Printable View
Diplomacy should be 4x more flexible then RTW. RTW diplomacy was crap (But good compared to any other game), but still crap nonetheless. They should make a dozen more options. For example; sending and receiving (exchanging :dizzy2: ) hostages. Which was a common practice thoughout history. and many many more anyone can think of.
Thoughts? (I was going to make another thread about something...cant remember what though)
Sounds good, but unlikely :(Quote:
Originally Posted by holybandit
well in some of the previews they were bragging about ai and diplomacy... i hope it is as good as they are stating but i have a feeling not :inquisitive:
:yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by sapi
:balloon2:
I'm not so sure about the hostages. The player lacks the emotion that real people would have had, had their sons been killed. I mean, what do you care if another family member dies?Quote:
Originally Posted by holybandit
The only way it would work would be if the killed member's immediate family would become less loyal if you are the one to break the truce.
But I do think that the AI needs to be far more supple. No more situations where you've beaten them steadily, inflicting major defeats on their armies, then you propose a straightforward peace (with no giving or taking) and the AI says "You have not yet learned the true value of peace".
Same goes for a country that only has one province left, its diplomat struts up to you and say "Hey, we want all the cities you took and xxxxxxxx dinarii in reparations".
I would like to see a "Get off my property!!! (waves pitchfork around madly)" option. Such a shame that I had to declare war every time a Thracian army wandered into my lands. Of course, this option would be disabled if the other player had military access granted by you.
Also, I think the AI should have a more realistic approach to the way they handle diplomacy. If you offer a huge amount of money for a map, sometimes the AI just won't give it to you in RTW. I wonder what they are hiding...:inquisitive:
Next, we should not be able to have important diplomatic negotiations with captains of peasant units, or pathetic empty towns belonging to the other faction. It should just be with either the faction leader, a diplomat or possibly some close-to-the-throne family members.
More diplomatic options! I'm not so sure about hostages (could work I suppose) but things like, for example, marrying princesses could become diplomatic options.
1 more thing; alliances were too easy to craft in MTW, but too hard in RTW. Somewhere between the too would work well in M2TW
:2cents:
I think the the emphasis should be on alliances actually meaning something. In all previous Total War games allies would never help you or give you anything....I think a system should be included where you could exchange troops for money or lend troops to nations that you are allied with, or even exchange something like iron (which was a strategic resource in MTW IIRC) and that ally would actively send troops to help meet mutual enemies if, say, you were on his territory and a large enemy army was approaching. At the very least it should mean that a one-province nation whose only ally is the almighty all-powerful human-controlled nation, and that nation is at war with everyone except for you, doesn't suddenly declar war on you for absolutely no reason....not to mention never accepting a favourable peace even if you have 3000 troops standing outside their wooden-walled peasant-garrisoned last city.
Good ideas all, though I think the hostages would work if the penalty to the human is less loyalty-less influence.
There is so much that can be done to diplomacy that would radically improve the game. The predictable SP campaign AI is one of the things that spoils my enjoyment of campaigns and one of the reasons that an online campaign would be so welcome. As things stand we know that as soon as we form an alliance, that ally will backstab as soon as is possible
.....Orda
From what I've seen and heard they are going to fix a lot of the AI bugs - such as rejecting cease fires or alliances for no obvious reason, or going from ally to enemy and then offering alliance again in three turns.
What I would love to see is a diplomacy AI as good as Civ 3 or 4, where you can use trade routes, gold, maps, units, territories etc. in negotiations.
Or like Victoria or Europa Universalis II....Quote:
Originally Posted by HighLord z0b
Here is a basic improvement: Tell me where I stand. Nations and kingdom all had some superficial concept of where they stood with each beyond just war or peace.
Just a gauge, or a number, or something to let me know the level of my relationship with other factions.
And yes, all those other features would be great.
They should make some kind of penalties from breaking alliances, something to lose when you break the pact. In romeTW you can make a pact and then break it with only losing the trade rights and some advanteges. Something like hostages that were given in old days.
It doesn't have to be that detailed. Just a working version of R:TW's diplomatic options would be nice. Plus a way to suggest deals (as opposed to demanding them as seems to happen now) and an indicator of the enemies stance: too often it seems I have insulted the A.I. when asking for a map trade.Quote:
Originally Posted by HighLord z0b
But a diplomatic model like Civ 4 or CTP 2 would be great.