Idea: Make Allies worth having

Make it so that Allies actually MEAN "I agree to an alliance' when they say it. We all know we've had many broken alliances with what you thought were friendly casual relationships which turned into venomous animosity. To say it in the most general sense of the word, and allow those who understand the complexities behind such changes:

make alliances mean something, and do not allow the AI players to be *cough* loose about their offering and accepting of alliances

I'd rather have 2 alliances of brethren who would come to my aid if an outside threat invaded my territories. The whole "Demand Attack on Faction" or "Offer Attack on Faction" even when they are offered in conjunction with eachother have never ever worked.

Example:

My new Spanish campaign I attepted to create an Alliance between myself and Gaul and then take out Julii - however, the Gauls, after accepting my proposal of an alliance, backstabbed me within one year. THEN the Julii asked me for trade rights, and in my fury I asked for an Alliance with the Julii, then the Senate, then the Brutii. I asked them all to attack the puny Gauls and punish them for their insolence, but none of them accepted! And then, to add insult to injury, 3 years later the Julii attack the Gauls! Seriously frusterating after multiple instances which my diplomats sat down with theirs to draw out a plan against the Gauls and each time they declined my efforts.

Proposition:

Once you have an Ally, it may make the Alliance take on more substance if perhaps there are more options of diplomacy with an ally, as opposed to one who is a stranger to you or who has merely made contact so that your merchants can trade wares. It would make more sense if you could draw out much more complicated Alliances - one which includes issues of armour and weapons from an ally, manpower, loans - and what have you. THere are many many various options to be expanded on this idea.

What have you got?

it would make sense, if the AI is remotely approaching the brain power of a chinpenzee. As right now, the AI is just lines of code, nothing more. They are supposed to behave according to certain predetermined conditions. I feel like the guy who can come up with algorithm like that is gonna win the next Nobel prize of mathematics ( which, emm hemm, does not exist by the way).

Ok, enough venting. Actually I think it is doable. Make the computer, after signing the alliance, take into account the agressiveness of the faction allied with you, then decide whether
1. to play with you and backstab at some point in the future
2. be some what serious, but does not want to expend too much resources to help you, cuz you may back stab him after you are strong (well, isn't that the point of the game for you, to take 50 provinces)
3. be really nice, and from the diplomacy, identify your enemies, and declare war on all of them. Then that faction can behave under current AI strategies, to either blockade your enemies, besiege, maraud, or attack armies/cities.

I don't imagine the above to be too difficult. As to a system of loans, provisions of food, armor, weapon, men, i think we maybe asking a little too much in the expansion.

Alliances ought to be enforceable to the extent it is unbreakable (i.e. severe internal penalties when breaking alliances such as loss of influence, trade, or bad traits - applicable to both AI and player). But then again, diplomacy in RTW is practically useless aside from trade rights, exchanging maps, occassional ceasefire and possibly the protectorates (which is bugged).

Incidentally, I did have one of the Roman Factions attack Carthage once, though back in v1.0. I attacked Caralis as Julii. the Carthage sends a huge army. I asked the Scipii to attack the Carthaginians. They did at Lilybaeum. The AI ship was diverted to Lilybaeum. Saved my hide ~D

Yes, breaking alliances should bring dire consequences - even if they just transcend into negative traits for the faction leader/faction in general. This way, that faction that goes around breaking alliances with everyone will find them hard pressed to find any alliances themselves, and their faction's reputation for being trustworthy goes out the window.

but being a coy and clever politician is all about lies, lies and more lies. Betrayal is a stable diet among statesmen of that time, I thought. If the romans can backstab themselves, there is little reaons others can't among themselves. I think this is just a permanent issue with games like this. The accuracy is only relative, the game can't be perfect you know.

In my mind, this idea is only of use if you make an allied victory condition. I don't want to be forced to break alliances (or have allies do the same) just because it's impossible to win without doing so.

But with that present, I'd enjoy it if alliances had more of a sense of permanence to them - even if it isn't necessarily realistic.

Bh

Keep the alliance option in tact as is. Add "mutual defence treaty" as an option. Make "allies" likely to accept military access and then those who accept that more likely to accept "mutual defense pact" after a period of years and then only for a limited time say 50 turns or so. Require a diplomat to make an official request to honor the "mutual defense pact." In regards to the diplomatic request, being able to create an embassy within a true ally's capital wherein a diplomat can take up residence would be a nice touch.

No changes to the diplomacy system will work or even be worth having until whichever poor CA soul(s) is/are responsible for the diplomacy system figures out and implements a system of checks and balances (that actually works) relative to the individual and overall interaction of factions. Current TW allies are best compared to a class of 3rd grades deciding who is dating who today on the playground. Couples therapy anyone? Word of advice: give Sid Meiers a call or at least see the Civilization series. Please!

It's doable. Think of EU2 diplomacy system.

While simple alliances come and go, I've found that if you have an alliance and mutual military access rights it makes things far more concrete. If you can pull that off the AI appears far less likely to renege.