Diplomacy - Choosing sides...

[_Tristan_]

:help:

I've just noticed that simply choosing sides in a confilct between two of your allies implies a drop in your reputation...

Playing the Long Road mod, I was allied with all 21 factions at the same time having at least very good relations and over with all of them. my reputation was mixed from the start and had never gotten above that level.

A war erupted between two of my allies (English and Turk) and after choosing sides, my reputation dropped to dubious...:dizzy2:

Some more of that and I'm now Very untrustworthy without having really broken the least alliance...:inquisitive:

What do you make of that ? Do you have an idea on how to raise my reputation anew ? :help:

[EDIT] To be sure, I've always occupied and having fought only rebels until now, never had to choose what to do of the prisoners...

Might it be because I'm the most powerful of the lot ?
I'm disgusted as I wanted to play it cool and obtain the upper hand through diplomacy (an objective that might become a bit difficult if I cannot my alliances...)

[_Tristan_]

Just to *bump* due to editing...

[alpaca]

Sucks, doesn't it :P
You basically have to decide beforehand to only ally with peoples who are unlikely to wage war against each other.
For example a good alliance usually is Milan, Denmark, Scotland, Spain, Hungary, Sicily, Russia and one of the Turks or the Egyptians if you don't plan on crusading.
France will always be attacked by at least Milan and England and often enough Spain and Denmark, HRE will always be attacked by everybody and Poland is often a risky candidate with Denmark but can be worth it.
Venice is often kicked into the testicles, the same goes for Byzantium so don't even bother allying with them.

Besides, in my personal vanilla mini-mod I disabled the global standing drop if you diplomatically end an alliance. To do this, you need to change

;------------------------------------------
Trigger 0056_T_Nullified_Alliance
WhenToTest Transgression

Condition TransgressionName = TC_NULLIFIED_ALLIANCE

FactionStanding global -0.1
FactionStanding target_faction normalise -1.0 5
FactionStanding target_allies normalise -1.0 20
FactionStanding target_enemies normalise 1.0 20
To this:

;------------------------------------------
Trigger 0056_T_Nullified_Alliance
WhenToTest Transgression

Condition TransgressionName = TC_NULLIFIED_ALLIANCE

FactionStanding target_faction normalise -1.0 5
FactionStanding target_allies normalise -1.0 20
FactionStanding target_enemies normalise 1.0 20

I also added a penalty for global standing if you don't end the alliance diplomatically but simply backstab your opponent. Unfortunately I don't think there's a special case for choosing an ally over another so I had to get rid of the whole nullified alliance thing.

[_Tristan_]

Sucks, doesn't it :P

You said it...

thx for answer...

That's more a solution than I would have expected...

[Ramses II CP]

Hrm, I think in vanilla 1.2 you only get a reputation hit if you choose the aggressor.

[alpaca]

Hrm, I think in vanilla 1.2 you only get a reputation hit if you choose the aggressor.
No I don't think so, I'm pretty sure I always got a rep hit.
It could be that you didn't always notice it because -0.1 doesn't always go over a threshold.

[Ramses II CP]

Ahh, that's likely it. Thanks for the clarification. :yes:

[_Tristan_]

I can confirm that you'll take the rep hit whichever sides you choose

[Rhedd]

You know, I have to admit that realistically, I think that allying with EVERYONE is sort of dodgy.

I mean, there's such a thing as seeming too friendly and easy-going.

I'm probably alone in this, but I don't think it's a bad thing to slightly punish the reputation of someone who enters into a full-fledged alliance with just anyone who asks.

There are people out there who really dislike each other, and you can't be friends with all of them. In a political arena, if you try, then it's likely none of them will trust you.

People feel comfortable with people as intolerant as they are. ^_^

[TeutonicKnight]

I agree. I've always been one of those easy allies, I could be had for a song. I also agree to ceasefires almost 100% of the time.

I'm changing my point of view, mostly due to how reputation takes a nosedive when war breaks out.

