On Diplomacy

Since RTW is supposed to be so much better diplomatically,
how come it still comes down to simple aggression?,

In RTW, most of your allies, even if they remain allies for over 20 years just start wars for no reasons other than to keep the aggresion up.

This just leads to the quickie games where conquest occurs in no time and just never ends.

I thought maybe with what CA promised about immersing strategy (they also promised AI but thats gone), we would have an actual diplomatic system. That means no simplistic wars of aggresion, more complex alliance networks, diplomatic bargaining before storming into war, the occasional peaceful neighbour.

For god's sake, why would a small country like Pontus risk losing its whole kingdom to the rampaging Egyptians. Why not just sue for peace? ~:confused:

I can understand if factions go to war over obvious conflicts of interest if there is a chance of victory (i.e. Rome and Carthage in Sicily).
However, it does get daft and excessive when perfectly puny and useless factions refuse to give up their martyr complex.
Also, wouldn't it be better if you could tell allies where to attack not just who and if you could tribute forces to them or them to you.

Maybe in the 4th total war they could add a little more political realism.

that'd be awsome.

i agree! with your whole statement
:duel:

I wish there was better diplomacy also. Though I would barely use it. So far I have kept an ally for over 50 years only once. I was SPQR the ally was Carthage. Odd freinds but it worked. T^he small kingdoms would probably be swallowed up anyway though, empires were being built and destroyed in those days, everyone wanted more land.

There is no diplomacy mostly because there are no ill consequences for transgressions - or not ones that would be perceived as such by the AI.

If they would get a serious slap on the wrist when they do something fishy (by operating according to the algorythms which would take that into account), then you would be able to see some sensible diplomacy.

However, this could potentially cripple the AI even further; sort of like saying that if they break a treaty, they will lift all sieges upon reload. :evilgrin: So, one thing leads to another... But it would be great if there were some real advancements made in that field, says he while he dreams about diplomatic relations indicators, allies helping the player against an otherwise undefendable onslaught, etc. :mellow:

It would be nice if you could have economic consequences, but I do not think the factions would have given you the money after breaking a treaty. If they could react to slaps on the wrist a good one may be breaking off trade, but that rarely works. In the case of Japan the oil embargo only led to more attacks.

The major problem comes down to the fact that there is no victory condition beyond conquest. That means there is no real advantage to complete peace. Any sort of realistic diplomatic situation would require some victory condition to complement it to be truly effective. Not sure how well that would work with the whole 'Total War' concept.

Bh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin

I wish there was better diplomacy also. Though I would barely use it. So far I have kept an ally for over 50 years only once. I was SPQR the ally was Carthage. Odd freinds but it worked. T^he small kingdoms would probably be swallowed up anyway though, empires were being built and destroyed in those days, everyone wanted more land.

---

As the Julii, I allied with Carthage to interfere with the Scipii, bribed Caralis away from them, and they never broke the alliance. It's more than I could say for Spain (they informed me first, at least) or the Britons (they just stabbed me in the back).


.

I hate it when they decide to stab you in the back. But when they gang up on you it is great! Makes the game much harder and more interesting, who cares if the Britons, Germans, Iberians(Spaniards) and Romans awould not all gang up on the Gauls.

To Bhruic,
agreed, there should be more condition for victory than conquest and while humans try this sort of thing, it needs to be programmed into the AI.

To hrvojej.
I see what you are saying but I think we could program 'etiquette' as such into the factions. I also think in a system of complex diplomacy, the cost of conquest in not merely economic but political.
firstly, your Allies willed be annoyed because either they will have to contribute and/or lose political capital with other factions for supporting your war.
Other factions, including your allies, grow more suspect of your behaviour, indeed some could give you transgression notices and request you call for a ceasefire.
The factions allies and indeed regional strongman could get involved. This means an even larger war. :charge:

This means that wars do not start from mere conquest but for political reasons, A attacked B, we like B we needed to take on C in case he attacks us as well.

As for the Economic consequences Uesugi Kenshin, I think they could be big, Embargoes, sanctions and such. If you attack, then maybe there could be civil unrest and revolt, like MTW, as ppl do not like going to war.
I think that the export/import value of trading with other nations should be double that of you internal trading and resources should count for more than mere trade value, i.e. resources grant specific advantages to the owner.

I think the transgression idea should be expanded, to incorporate a variety of tresspasses, such as conquering territory considered valuable ( as a homeland, stragetic frontier or containing vital strategic resources), or sending spies in areas. I also think there should be a senate for every faction but without an actual territory, maybe if you do not listen to their demands (i.e. go to war with X), they can start to rebel!, in such a way, we can imitate a casus belli and give some real incentive to stay at peace or war.

Also if you take over Allies former territory (while still allied) their should be much protest.

I hope if this system was implemented, we could go beyond the simple ~:handball: diplomacy of RTW.

P.S. I understand that this is quite hard or even impossible to program, but its a thought anyway.

I like the things you're saying Aetius. The game as a whole would make more sense if there were internal as well as external consequences (consequenses, schmonsequences!) if you start a war.

Right now I would settle for the possibility to tell transgressing armies to 'go back to their mommies or else...' and I would like to be able to talk to cities while you are besieging them 'Governor of Byzantium, surrender the city and your army can walk away and we will not massacre the population...'

(And then if you break your word no one would trust you in the future and no city will surrender anymore).

However, think what would happen if those same rules would apply to the AI as well. The AI would have to be able to handle all those parameters (for example, no more purple pyjama guys running across my Babylonia then).

I'm not saying it wouldn't be great - on the contrary, but it would require an AI that is able to handle itself well within the same constraints as the player, and still pose as a challenge. What I'm saying is that simply adding those things alone wouldn't do much. The stratmap AI would have to be seriously overhauled for such changes to make sense.

I agree with giving consequences for cancelling alliances! At the moment they mean nothing. I was allied with the Spanish twices as the Carthaginians (they broke the alliance when I asked to exchange maps for no particular reason but then allied again straight away). Thing about this though is you can't trust ANYONE therefore have to war on everyone to play it safe.

I'd invaded Gaul in my Carthage game and was stabbed in the back by Spain so now have to conquer them in order to keep my route back to Africa safe! I do love detailed diplomacy in games like this. Fact is though even if you edn up in battle with allies supporting you they're next to useless. either just sitting their and dribbling or charging in when its madness to do so!

Anyway perhaps one day things will be perfect ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ulfang

I'd invaded Gaul in my Carthage game and was stabbed in the back by Spain so now have to conquer them in order to keep my route back to Africa safe! I do love detailed diplomacy in games like this. Fact is though even if you edn up in battle with allies supporting you they're next to useless. either just sitting their and dribbling or charging in when its madness to do so!

---

I totally agree! i think you should be able to control your allies army.

Anyone know if any economic sanctions or anything like that were ever used successfully in those days? I think that idea may be a later development, but I am not certain. Being able to give tribute to keep a faction from attacking would be good though. The romans kept the barbarians out for many years by using that. I think it was the Huns.

Quote:

---

no more purple pyjama guys running across my Babylonia then).

---

thanks for this hrvojej, it sent me laughing on the floor.

You know the one of the reasons the Greeks considered the Persians barbarians was that they wore pants.

I totally, agree the game would have to be overhauled, maybe TW 4, eh?

Kenshin,
Persian shut of the dardanelles straits to stop grain supplies reaching Southern Greece during their conflicts. I has been done, but overland trade was harder to control.
Maybe land trade 1/2's and sea trade goes down 3/4.

diplomacy in the game is bad
wars did not start just like this , there were causes for war and then escalations , then threats , then forces moved etc
in rtr wars just happened
~:confused: ~:confused: ~:confused:

Well I think everyone would agree that Turkey is a special circumstance. Seeing as they controlled the Black Sea and stradled the only entrance to it, I did get the name of the sea right?

I was thinking more about restricting trade to most ther countries, like Italy, Germany, Egypt, Spain, Morocco. Anywhere lie that, it would have been nearly impossible and is still a major problem, case in point the go-fasts getting cocaine into Florida. Helicopters can stop many, but there are a lot that can get through and without the helicopters almost all can get through, because the go-fasts do not have to worry about armament, survivability or anything else and the Coast Gaurd Cutters have to worry about that and providing many services.

Oh well bit of a tangent. Point is without Helos it is nearly impossible to stop sea trade, unless there is a small area that can be blockaded and will stop all trade.

A possible measure would be first to change how the faction leader affects the empire at large.

More influence in a faction leader for instance would mean a better chance of ones diplomats negotiating treaties, more stability in ones cities and less chance of ones cities or units being bribed (the closest one could get to general loyalty), it could also have direct beneficial economic benefits in trade revenue.

If a faction breaks an alliance (any faction should still be able to withdraw from one with proper notice) then the Faction leader could lose influence by being given traits such as 'oath breaker', 'untrustworthy', 'pathological liar', 'no honour' etc. Losing more influence all the while and negatively affecting his whole faction.

His units and cities would become easier to bribe, his trade revenue would suffer, as would stability and it would become much more difficult or costly for his diplomats to establish agreements with other factions.

Quote:

---

Anywhere lie that, it would have been nearly impossible and is still a major problem, case in point the go-fasts getting cocaine into Florida.

---

The thing is that countries put more effort into embargoes once they are political objectives of foreign policy and not just anti-drug operations Kenshin.

Es Arkajae, that is a brilliant idea, wasn't MTW diplomacy slightly based on that kind of system? Anyways, thanks for the input, much appreciated.

It is not enough to 'just' add bad traits for broken treaties. The AI needs to follow the same rules. It would need to weigh out the possible benefits to its costs.
Given it already has a bad tendency to not understand the situation (one city under siege left yet no surrender even with benefits such as a tribute and a city as well as trade rights). this would only enhance our superiority over it. The AI factions would end up with the last tier 'Oathbreaker' traits while we would not. At the same time we beat them in field and now get a better chance at infiltrating their cities or bribing them.

But yes, such traits are indeed the way to go, but sadly it will not happen right away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

It is not enough to 'just' add bad traits for broken treaties. The AI needs to follow the same rules. It would need to weigh out the possible benefits to its costs.

---

Gee, you think?

Quote:

---

Given it already has a bad tendency to not understand the situation (one city under siege left yet no surrender even with benefits such as a tribute and a city as well as trade rights). this would only enhance our superiority over it. The AI factions would end up with the last tier 'Oathbreaker' traits while we would not. At the same time we beat them in field and now get a better chance at infiltrating their cities or bribing them.

But yes, such traits are indeed the way to go, but sadly it will not happen right away.

---

Obviously mate the rest of the AI behaviour would need to be modified to take into account these traits, which is where the traits come into their own.

An AI general for instance could be more likely to break his oath if he has the negative trait for such.

This coming from one who has jack shit know how on how to do so~D, but I'd wager the AI already has some kind of cost/benfit analysis thing going for when it attacks a faction.

I'm trying to suggest some possible improvements that could be put into this game or perhaps the patch. I try to avoid the near continuous bitching to CA about the 'next game' that some engage in.

In all fairness, the diplomacy in RTW is an improvement on MTW (which itself was an improvement on STW). Though it still has a fair way to go till it's as good as Alpha Centauri.

RTW made many small steps in the right directions, and I'm sure these will be built upon in the next total war game.

As long as they keep making progress t wll continue to be worth playing the games, especially after mods.