and, unless someone requests a ceasefire, their reputation will suffer as a result. Hence so many factions slide into "untrustworthy" status. At this point, no one will ally with them and they are likely to be attacked, so their reputation won't improve and will almost certainly worsen. Thereafter, they will attack anyone and everyone because they won't benefit otherwise.

The faction should balance the merits of 500-2500 florins right now with long-term hatred by all other factions and near-constant warfare; it doesn't. This means it is not looking after its own long-term interests. At least some of the time, it should do.

I don't think that random port blockades should be eradicated: when I first saw them I thought they were intended to represent unofficial privateering actions by hot-headed commanders - the sort of thing that did happen in this period. They need to be toned down and reduced in number, however. And factions should be readier to make redress for them and less inclined to let these actions lead inevitably to all-out war.

[Didz]

The faction should balance the merits of 500-2500 florins right now with long-term hatred by all other factions and near-constant warfare; it doesn't. This means it is not looking after its own long-term interests. At least some of the time, it should do.
True, and I think this is a good measure of the poor quality of the strategic AI. Because, quite clearly if the strategic AI is willing to accept these missions for the short-term benefit they represent but not take into account the long term impact they will have on its factions future, then it seems equally likely that this is exactly how it deals with every other opportunity it is offerred during the game.

So, its reasonable to assume that, at best, what the AI is doing is reacting to short term tactical opportunities rather than thinking strategically and, at worse, what is happening is that it is simply being driven by a series of reactive triggers and not actually employing any artificial intelligence at all.

[Corka]

I meant thats basically /all/ that should affect reputation. None of this business where being at war with dead factions constantly pulling it down.
I wasn't complaining about the diplomacy because I find everyone out to get me /too hard/. The world is easily conquerable regardless. But surely I should be able to play the diplomat if I want? It shouldn't render all my neighbours into being completely docile, but I think that it SHOULD be possible to have another nation as an actual ally, and if I really make the effort. But right now an alliance is really just lip service and you don't gain much from it.

I think batting down the hatches would be a far more effective strategy for the AI. As it stands even your allies will occasionally decide to launch their armies against you for what seems no real reason other than to be a bit of a pain to the player. But you kill their armies in the field or at your walls, and then you can happily take over due to their now depleted garrison.

If all the towns and castles i was bordering with were fortified with large garrisons, I'd think twice about attacking. Particularly if we aren't already at war and it would give me a reputation hit.


I just assumed the relations naturally went down to very poor. Otherwise I have no idea how I could have upset someone on the other side of the world who I had no diplomatic relations with in the first place. I find that if I don't try to curry favour, every nation holds me in poor/very poor regard.

[madalchemist]

"If they have more than 3 times as many men as us on their frontlines, and their total strength is more than twice ours, and their economy is much better, and they're our strongest neighbour, then raid and want_allies_against_him".

Now, don't take this at face value, because obviously it's a low priority decision, and the AI will deal with more pressing matters first... but nevertheless, it's geared to annoy the strongest around if possible and there's nothing else to do/no other war going on.

Of course if you have a neighbour 3 times more powerful you'll want to divide et impera on him and try to make the world go against him (even if he's not your direct neighbour).


It's not suicide, it's just the only thing they can do to fill the gap between you and them. If they didn't they'd just be waiting to be steamrolled. Commenting out that line should make them stay put when completely overpowered, but since the player is number 1 very easily, it might make every other faction very passive towards you, which is a bad thing.


That depends from how deep is the gap to fill (sometimes, it's hopeless); in my games, I try to imagine what I'd do if I was a 2-provinces-left faction bordering with an empire with 30.

The first priority is not to make him smaller, the first priority is "survive; make the things the way he'll never attack us until we have rebuilt a decent kigdom by foraging on other factions, no matter if you have to become his vassal, no matter what you pay; we must be on his side or remain neutral, or it's game over".

That would maybe prevent the small faction to be steamrolled, at a cost of being more passive towards the Player's Empire, but that is what would be logical.

Of course you can say too much logic ruins the game (or make it end prematurely), but that's what the Glorious Achievements were for in MTW: the chance to "win" without having to conquer the entire world as the only option.

Btw faction were more passive with Glorious Achievements, but nonetheless they battled with assassins, inquisitors, religion conversion; more passive only in military sense.

[Didz]

The best policy is to attack the enemies strategy. The next best is to disrupt his alliances by diplomacy. The next is to attack the enemy's army in the field. And the worst policy is to attack cities.
SunTzu

Attack enemy cities, destroy their armies, forget diplomacy, strategy?
MTW2

[gardibolt]

But if the smaller AI factions didn't gang up on you, it'd be far too easy for you to divide and conquer, picking them off one by one while the others twiddle their thumbs. Granted, it's not all that hard as it is, but they are separate factions rather than a hive mind at the same time. It's a complex set of relationships and I don't think it's obvious that CA has chosen the worst way to handle it.

The mission blockade screwing things up is an interesting conjecture; you may be on to something with that.

[Kobal2fr]

I just assumed the relations naturally went down to very poor. Otherwise I have no idea how I could have upset someone on the other side of the world who I had no diplomatic relations with in the first place. I find that if I don't try to curry favour, every nation holds me in poor/very poor regard.

That's because you're number 1. Everyone progressively hates the first, second and third best factions, and everyone progressively loves the last 5. Pretty normal in my book. No one likes the US, but the Caiman Islands are groovy :grin:.


That depends from how deep is the gap to fill (sometimes, it's hopeless); in my games, I try to imagine what I'd do if I was a 2-provinces-left faction bordering with an empire with 30.

The first priority is not to make him smaller, the first priority is "survive; make the things the way he'll never attack us until we have rebuilt a decent kigdom by foraging on other factions, no matter if you have to become his vassal, no matter what you pay; we must be on his side or remain neutral, or it's game over".

Yes, but that's what I said : if you're going to lose anyway, might as well try and take the leader down a peg to give others a better chance.
This often happens in board games too btw. During the last few turns, underdog players often try to ruin other players' positions or do silly stuff out of spite/bitterness/fun/to keep things suspensefull to the end, which is why I often play to be second during most of the game. And often win in the end because of it.