I think my next campaign I'll just make one ally, and try to keep them solid. I'll keep the rest at neutral trading partner status, see how that goes.

[_Tristan_]

What I mean is that I wouldn't mind taking a dive in relationship with the faction i didn't choose to support (biggest if defender as I betrayed them and smallest if attacker for lack of support) and probably a slight rise with the faction I supported (once again biggest rise if defender as I upholded my alliance and smallest if I choose the attacker as I was expected to do)...

However I can't stand taking a dive in rep faction wide for supporting an alliance rather than another, it means I can be true to my word (on my own reasons, true...) but nevertheless...

[TeutonicKnight]

I guess the point is that this isn't Total Diplomacy. :)

[_Tristan_]

I guess the point is that this isn't Total Diplomacy. :)

I understand that full well and I like to go to war and fight as many battles as possible... But at the same times, i'd like to make the most of every game options and Diplomacy is one...

A little shortcoming, I think...

[TeutonicKnight]

Oh, I completely agree. I'm just saying I think the developers took some shortcuts to insure that as we move into the end-game, we end up at war with everyone instead of being able to take out one faction at a time with rock-solid alliances.

Scripting is one way; the reputation system, however flawed, is another.

[_Tristan_]

I understand full well the TW concept (:smash: :smash: :smash: :laugh4: ), nevertheless...

One better solution would have been to script power blocks like Catholics-Orthodox-Muslim, and taking that fact into account when you chose an ally over another...

Say for Example, your faction is France and your allied with both the Turks and England...

Choosing England over the Turks should entail a important drop in rep with all muslim factions, orthodox shouldn't care less (unless allied with one of the two) and cathloics should be pleased...
On the other side, if you chose to support the Turks against England, you would certainly anger other catholics and even get a papal mission to renew your alliance with England and break it with the Turks...

Much more real sounding, even if it might still be faulty (due to the power struggles existing even among religiously-like-minded factions)...

Moreover, your separate standing with each faction should have an effect on how fast you drop...

If you're on perfect or at least good relationship with almost everyone, simply choosing one ally over one time should be excused, do it more often and then you'll get the drop... However, if you're on the neutral or worse side of relatinships, you should get an important drop from the start (make it a majority kind of thing...)

Moreover, most times, when I break such an alliance by coosing sides I generally obtain a ceasefire in the same turn (or the next) by allying anew with the unchosen faction... And this gets me nil rep-wise...

There's simply no playing the UNO Peace Force in M2TW (quite logical historically but anyway, it should have been woth a try...)


PS : As a side note, I do love those situations... Lastly, having chosen Spain over Portugal as the Danes, I ransomed the Portuguese for 27000 Fl. for renewing their allaince with me in the same turn they broke it...:2thumbsup: )

[Bob the Insane]

If I might interject a little about the concept that when allies go to war an you are forced to choose between them that there should be no come back to you because it was not "your fault"...

The fact is that you broke the alliance with an ally just when they went to war. The circumstances do not matter that much really compared to the fact that you broke the alliance and are as a result you are less trustworthy... Even for the faction that you supported, you have demonstrated that you might do the samething to them in the future...

I was just wondering why the concept was a bad in itself??

[Jason X]

the key point in this debate is:
when two tribes go to war
lower rep is all that you can score
(yeah)

[_Tristan_]

I was just wondering why the concept was a bad in itself??

It is not a bad in itself but it kinds of bother me

What bothers me is that you should have an option to "stand aside", getting perhaps a drop in each faction standing but remaining rather reputable...

There is a diplo option which says "military assistance", which is almost never used...
If faction X and Y go to war and say, i'm allied to X with military assistance refusing to go to war with them, should result in a rep drop...

However, to get to the point I simply do not understand the necessity to choose sides, when, most times, the battle occuring between those two allies is so far from any units of mine that i could not care less about it...

That choosing of sides has really no import other than getting you a rep hit without any wrong incidences on any faction..

However, the debate is on...:2thumbsup: