MTW alliance system pointless?

Old hands are probably bored stiff by the question, but I don't seem to find a comprehensive answer in any of the guides of threads, so here goes.

I used to rely on the alliance system in STW since it could be fun to have alliances that almost outlasted your campaign. Often they would hold even after the allies' lands touched. Opposing alliances would confront each other on the battlefield and I tremendously enjoyed those 2v2 battles towards endgame.

My experience with the alliance system in MTW has so far been disappointing, to say the least. Towards midgame, when you've booked your first dynastic kills (the Egyptians or Aragonese, most likely) the system seems not so much to break down as exclude you, as a player, from all further diplomatic dealings. Nobody will make you a marriage offer, except maybe the Spanish when they're in dire need of covering their back during their Almohad wars. You can have an army of emissaries chasing skirts for your royalty all across the Mediterranean, but their Daddies keep saying no. Never mind if you make the Pope an offer he can't refuse or attempt demarches with the most rustic nations on the far side of the campaign map, they will shrug them off or even make you pay dearly on the next turn by sinking your fleets. And, as opposed to STW, I hardly ever get an ally to support me on the batttlefield.

So please enlighten me, am I missing the point or is CA?

Can't agree more. Even with maximum influence, almost every offer I make is refused. Allies are not important but marriages are. A lot of my princes have vices like strange, inbred or odd number of toes.

You don't miss anything, you can't rely on anyone besides yourself in MTW. Alliances are temporary. As soon as the so-called allies get the opportunity to stab you in the back, they do.
Keep strong garrisons, that's the only solution. I remember this issue was discussed once, and people thought the faction that break an alliance should get some penalties. I hope there will be more long lasting alliances in RTW but I doubt it ~;)

I agree the alliance system stinks. They don`t keep other nations from attacking you like it should.Its the exact opposite of how it should be,the strong nations should be getting more and more alliances instead of losing them all the time.If a nation were to attack another nation that had alot of alliances they would face a war on many fronts,not so in MTW.One of the things that really kills me is when a faction has married off one of its daughters,and then comes and attacks you.That would never happen,thats the whole reason for the marriage.Not to mention the fact that you can almost never go to war with on of your allies,or ask them to attack another faction with you.I hope RTW is different.

Having come from Shogun to Medieval, as I am sure many people here have, I do think the MTW Alliance system is sadly lacking. I would have expected there to be some sort of penalty for breaking Alliances with the other factions. I know there was no penalty in Shogun, but I thought it was a common issue many people raised at the time and felt it should be addressed in MTW. Now it seems, everybody is hoping it will be addressed in Rome!

OK, so in MTW many of the other factions break their Alliance with you if you go to war with a fellow Catholic faction, since they have to make a choice of which of the two to ally with, but that does not stop you trading with anybody apart from the faction you are at war with. I really do not see the difference between being neutral with another faction or having an Alliance with them.

Tomcat

Note that the Byzantines seem to be much more trustworthy. So far they've never broken any alliances with me, even though my bordering provinces lacked garrisons.

The alliance system in MTW is bad about "ganging up" on a few factions, including your own of course. The best way to "work it" is to make sure you have more allies than the enemy you first attack. That usually causes the AI to break alliances with them rather than you.

After the first few decades, you end up having to wait for the AI to ask you for an alliance. Your chances of getting one other wise are close to nil, no matter how much influence you have, or how much logic there would be for the AI to accept it.

On the plus side, this does make the AI a bit tougher to beat. Usually the game goes like this for me:
1. I target a faction early for elimination and assimilation. I time it so that I have more allies when it happens.
2. Subdue first faction retain some allies.
3. Target another faction, lose all allies.
4. At the point the other faction is collapsing, one or two AI factions attack every border I share with them--no matter how crazy the attack.
5. As I cripple the attackers one at a time, I'm attacked by new enemies at just the point the old enemy is collapsing.

This continues until I win. The really unfortunate thing is that it is predictable. It does make the game a bit tougher, but I wish if the AI was going to attack, it would do so before the other faction reached the point of collapse. It is the lack of logical motive on the AI faction's part that is disappointing.

When you become the largest faction in a campaign all the other factions will gang up on you because they fear you. CA designed it that way to provide more of a challenge in the mid to late game.

Early on, signing an alliance with anothr faction is worthwhile because that faction will be far less likely to betray you, and its troops may even support yours in battle.

However no ally should ever be really trusted. If your border provinces only have small garrisons, your ally might well decide that he stands to benefit by attacking you.

Also, your ally will soon betray you if you are blocking his only route to expansion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Accounting Troll

When you become the largest faction in a campaign all the other factions will gang up on you because they fear you. CA designed it that way to provide more of a challenge in the mid to late game.

---

I would buy that if it was consistently so. As a veteran of over 100 campaigns, I must say that there appears to almost no rhyme or reason to the political affiliation scheme.

Extremely powerful nations ignore tiny weak nations they are neutral with
Tiny weak nations attack extremely powerful nations they are allied with
Single province nations refuse to accept cease-fires with 50 province nations

All in all, I am very eager to see the diplomacy in RTW. IMHO that will make or break the game.


~;)

Ldvs, sure, the Byzantines are great allies, only during once campaign they kept sending assassins after my English king for over fifty turns until I ransacked their brothel in Armenia with an expeditionary force. Oh, and they never lifted so much as lifted a finger to assist me against the Italians who were a threat to both their trade and mine. I'm not convinced, though it may be true the alliance system has some uses if you take the longer view and don't expect much.

I trust from what screens I've seen that the Diplomacy in RTW will be far superior to MTW's, but I"m sure there will be room for improvement as well.

There does seem to be an influence hit for breaking alliances, but thaty might be me seeing fluctuating influence and trying to blame something.

As for the diplomacy in general, it sucks. Yes, I understand why no-one wuill ally with me late game, or even cease fire. They fear and envy you, and therefore want to make you pay. Lately I have been making several attempts at french/GA (strict GA, no other conquest save a few key provinces and french heartland) expert/early, and have therefore been a VERY small faction. Yet, the moment I war with ANYONE (even those with no allies at all) the entire world gangs up on me, the aragonese charge north, the germans west, the spanish float up past aragon and the english drive south.

And none of them cease fire for years, the germans are STILL at war with me despite having no hope of winning a single battle, and the english, well, they ust had to go, along with the aragonese.