But I was wrong before : I rechecked and raids are launched when a faction is outproduced BUT has immediate and local military superiority, otherwise it's invade_none. So they'll raid when they have the opportunity to do so in the short run, otherwise they won't.
Thing is, I don't know how "frontline strength" is calculated at sea... Maybe keeping a strong navy could prevent the blockades ? Maybe what we see as one big sea is divided in zones extending from province coasts &#224; la territorial waters ? I've got nothing.


I don't think that random port blockades should be eradicated: when I first saw them I thought they were intended to represent unofficial privateering actions by hot-headed commanders - the sort of thing that did happen in this period. They need to be toned down and reduced in number, however. And factions should be readier to make redress for them and less inclined to let these actions lead inevitably to all-out war.

Agreed wholeheartedly, but I can't think of a way to do it - as a modder, I can modify and tweak in what circumstances the AI will prepare_invasion, invade_immediate, invade_opportunistic, raid etc..., but not *what* they do when told to do so. The meaning of those different behaviours is hardcoded AFAIK. Nor can I tell AIs how better to react to "not really a real war at all" - it's all War or Peace to them (Tolstoy had it wrong I guess :grin:).

[HoreTore]

I'm with those who accuse it of being irrealistic: if your neighbour is thrice your size, army and economy, how in the Nine Hells would you have it as an enemy instead of having it as a trusted ally (or liege lord)?

There's no way in real world you'd attack him. And this policy is what in history all the nations did.

Uhm... History is full of examples of smaller powers attacking their much bigger neighbors. A few examples:

- Scotland attacking England
- Portugal attacking Spain
- Turks attacking byzantines at manzikert
- Various italian states attacking the HRE

Just because a kingdoms neighbor was more powerful than you didn't mean that they forged alliance, or that the small power even wanted an alliance/peace.

[John_Longarrow]

Corka,

In the wish list thread I've got an idea that may solve many of the problems with the AI over exerting itself. When you attack someone they should be able to call out the malitia. That means they should be able to pull up a lot of pesants / town malitia / spear malitia to fight off the attack with the understanding that these units will auto-disband after the fight. This is similar to what really happened during the time period.

Hopefully this would make the standing armies the "Offensive" force with malitia being used for defence, and only when needed.

[atheotes]

Corka,

In the wish list thread I've got an idea that may solve many of the problems with the AI over exerting itself. When you attack someone they should be able to call out the malitia. That means they should be able to pull up a lot of pesants / town malitia / spear malitia to fight off the attack with the understanding that these units will auto-disband after the fight. This is similar to what really happened during the time period.

Hopefully this would make the standing armies the "Offensive" force with malitia being used for defence, and only when needed.

But that would mean fighting more crap militia :dizzy2:
The player will just run through them with better units... sure it can bring the numbers to bear upon the campaign and slow it down... but would it make it more challenging or a chore ?

[madalchemist]

Uhm... History is full of examples of smaller powers attacking their much bigger neighbors. A few examples:

- Scotland attacking England
- Portugal attacking Spain
- Turks attacking byzantines at manzikert
- Various italian states attacking the HRE

Just because a kingdoms neighbor was more powerful than you didn't mean that they forged alliance, or that the small power even wanted an alliance/peace.

Historically, all the examples you've made do not enter in the "thrice your army" statement.

Scotland became part of England hundreds of years after the first wars, while Portugal, Turks and those italian states still exist under one united nation (when Italy was created, all those small states still existed).

Those examples show how the smaller states had the chance to not being destroyed even by waging war.

[Corka]

If the real world was ruled over by the Medieval Total War logic, then Mexico would invade Texas on the off chance that they might be able to take Houston for a short while before they get stomped on. They would do this because of those damn americans suffering from tall poppy syndrome and perceive such a large neighbour as a threat. Plus they've got an ever decreasing reputation because they defeated Nazi Germany 60 years ago.

[diotavelli]

if your neighbour is thrice your size, army and economy, how in the Nine Hells would you have it as an enemy instead of having it as a trusted ally (or liege lord)? There's no way in real world you'd attack him. And this policy is what in history all the nations did.

HoreTore is correct. History is full of examples of countries attacking opponents three times their strength by every measure. That applies with Scotland v. England or Wales v. England, to pick two easy examples.


Historically, all the examples you've made do not enter in the "thrice your army" statement.

Scotland became part of England hundreds of years after the first wars, while Portugal, Turks and those italian states still exist under one united nation (when Italy was created, all those small states still existed).

Those examples show how the smaller states had the chance to not being destroyed even by waging war.

Scotland became part of Britain, not England. The Italian states had not all maintained their independence: of those who attacked the HRE, very few were independent by the time Italy was created. You're from Bologna: you must know that Austria (the direct inheritor of much of the HRE) ruled large chunks of the North, for example. Like Scotland, they fought and ultimately lost.


If the real world was ruled over by the Medieval Total War logic, then Mexico would invade Texas on the off chance that they might be able to take Houston for a short while before they get stomped on. They would do this because of those damn americans suffering from tall poppy syndrome and perceive such a large neighbour as a threat. Plus they've got an ever decreasing reputation because they defeated Nazi Germany 60 years ago.

I'm not sure what the problem is here. Your OP stated that diplomacy sucked in M2TW because you were attacked by an ally and then your reputation became untrustworthy when you ended up at war with loads of factions following a crusade against you. The fact is that you were playing as the Turks, who did have an appalling reputation in medieval Christian Europe and therefore the game was accurate to real life. You didn't complain originally that the situation was unrealistic but that it sucked because you were unable to maintain an alliance and your reputation.

Now we're being told that it is the lack of realism that is the issue because weak factions wouldn't attack stronger ones (despite the fact that this is woefully inaccurate).

As I see it, CA had to create an AI that made the game as rich an experience as possible. If all AI factions had instantly forgotten about an ally the second you destroyed it, they'd be told that that was daft and unrealistic. If Milan and Sicily are best buddies, Sicily should be narked if you wipe out Milan. Of course, they should get over it but it would take time. The game should reflect this better but it's good that it reflects it at all.

Similarly the difficulty of maintaining an alliance. You want to be friendly with the Byzantines. Why? Because you hold their borders sacrosanct, have no interest in acquiring their territories and would never fight them under any circumstances? No, of course not. You only want an alliance because you don't want to fight and conquer them for the moment. Later on, you may have no interest in an alliance and you'll take their cities without a second thought.

So why should the AI stick to your alliance? It's a marriage of convenience and they should have as much right to break it as you. Should they only break it at a time and in a fashion logical or convenient to you? No, of course not. That would make the game unchallenging.

It would also be unrealistic. Did medieval rulers always behave logically or sensibly? Was it wise of Richard oc e no to go on Crusade when he knew his brother would try to grab the throne? No, but he did it anyway. Was it wise of the French to attack the English longbows at Agincourt after what happened at Crecy and Poitiers? No, but they did it anyway.

I'm amazed people complain so much about the AI behaving irrationally. Firstly, most behaviour has a strong element of irrationality. Secondly, if the AI only did what was rational, the game would be a bore. It would only attack you when it was sure the odds were in its favour; you would quickly learn to ensure the odds were never in its favour; therefore, you'd never get attacked. It would be impossible for you to expand without losing your reputation and we'd be back to square one.

Is the game fun? Does it provide a challenge (if you don't blitz? :laugh4: )? Is each campaign you play different from the last? I think so. Tweaking is needed but I don't think it is fair to say the diplomacy sucks or that it's unrealistic.

[Thurak]

but I don't think it is fair to say the diplomacy sucks or that it's unrealistic.

After I thought a long time that diplomacy sucks I know tend to agree. But only because there were tons of helpful information here in the forums. And I am proud to announce that I read the manual ~;) , but unfortunately still found myself very helpless in the game when I tried to be diplomatic...

You have to put some effort in diplomacy and you have to know that you stay at war with anhilated nations - so you can't ally with their allies ever again. That&#180; s so f****** important to know. And your realtions suffer for every nation you are at war with, so think twice before taking out a nation.
The next very important point is that your leader needs to be as chivalrous as possible as that has a great influrence on realtions.
The third important point is that you have to pay money to your allies in order to keep realitons best. That looks, at first, like some wasted money, but if you own Vienna, for example, you have much greater income if you are able to trade with Budapest and Zagreb. You can easily pay some cash to the nation(s) who own those. Same for Stockholm: The ports of Stettin and Thorn are very important for your trade income.
Another nice diplomatic feature: If a nation without a border with you attacks you from sea and you defeat them they will pay for a truce. Make four turn payments and be thankful for the cash ~:)

[Bob the Insane]

I think the majority here (sticking my neck out a little) would be happy enough with the AI if it just avoided the worst excesses of "irrational" behaviour rather than cutting the randomness out all together and to be honest 1.2 seems to have mostly acheived this (other than the apparantly random blockades).

To be honest I have not played a non-Catholic faction since 1.2 came out so I am probabaly getting a biased view of games workings. Having said that it does seem to work nicely enough and in my present English game which has reached turn 160 only one fact has been destroyed (the Danes at the hands of the Scots and the Mongols oddly enough). I have experinced wars, prolonged peace, been betrayed (once) and had two alliances last most of the game (the one with scotland has lasted 158 turns). The Turks, Egyptians and Moors are still in the game, maybe because the Mongols turned up on the Northern Stepps.

I will endevour to play as a Musilm and Orthodox faction to get the full range of experience...

[madalchemist]

HoreTore is correct. History is full of examples of countries attacking opponents three times their strength by every measure. That applies with Scotland v. England or Wales v. England, to pick two easy examples.

Scotland became part of Britain, not England. The Italian states had not all maintained their independence: of those who attacked the HRE, very few were independent by the time Italy was created. You're from Bologna: you must know that Austria (the direct inheritor of much of the HRE) ruled large chunks of the North, for example. Like Scotland, they fought and ultimately lost.

I agree that history is full of examples like those you just wrote.

But the catch is that: Scotland fell after 5 centuries or more (iirc around 1700), while the Italian small states who waged war to HRE (which became Austria, as you righfully wrote) did not lose their sovereignity (sp?).

Austria kept for centuries the "Lombardo-Veneto" (as it was called the northern part of Italy you told about) while bordering Venice for centuries -Venice fell to Austria when it was attacked around 1800-, but the Duchy of Milan and the Duchy of Savoia were literally formed by lands became indipendent from the HRE (thanks to HRE's too spread organization), and so did the Granduchy of Tuscany, the Duchy of Modena and all others.

All of these little states survived until the creation of Italy in 1861, without the HRE or Austria to take them back (to survive, some became vassals, like the Duchy of Milan to Spain and iirc Savoia to France).

So I think I proved my point: these states didn't survive the war with HRE (thrice their lands) because of the fact little ones always have chances against a big one, but because of the low arrangement of the HRE in that times which made organizing a full war hard for it; if the HRE was at that times able to retaliate, I who am from Bologna might speak German now.

Later on the centuries, the HRE sacked Rome. Passing through half what's now Italy without being attacked; after 3 days of sacking, they returned over the Alps again without attacking nor being attacked. That because they had treaties with northern Italian small states, and at that point conquer them all would have been too expensive or difficult (Italian towns grew in the meantime).

About Scotland, it was conquered, but not in times of a MTW2 game; not in 15 turns!

The fact Scotland resisted invasion for so long shows how they had an army not so 1/3 of the English's. Or were all the English generals incompetent for centuries?

[diotavelli]

So I think I proved my point: these states didn't survive the war with HRE (thrice their lands) because of the fact little ones always have chances against a big one, but because of the low arrangement of the HRE in that times which made organizing a full war hard for it; if the HRE was at that times able to retaliate, I who am from Bologna might speak German now.

No, I think you're wrong. The HRE frequently conquered northern Italian cities. IIRC, Milan was destroyed on at least one occasion. It is not the case that all these little states survived because they weren't beaten but that they survived because, having been beaten, they still had a sufficient sense of independence to reassert themselves when they had the opportunity. On the other hand, on some occasions, the little states did successfully stand up to the HRE (e.g., the creation of Alessandria).


About Scotland, it was conquered, but not in times of a MTW2 game; not in 15 turns!

Yes, but you ignore my other example: Wales. Llewellyn ap Gruffydd struck for independence in the reign of Henry III but Gwynedd was conquered early in the reign of Edward I. In game terms, this is around 15 turns.


The fact Scotland resisted invasion for so long shows how they had an army not so 1/3 of the English's. Or were all the English generals incompetent for centuries?

Scotland didn't successfully resist throughout the "5 centuries or more" you mention earlier. There were frequently English garrisons in Scottish castles in this period. Berwick-Upon-Tweed was lost. The Scottish recognised more than one English king as their overlord.

The fact that Scotland wasn't completely subjugated by the English is not because their military strength was greater than 1/3 but because they were fighting on one front and England wasn't. England had to contend with France, troubles in Ireland, Crusades, internal revolts and civil wars and so on. None of this deflects from the fact that English power was far, far greater than that of Scotland.

And a lot of English generals were incompetent - much to the satisfaction of my ancestors, who remained proudly Irish throughout.

All of which is beside the point of the game. In MTW, factions could respawn to reflect that, whilst the military forces could be defeated, nationalist sentiment was far harder to destroy. M2TW doesn't have this feature, so factions can be eliminated comprehensively.

So there we go: M2TW is accurate in allowing England to conquer Scotland in 15 turns; it is inaccurate in not allowing the Scots to reclaim their independence when they'd spent enough time living in bogs watching spiders.

[madalchemist]

So there we go: M2TW is accurate in allowing England to conquer Scotland in 15 turns; it is inaccurate in not allowing the Scots to reclaim their independence when they'd spent enough time living in bogs watching spiders.

So you say that because MTW2 doesn't allow respawn of conquered nations like MTW, it is logical for the AI to make little factions attack players'empires while knowing they'll be eradicated within 15 turns?

That well may be, but I'd prefer a system where the AI behaves logically instead of saying "Hey, since the fact that when the game tells me I'm done for I cease to exist, I'll just lauch myself and my people in a suicide attack and hope next patch/expansions will give me more options".

So much for historical accuracy.

I still think the game would be more fun without the AI to make decisions breaking the fourth wall.

[diotavelli]

So you say that because MTW2 doesn't allow respawn of conquered nations like MTW, it is logical for the AI to make little factions attack players'empires while knowing they'll be eradicated within 15 turns?

No, I didn't say that at all. I said that complete historical accuracy would require smaller factions to be defeated and then to re-emerge. I said that it is not wrong for M2TW to allow smaller factions to attack the player because that wouldn't be historically inaccurate and because it is legitimate for the AI to behave irrationally.

Also, where's the guarantee that the faction will "be eradicated within 15 turns"? That depends on the faction, the player and the circumstances of the campaign. Making a case from the worst scenario doesn't prove anything in more general terms.


That well may be, but I'd prefer a system where the AI behaves logically instead of saying "Hey, since the fact that when the game tells me I'm done for I cease to exist, I'll just lauch myself and my people in a suicide attack and hope next patch/expansions will give me more options".

Logical behaviour for the AI would therefore be to never attack the player. The first faction to attack would know it would get the player's full attention and would therefore likely be eliminated; therefore, it would never be logical for any faction to be the first to attack, so none ever would.

The only way around this would be for the AI to 'fix' alliances with a view to attacking the player simultaneously. Now that wouldn't be historically accurate and could distort the game absurdly.


So much for historical accuracy.

I still think the game would be more fun without the AI to make decisions breaking the fourth wall.

The AI's behaviour is only historically inaccurate if its decisions are always suicidal. The player has a choice whether or not to eliminate a smaller faction that attacks it. Often s/he will but it is not inevitable. Therefore, the AI's decision to attack is not inevitably suicidal.

And what's the alternative? Once the player gets to 20 provinces, make all factions with less than 10 provinces throw in the towel? They won't beat the player so, by your rules, they shouldn't attack him - so what should they do?

[madalchemist]

First of all, the average player is capable of destroying a faction within 15 turns.

A logical behaviour for the AI would be to attack those you'll conquer -i.e. a 2-3 provinces minor faction-; if you start a war with a huge empire, you are the one who starts it but maybe you won't be the one to end it. I insist, it's completely logical for the AI not to start suicidal wars and try to expand its list of allies and feed upon the weaker. Of course when you face a player with 20 provinces and you have 2, either you are Alexander the Great or you'll lose.

And you say the decision to attack the player isn't totally suicidal because HE CAN SPARE YOU?? We are moving from historically inaccurate to plain insanity.

The alternative to make everyone throw the towels when the player has 20 provinces? I repeat: Glorious Achievements.

By the way, when you play and reach the "point-of-no-return" where no one can defeat you -even if all your neighbours attacks you simultaneously-, is the game still fun? That's why they put Mongols and Timurids so powerful in late game: to make some sort of challenge remain.

I'm not a newbie player in TW, but like many, many others I can finish a long campaign on VH/VH before the discovery of gunpowder; then I quit and restart because of boredom.

[Noir]

Originally posted by madalchemist
The alternative to make everyone throw the towels when the player has 20 provinces? I repeat: Glorious Achievements.

That was a good one - but the domination campaign could be turned into a much better game if homelands and logistics were introduced - i doubt the developers are interested though (mods only). The game has very few strategic elements of importance standing and it is played best "at will" ie pick your personal rules and play - in order not to get bored nowdays - there's hardly any challenge and the extremely short time that you can complete it as well as the multitude of ways speak for themselves.

Its becoming increasingly a role playing game with all the character baggage that is carries - strategy has less and less to do with it other than a basic almost primitive level.


Originally posted by madalchemist
By the way, when you play and reach the "point-of-no-return" where no one can defeat you -even if all your neighbours attacks you simultaneously-, is the game still fun? That's why they put Mongols and Timurids so powerful in late game: to make some sort of challenge remain.

Agreed. A good way would be to keep the game at the initial stage of struggle for the entire duration (no superempires) design wise but in different levels for every faction. Artificial "challenges" like that of the Mongols and the Timurids are just plain boring.

Many Thanks

Noir

[Didz]

The game ought to be designed to discourage blitzing as an expliot and to progressively penalize larger factions. The used to be far more effective in the earlier TW games but somewhere along the line the designers seem to have wandered off track.

In addition to removing the blitz expliot, it would also help is agents wrree given a much more effective role in the game so that both players and the AI factions have the option of using non-military routes to victory.

[Marius Dynamite]

I don't think diplomacy is broken I think it just kinda sucks. You have to hire the right people to design things like TW diplomacy and I dont think CA have hired those people.

It's just not well done, and it annoys me a lot because some designers pour their heart and soul into things and wouldn't dare let any aspect suck that much. Admittedly its a difficult thing to do but once its done, its done and they can keep it the same for every TW game they make, with only slight improvements here and there.

I'm doing my best to like Medieval 2: Total War but right now things like diplomacy make me cancel a campaign and play a different game. I won't buy Kingdoms and will only play M2 when Broken Crescent mod is out because I am a supporter of hard workers and Modders work damn hard for free and do a better job than people who get paid! :2thumbsup:

[Kobal2fr]

The problem is not that it sucks - it's a robust and "realistic" system, if a bit rustic. But you have to know lots about it and its quirks to be able to start working with it instead of banging your head in disbelief. And if the hundred "diplomacy is shite !" posts have told me anything, is that the system is neither intuitive, nor well documented enough, not by a long shot.

The problem with it is that there's a few "good ways" to use it, and lots of ways you can burn yourself. CA probably assumed people would naturally gravitate towards the "good ways", but it's not what happens because those aren't, well, that obvious to the average .orger it seems.

But this seems to be a growing, general problem with the TW franchise : the more they grow in complexity, the less we seem to be told about. The M2:TW manual is a sick, sad joke, the advisors say 2 lines on topics that could fill 10 pages without even starting to get to their finer points, and unless you start rumaging in dry, poorly commented bits of plaintext most of the game's mechanics are 100% occult. You have to sorta figure...kinda assume...experience that...guesstimate etc... without any idea what the actual mechanisms are or even what most of the data you're provided with means, nor what affects it, nor what it affects either.

There'd be a LOT less digruntled players out there if the documentation was up to par. Heck, the simple fact that it took the community (and that's the modding community we're talking about mind, the kind of sick folks who spend 3/4th of their "gaming time" browsing code and going "wee ! new variable !" and "what if I do...THIS ?" all the time :clown:) no less than FOUR MONTHS to figure out that shields decreased defense instead of increasing it is quite telling, in and of itself...

And sure, the .org does help a lot in this regard, but not every player comes here and besides, there's only so much stuff we players can figure out/test by ourselves in the dark...

I'm not asking for the Civilization 1 paperback manual here, but come'on, how expensive would a frickin' .pdf have been ? And don't talk to me 'bout no $20strategy guide either. There Be-eth Evilness.

[Didz]

@kobal2fr: I'm curious how you can claim that diplomacy is a robust and realistic system when clearly it doesn't work. But even if it did the issue is irrelevant if the game design allows players a much more simple and straight forward expliot that avoids any need to use it and guarantee's an easy victory.

[Kobal2fr]

*shrug* That's not really a concern of mine. Kids play these games. Kids don't have the patience to sort through trade tallies, or even read unit cards. They want knights and battles ? They can have them instantly, if that's what's fun to them. More... I was about to say "smart", but that's not it : more patient folks like you and me, we can always tweak the way the game works, or step away from the Easy Way, as that's what's fun to us.

And the diplo *does* work if you really know it through and through, can interpret the meaning and mechanisms behind the apparent senselessness etc... Even more so in 1.2 (where allies become frendlier overtime, and requirement for trusted allies have been lowered, and relations are really factored in AI decisions etc...). If interests do not conflict, it's very doable to keep as many as half a dozen nations at your side at all times, and not just "not attacking you" allies either. It's not perfect, and it can certainly be made better, but it's... functionnal. Simple, sure. Unimaginative by definition. But not "broken".

[John_Longarrow]

Didz,

The fact that you can ignore diplomacy isn't related to the problems that we have with diplomacy. Its a seperate item that also should be addressed.


My take is that there is not enough that you can do with diplomacy to make it useful. We've got a couple options and very few chances to use them after the first couple dozen turns.

What we really need is a more robust system that does encourage diplomacy.

[Corka]

I personally think that dead factions pulling down your reputation is utterly moronic. In game terms, you could eradicate a faction hundreds of years ago and it would still be dragging down your reputation. That wouldn't be in the slightest sense realistic.

But the suicidal actions are not just limited to the AI seeing the player as a much bigger threat and attacking, its then REFUSING a ceasefire, or only accepting one if granted a HUGE number of florins or cities. How is refusing a ceasefire after their armies have been crushed and they are down to their last province with a measly 2 units of militia to protect it against my full stack of broken lancers and familia ducale NOT suicidal? Historically in that situation you'd expect the clearly defeated nation being the one to bend over backwards to bring an end to hostilities.

[nameless]

Disagree.

I've never had to pay money or give cities to AI for treaties, that's a hunk load of crap. That's for people who don't have patience or do not know how to "break" the AI.

I've had cases where I've annihilated one of the AI's best armies on the field and immediatetly they sued for peace which I accepted and we've been holding it for at least 50+ turns.

Other cases included where most people I recall stating that you STAY on the defensive and beat the living daylights out of the AI. If you can, expand nice and slowly to cripple the AI but focus on defenses. Eventually the AI will drain its resources and come to the table and sue for peace and will hold it for a period to "reload" it's weapons.

As England, I've fought France and German defensively while expanding slowly and eventually they agreed to a truce (You have to be persistent, every now and then send a diplomat to simply ask for peace.) and have held it ever since. In some cases, when the AI opens another front against another faction they will sue for peace as they will not allow themselves to fight on two open fronts.

At the same time you have to be careful because the AI is programmed to target the top factions in the game so if you expand too quickly and gain power, don't be surprised to see everyone gang up on you (I think CA stated this somewhere).

You also have to accept throughout the game there will be stubborn factions which will stop at nothing to kill you (Myself as Byzantines against Venice).

NOTE: I've done this in Vanilla, Ultimates, Darthmod, and Stainless Steel.

If you know how to work around it, it's no biggy. I've also changed my tactics to ransoming, occupying, and sacking compared to simply executing and extermination unless necessary because your reputation also determines how well the AI responds to diplomacy with you.


In game terms, you could eradicate a faction hundreds of years ago and it would still be dragging down your reputation. That wouldn't be in the slightest sense realistic.

If your on VH then your reputation goes down anyways.

[Kobal2fr]

@Corka : this only happens with shadow factions. Or, if you will, factions that HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE this movie. Errr no, hate you, sorry. Not hate in the "typical American overstatement of mere dislike" meaning of the word. I mean hate as in "the Finns hate Russians", or "North Koreans hate South Koreans", in other words national/cultural antagonisms that run deep, so deep in fact that they exist merely because they exist and have existed for a long long time.

The English hate the French because the French hate the English because the English hate the French. Chips are passed down filial shoulders, grudges become less baggage and more cultural heritage, nay, they become honor, duty, values and other senseless words of your choice. Kinda like old family grudges in small villages.
Suicidal and irrational ? Well, yes, as a matter of fact. Met any rational suicide bombers lately ? :grin:

[Corka]

Disagree.

I've never had to pay money or give cities to AI for treaties, that's a hunk load of crap. That's for people who don't have patience or do not know how to "break" the AI.

I've had cases where I've annihilated one of the AI's best armies on the field and immediatetly they sued for peace which I accepted and we've been holding it for at least 50+ turns.


I don't know what game you're playing then. I'm using no mods, version 1.2, and I have NEVER had an AI player offer Ceasefire without also demanding something like 200k florins at the same time. Thats once in a full moon, they almost never ask for a ceasefire and utterly turn their noses up at the idea.

I've always found that whenever war is declared , either because they blockade my ports or send in an army to one of my cities, I can do nothing but invade and destroy them. I have played through the long campaign about 5 times now, and I have NEVER managed to end a war diplomatically. I've birbed my enemies in war time to try and just get the relations up, I've tried annihilating all their units except a small garrison, I have tried offering them back their capitals... but every single attempt offering a ceasefire is 'Very Demanding' and it takes gigantic bribes for it to succeed. Even when they are on the brink of getting annihilated, I can't get them to ceasefire let alone vassalage.

[SadCat]

I don't know what game you're playing then. I'm using no mods, version 1.2, and I have NEVER had an AI player offer Ceasefire without also demanding something like 200k florins at the same time. Thats once in a full moon, they almost never ask for a ceasefire and utterly turn their noses up at the idea.

I've always found that whenever war is declared , either because they blockade my ports or send in an army to one of my cities, I can do nothing but invade and destroy them. I have played through the long campaign about 5 times now, and I have NEVER managed to end a war diplomatically. I've birbed my enemies in war time to try and just get the relations up, I've tried annihilating all their units except a small garrison, I have tried offering them back their capitals... but every single attempt offering a ceasefire is 'Very Demanding' and it takes gigantic bribes for it to succeed. Even when they are on the brink of getting annihilated, I can't get them to ceasefire let alone vassalage.

I am with you! I would say Spain in one game offered pease if I gave them 4 cities. Other than that, if I offer any thing it was a no go. I have 1 game with an ally that I have not bribed at lease once. So in all my games I have had two deviations from the norm of " They block port and be at war for the rest of the game." What I want is if we have a falling out there is some way back to pease for a few more years. If you have one city and I want to stop the war do not say you want to kill me. Jest take the pease and live. Yes I would except all the ones who have ever fought me to attack on the same turn some day. SadCat

[Thurak]

You can end wars easy when you have no border with that faction. If, for example, an English army lands in your Leon and they attack you and you destroy them they are very likely to accept a truce and are even willing to pay money! If your reputation is ok.

Ok, so far the easy part. About those nations refusing their last chance to survive: I am with you.

[TheRealSlimBrady]

I find the easiest way to get around the eternal war penalty thing while maintaining diplomatic pretenses is to get a ceasefire with the faction when they're down to one province. Having a Rather Large Army right next to their capital aids with this. Then you assassinate the family. Of course, this takes a bit of effort, but it's one way around it. Or, if you get a ceasefire, you could just leave them. Hell, if they're happy to give you a ceasefire, trade rights and an alliance may be just around the corner.

If they don't give you a ceasefire, it's still a nice, fun, evil, king-beDreading way of finishing off factions you don't share a border with - as Danes, I eliminated HRE in Bologna when my nearest town was Nuremburg - I was blocked in by 2 allies (Milan, France) and a neutral Venice. My playing style, I accept, might not be most people's idea of fun though :book:

But yeah, the one turn blockade/siege is annoying. My preferred retaliation is total destruction of their empire :laugh4:

[madalchemist]

Maybe instead of saying "Diplomacy is broken" we could simply write "Diplomacy doesn't help the game to be more fun or realistic".

However, it's not 100% true, but I think it is the point, more or less.

It is true that after 20-25 turns it adds nothing to the game and I agree that the system created to penalize large factions went a bit far from the initial purpose.

For those who aren't Diplomacymongers (i.e. would want to be able to solve almost all troubles with a smart use of diplomacy), it still becomes an useless features when your global standing sucks 'cause you was playing the way the game told you to (conquering lands and eradicating enemy factions) and all you have to do is to direct (yawning) your armies towards 3 different points in the map, waiting for a chance to eradicate mongols, timurids and maybe go to the new world.

I actually play only short campaigns, where alliances and heroic victories mean something (and you can make trade rights with far nations, and marry your heir to the hottest chick around -hey, no matter the cost, I want the hottest ;)- ).

[Didz]

The fact that you can ignore diplomacy isn't related to the problems that we have with diplomacy. Its a seperate item that also should be addressed.
In my opinion if the game includes diplomacy, trade, economic growth, religion, espionage and inter-faction marriage then the primary consideration for such concepts to work is that they have a significance and relevance to the way the game plays and how you win it.

The fact is that thanks to badly focussed design decisions all of the above game concepts are basically irrelevant to the way the game plays.

Sure, you can dabble with them if your bored but basically you don't even need to know they exist to win and therefore they are 'broken' in terms of their role in the game.


My take is that there is not enough that you can do with diplomacy to make it useful. We've got a couple options and very few chances to use them after the first couple dozen turns.

What we really need is a more robust system that does encourage diplomacy.
Agreed entirely, there are much more simplistic strategy games on the market with far more superior systems for all of the concepts listed above. Lords of the Realm for example had a much better system for managing inter-faction relationships. Whilst both Civilisation and Crown of Glory have much more effective diplomatic systems and STW had much better espionage model.

MTW2 has taken TW far too far in the direction of creating a battle-fest and it needs to be clawed back so that we don't lose the concept of it being a strategy game.

[Noir]

ORiginally posted by Didz
Sure, you can dabble with them if your bored but basically you don't even need to know they exist to win and therefore they are 'broken' in terms of their role in the game.

Agreed. The game has as it stands many features other than diplomacy that are basically irrelevant at how it plays (they just exist) - including the battles that suffer greatly from campaign events (the AI forces are seldom in the right place at the right time doing the right thing). The game plays more reasonably only if the player has a certain "goodwill" to play according to the way the AI does things. It should have been the other way around that is the game is designed around the AI capabilities - so the player has options relative to what the AI can achieve or not diplomatically - or otherwise.

In addition many of the options require micromanagement - and not strategic thinking - agent use is a good example.

Arguing on wether diplomacy is "broken" or otherwise is a bit beside the point. The point is that diplomacy in the game is a joke of a feature as it currently stands.

I never wanted TW to become Civilisation - however i think TW failed in even achieving that - the original formula is dilluted to the extent that the game is losing its identity while any add-ons are basicaly completely inadequately implemented in the sense that they don't properly merge and add to the experience.

Many Thanks

Noir

[DVX BELLORVM]

I personally think that dead factions pulling down your reputation is utterly moronic. In game terms, you could eradicate a faction hundreds of years ago and it would still be dragging down your reputation. That wouldn't be in the slightest sense realistic.

But the suicidal actions are not just limited to the AI seeing the player as a much bigger threat and attacking, its then REFUSING a ceasefire, or only accepting one if granted a HUGE number of florins or cities. How is refusing a ceasefire after their armies have been crushed and they are down to their last province with a measly 2 units of militia to protect it against my full stack of broken lancers and familia ducale NOT suicidal? Historically in that situation you'd expect the clearly defeated nation being the one to bend over backwards to bring an end to hostilities.
Those two issues you've mentioned are obviously bugs that should be fixed. Maybe the diplomacy wouldn't be broken then.

[Didz]

I never wanted TW to become Civilisation - however i think TW failed in even achieving that - the original formula is dilluted to the extent that the game is losing its identity while any add-ons are basicaly completely inadequately implemented in the sense that they don't properly merge and add to the experience.
I agree, I don't want a Civilisation clone either, but neither do I want another Command and Conquer clone and at the moment thats the way the TW series seeems to be heading.

[Hellenic_Hoplite]

As Egypt, you have to wipe the Turks to win. They know this. Is that such a big surprise that they don't really trust you ? Don't expect people you need to kill, or who need to kill you to be your bestest friends ever.

thats not necessarrly true, once when I was playing as england I actually had an alliance with france the lasted the entire game ~:eek: I couledent belive it, but as we were all saying yes I do agree the the diplomacy in m2tw sucks, hell once I was trying to get scotland to go to war with me and the absolutly wouldent I evan stuck a fort in their territory garrisoned with ONE unit of peasants and I left york almost completly undefended. it seems like whenever you want a faction to go to war with you they will stay at peace with you the entire game but when you want peace they will start a stupid and pointless war by blocking one of your ports.

[icek]

At first i say that i have a polish version of m2tw and m2tw 1.1 patched to 1.2 and 1.0 patched to 1.2 is radically different if it come to ai reactions. I like diplomacy in this game now. I play my england campaign, im in lasting 50 turns marriage alliance with danes, they have antwerp i have brugge. when i taked paris and angers france, totally unprepared, begged for ceasefire for 1500 pay for 6 turns. when i attacked mediolanese bolognia defended with 2 big stacks, my other ally -sycyly come with big army and lured out from city the strongest mediolanese force and when it was all over they returned to neapoli :)

[John_Longarrow]

Didz,

I totally agree that other elements of the game need to be more important and the pure "Battle" aspect reduced. I don't think those aspects are relevant to what is broken about diplomacy and how diplomacy needs to be fixed.

M2TW is a very fun game, but it has some major issues. One of the issues is that diplomacy as written doesn't generate results that add to game play. Another issue is how the diplomacy that is included doens't work. I'm just trying to stick to the later. I think there needs to be another thread regarding how to balance the different aspects of the game to give a much better feel to the entire game.

I've a feeling we are much in agreement on what needs to be fixed, I just have a tendancy (from modding another board) to keep things on topic. Call it the anal part in me. :cool:

[Didz]

@John

Fair enough....though personally I see the two issues as somewhat inter-related. If diplomacy had options which were capable of producing game changing results then it might get used more, on the other hand the fact that it has no vital role in the game means that for most players the fact that it doesn't isn't even noticed.

The bottom line is that in STW it was possible to win the game using just agents, that is no longer possible, the game has got more complex but the strategic options have actually got much simpler.

Key issues that need to be fixed with diplomacy:
a) A more transparent and easily monitored relationship system.
b) Alliances need to mean something, and be worth having.
c) Trade Rights need to be visibly beneficial.
d) A 'get off my land' option.
e) Major reduction of mission overrides, that cause trivial wars.
f) A clear means of visually representing power blocks forming in the game.
g) Alliances should come with obligations.
h) Request support options need to be added, to allow allies to request money, troops, assistance.
i) Allies should be able to set missions for each other.

[Noir]

Originally posted by Didz
The bottom line is that in STW it was possible to win the game using just agents...

A certain amount of warmaking was necessary in STW in that the player needed to expand his territories and defend them up to the point that he could earn enough in order to finance assassins/bribes.

Many saw the Geishas as "cheesy" or exploits - the same was true for the Shinoby armies that were roaming unguarded AI back-provinces.

In any case though agents did have a certain importance and power and so a role in the game. Didz's point gets across: these were strategic elements - you could base your campaign strategy (stay in and turtle and invest into a Geisha house in order to hit the enemies with assassins) - now they are a sort of a "toy" - you can't really win with them, nor you can base your play upon them.

Ultimately it comes down to domination as a game goal - its very restrictive - and provides for a linear gameplay. A better system would be a broader GA, where one could cash in territories OR money accumulated for game "points". Vassalages could work the same (cash them in fo points). Other obvious point-goals (relative to the medieval period) could be Crusading and spreading the religious word (islam, orthodoxy, catholicism) among others.

The campaign AI was playing better with GA mode in MTW, in the sense that he wasn't all out to get the player - he would consider the situation much more from his point of view. That meant diplomacy too - factions were really concerned with survival (being eradicated meant the points were zeroed and the counter started from the beginning in the event of a reappearance).

The reason i advocate strict homelands and logistics is exactly to "hit" the superempire syndrom that TW suffers IMO. Strict homelands mean that the more land you occupy you are not better off logistically (can produce armies faster) but worse (you have to make more armies with the same resources and so feel the strain). Logistics will further make that visible - they can be very simple ie any stack that is not in "home province" loses men at a certain rate (crusade style) - the further from home provices the higher the rate.

Territories may switch ethnic composition and religion slowly andwith the investment of time and money relative to the player's faction (if you conquer islamic factions and are one yourself would be faster to bring them to your cause). Medieval Auctoriso presented something similar in theearly days of its conception. EB has also done that with the 4 levels of management of newly conquered towns.

The "classic" TW concept is the "more the merier" as long as you can occupy more prvinces you've got little else to worry about - this kind of linear gameplay really kills strategic choices.

Many Thanks

Noir

[John_Longarrow]

It would also be very cool if you could actually take over the lands of a "Destroyed Faction" if you had a general married to one of their princesses. It would definitly give another dimension to the game.

[atheotes]

I agree with the point that diplomacy is not broken per se.. but there arent enough options/usefulness to it.
I actively use diplomats in the first few turns to get trade rights and map information from everyone... after that i dont care to use them...
Usually the most i have at anytime is 2-3 and sometime i have none...just recruit one if i need to bribe an ally with whom i have come to share a border...
For the most part as and when possible i use the princesses to take part in irrelevant/miscellaneous diplomacy and maybe to set up bribes/gifts (the boost in charm is the main reason to do this)...

I guess this is what most people do... but the thing is i am a turtler. I never blitz, build up slowly only, no attack first, take excomms seriously (when i play a cath faction), and maintain a good reputation (has to be above mixed).

And i still dont find much use for (active) diplomacy!!!

[Didz]

I've spent most of my current game trying to get the Moorish held Timbuktu to rebel so that I can move in and take it without declaring war on the Moors.

At one point I had a dozen spies in the town and about ten assassins outside. Every building was a smoking ruin and its loyalty dropped regularly to 65%.

- Would it rebel...like hell it would.
- Could I bribe it...nope not interested, the militia spearmen holding it were obviously being overpaid.

In the end the Moors got so annoyed they declared war on me anyway, complete waste of time and money.

[madalchemist]

It is because the AI cheats.

As it cheats about siege weapons that doesn't catch fire, about spawning "men of the hour" without fighting, about crusades not deserting, about keeping public order in cities.

Just to write what you all already got, I hate when the AI cheats and I think it shouldn't be allowed or should be possible to disable (this last sentence being a bit OT).

[Noir]

Originally posted by madalchemist
Just to write what you all already got, I hate when the AI cheats and I think it shouldn't be allowed or should be possible to disable (this last sentence being a bit OT).

I home-mod MTW and to the best of my knowledge the AI is not using campaign cheats in "hard" - however he is capable (if you take the valor giving provinces and the bodyguard upkeep out) to provide a decent challenge. The M2 TW campaign AI would sink lower than low without cheating and still even this way he is far from providing decent challenge in vanilla.

The game has so many little features that the AI in all probability simply uses "optimally" through cheating - they are too many for him to trully "use" in the sense that he would have to make decisions/choices about them - i guess the developers would need tons of testing for game progression and subsequent AI adjusting that they have neither the time nor the intention of doing apparently.

It ends up with everyone "ganging" on the player, with Mongols and Timurids and new worlds to keep the challenge/interest up.

TW maintains a certain true value because of the modding community and its fruits IMO. Vanilla releases increasingly offer interest only in terms of potential (what can be done with the engine).

Many Thanks

Noir

[icek]

I think that to many people here use the word diplomacy to name strange behavior of ai nations. its not diplomacy, its a ai vs human issue. in my england campaign ive been in alliance with sicily since i remember. i never ever killed one sicilian agent in this game. we battled other italian nations and when i defeated venician military might in battle for venice, sicily should wisely attack the other little defended serbian territory to make themselves strong and to stop my conquest into east. but no, sycily decided to make ceasefire with venice and attack me in bolognia defended by man on my picture. it wasnt even a fight , more like chicken hunt.

https://img481.imageshack.us/img481/452/0000bn3.th.jpg (https://img481.imageshack.us/my.php?image=0000bn3.jpg)

[Kruniac]

Originally Posted by Sheogorath
BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

Seriously, you registered an account JUST to make THIS post? On a topic which has been adressed REPEATEDLY throughout the course of the forum?
Search moar, n00b.

In regards to diplomacy, I find that the best sort involves lots of men with swords on horses. Or cannons.
I believe the Devil's Dictionary defines 'Cannon' as "An instrument for the rectification of borders," as fine a definition as any I've heard. Consider well the applicatiation of copious amounts of steel and gunpowder to your problem, followed by a handy dose of slaughter and maybe a bit of tourture here and there.
Remember, manical laughter is satisfying, but it leaves you vulnerable to erstwhile heros who manage to slip past your outer guards. ALWAYS carry a pistol crossbow, just in case you need to shoot some sword wielding punk in the head.

And finally, I have this to say:
in b4 lock

Win. rifk

:laugh4:

:2thumbsup:

[ramela]

Geez, don't encourage a troll.

[Kruniac]

Geez, don't encourage a troll.

Yeah you're right, I just didnt know if he was a troll or a vet of some kind who was just fed up with the game and posts about the flaws.

The game is terrible, and the only redeeming quality MIGHT be the expansion. I hope the diplomatic AI gets fixed, and if it doesnt, well, I look forward to MTR to fix this game.

:2thumbsup: