Thoughts on Diplomacy

First off, apologies if this has been dealt with in the past.

Alterations that I thought would be helpful:

1. Increase Diplomant movement
2. Diplomats (and spies / assassins) can move between ports without using warships
3. Family members are capable of parley with cities and armies
4. Permanent access to the diplomatic screen with allies - they have a diplomat present in your capital

Diplomats IMO should be there for long distance diplomacy and sorting out more complicated agreements. Two nations that are right next to each other should be able to communicate, and I feel that this would / could give rise to further depth to the diplomatic side to the game.

For example, if a city was under siege, bieng able to request that the city capitulates with the promise that no massacare would take place. If the promise is broken, the faction would be viewed as untrustworthy.

There could be further options such as paying off the army, or out and out bribing it. I feel that not having these options merely as a diplomat is not there is unfortunate.

Family members could have more options than captains, and in general I feel that this would allow a far more fluid dimplomatic situation. Currently I find that it's easier to exterminate a foe or remain at war than go to all the trouble of getting a diplomat over the vast distance to make peace.

~:smoking:

One thing that I would give anything for would be a diplomatic option that would enable you to coordinate battles with your allies. This would basically be to ensure the presence of large battles of alliances on the campaign map, which happened occasionally in MTW and almost never in RTW.

It would work simply. You would ask for one of your armies to be assisted in battle, at which point the allies would send an army to follow your one. When a battle is engaged, the army following the other one would automatically march towards the battle and join in. You would then be given control of your army, and the allies control of theirs.

good idea, however that goes a little deep into diplomacy, they would need to carefully program the artificial intelligence very carefully to guarantee that one will be capable of coordinating such a prepared attack with an AI user. for example, you could coordinate this coerced attack with the AI and then the AI not sending a fragment of an army whatsoever, i.e the situation would be similar going on a date in a restaurant and not turning up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sun of Chersonesos

for example, you could coordinate this coerced attack with the AI and then the AI not sending a fragment of an army whatsoever, i.e the situation would be similar going on a date in a restaurant and not turning up.

---

I remember in MTW sometimes doing the opposite - fighting a battle with an ally and then deliberating standing back so that he took all the casualties, leaving me with the larger force and the province. Yes, despicable, I know.

The really fun thing was that a few turns after I did this, it inevitably turned out the ally would turn on me. It was as if CA had programmed the AI to recognise this disloyal behaviour and get offended. :2thumbsup:

Or maybe the AI was just psychotic, who knows?

Interesting ideas. I really like the thought of shaking up diplomacy from a gameplay perspective. All the ways mentioned make good sense, especially a permanent diplomat in the capital for allied factions. That is just so obvious I'm surprised I haven't heard the idea before, great idea.

Additionally, it would be straightforward (except for AI use of such an option) to give a timeline requirement to the AI as part of the negotiation process... i.e. "get off my land by autumn of 1290" or "Attack Byzantium in the spring of 1350" or some such.

Even payment-based agreements could benefit from a timeline. This would allow for some fairly complex agreements like "Attack Byzantium in the spring of 1350, and we will pay you regular tribute of 1000 per turn for 10 turns starting in autumn of 1350" with the implied threat that if the attack was not carried out by deadline then no money would be going anywhere.

Not a chance this will happen anytime soon, but it's nice to dream ~:)

As far as I am aware, there appears to be no need to be a "good" ally. Methods that requet joint actions (with global implications for refusing / sending one unit of pesants) would make a point to having allies.

Concerning the "letting my mate take all the casualties and me the province" I'd sometimes even fire arrows and siege equipment into the melee - who cares who gets killed? They're not my troops!

Concerning balancing, a basic system would be that the AI rates the force you sent. If it's pathetic - epecially if the battle is lost - the AI isn't pleased.

Many ideas such as this IMO don't require perfect fine tuning for the AI. The modders will do a far better job. But of course they can't implement a feature that isn't there.

Civ 4 allows almost infinite moddability. It is a shame MTW2 is unlikely to be designed the same way.

~:smoking:

I think there is a lot that can be done to improve this area of the game. The agents are usually used for one or two purposes and not much. I had many ideas but some that come to my mind at the moment are:

The surrender of cities. Historically this is a very usual outcome of war. A city that is besieged should be able to surrender itself without your orders. The chances of a surrender should depend on the enemies strength, or cruelty maybe. For example alexander the great had to defeat one army at halicarnassus lets say, and later executed all who resisted his rule and who created unrest, this made his influence on the people grow, making other cities in Anatolia surrender to him without a fight. This would definately increase the quality of the game.

Spies garrisoned in cities only let you know about a certain number of things. However, I always thought that having a permanent spy in the enemy capital for instance should give you other information, about the economy of that faction or their family tree things like that...

I will write more later, but not to be able to things how they actually happened in history really bugs me. Eg. When I was playing he Alexander:Total War game, I spent a lot of time sieging all the cities in Anatolia one by one, then Middle east ... What actually happened was once Alexander defeated Darius, most of the Persian people did not resist him. They surrendered without a fight. Or at least when Alexander's army approached them.

good ideas. One more thing for assasins.Ability to frame other countries.What i mean is you send your killer for assasination mission and if he manages to pull it off he leaves evidence pointing that other faction is responsible,relations of targeted faction with framed one decreese probably starting war,but if he fails... well your ralations with 2 this factions go down.This can add sort of "dark diplomacy" to the game:skull:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexrugr

good ideas. One more thing for assasins.Ability to frame other countries.What i mean is you send your killer for assasination mission and if he manages to pull it off he leaves evidence pointing that other faction is responsible,relations of targeted faction with framed one decreese probably starting war,but if he fails... well your ralations with 2 this factions go down.This can add sort of "dark diplomacy" to the game:skull:

---

That I like...

I've said it before (a long time ago): get rid of diplomats on the map, and perhaps even of all agents on the map. A single person could do a heck of a lot of travelling in a year, so there's little reason to make them 'map' units with limited movement range. I'd like a civ style system where you'd just have to open a diplomatic screen to talk to your opponents.

Assassins and spies might be better as 'map' agents, just to keep them traceable, but they should have a BIG movement range, I'm sure a better system can be devised, but I'm not going to waste time working it all out when CA is just going to stick to the Rome system anyway.

I really hope the strategic AI has improved though, if RTW didn't have the battle engine and was just judged on the strategic layer it would have been laughed at and have gotten 20%-40% reviews, compared to something like CIV4 or GalCivII it was simply awful...

Yes, I'm inclined to agree that having diplomats as real pieces on the map isn't necessary and an approach more like CIV 4 would be more beneficial to all involved (including the AI). Moving diplomats great distances round the map is a little tedious and it would greatly help the AI if diplomacy between factions isn't so cumbersome...

Spies, assassins and priests, however, with their less essential and yet more specialised roles, should be represented as real pieces. One thing we learned in Civ 3 was that the removal of the spy piece was not a great gameplay idea.

Without the use of diplomats, how will you be able to bribe enemy armies? Was bribing possible in Civ 4 where you did not have diplomats?

First of all why can't generals sign treaties just like diplomats? It doesn't make sense to me that your general can't negotiate with an enemy general just like a diplomat would...

I'm not sure if anyone has posted about this before but:
One thing that would really make the game both fun and more realistic would be pre-war negotiations. Before a battle begins, the two commanders should be able to have the chance to discuss terms. Maybe the amount of your soldiers can force the enemy to accept a treaty which they refused earlier. Or maybe the enemy's demands are not so crucial you might choose to negotiate instead of fight... The force of the clashing armies should have effect on the pre-battle diplomacy... Just improvising here. Does anyone think this idea could be built upon?

It just sounds like it would make the game much better, since in a lot of movies this is what happens. Eg. Gladiator (they try to discuss terms however the barbarians reply in a different fashion by beheading the scout:2thumbsup: ), Troy (can even choose to make a duel! I'm not sure if that would be suitable in Total war though) King Arthur, Braveheart and the list can go on...

That would be a cool feature indeed

Even though i can see the results being a battle everytime

HTML Code:

---

Even though i can see the results being a battle everytime

---

Definately. :laugh4:

But still it would be great! The generals both taking a white flag and approching each other and discussing terms, as the armies wait impatiantly the results. Maybe you could try to slay the enemy general when you have the chance muahahahha :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denizar

HTML Code:

---

Even though i can see the results being a battle everytime

---

Definately. :laugh4:

But still it would be great! The generals both taking a white flag and approching each other and discussing terms, as the armies wait impatiantly the results. Maybe you could try to slay the enemy general when you have the chance muahahahha :laugh4:

---

That's not very courageous dude :D

Diplomats (and probably all agents) should have the same movement ability that agents had in MTW. I tend to neglect agents in RTW because it's such a chore moving them around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silver Rusher

One thing that I would give anything for would be a diplomatic option that would enable you to coordinate battles with your allies. This would basically be to ensure the presence of large battles of alliances on the campaign map, which happened occasionally in MTW and almost never in RTW.

It would work simply. You would ask for one of your armies to be assisted in battle, at which point the allies would send an army to follow your one. When a battle is engaged, the army following the other one would automatically march towards the battle and join in. You would then be given control of your army, and the allies control of theirs.

---

I've been really hoping for something like this, and it really would make the game much better, much mroe enjoyable and tactical. ie. have an allied army chase an enemy army, whilst yours waits to ambush their path?!:2thumbsup:

Diplomats IMO would be for long range diplomacy and also bribing enemy formations. The rest of their jobs are divided up between the faction's family and "innate" abilities of factions.

I don't use any agents much due to the cost as well as the hastle.

~:smoking:

The only thing I want out of diplomacy in MTW2 is the idiot factor removed...

MTW1 had a knack of accepting peace deals from superpower byzantium only for 1 province poland (or whoever) breaking treaty by suicidaly attacking byzantium the very next turn!

Waste of time and completely idiotic, plus no penalties for being a backstabbing little girl!

my only thoughts are that if im trying to negotitate the surrender of england as example and i am vastely superior than i cant see how the could refuse
like in RTW i could surround a faction and have four full stacks positioned around their only city and they wouldnt surrender:wall: which means i want limits to how much diplomacy the ai can refuse exspecialy in hopeless situations:shame:

One thing I use agents for all the time, tho this wasn't a issue till the maps were redesigned in RTW, was map information. I thrived on it. Simply seeing all the cities was so nice, I guess I could have just downloaded a map from net but I felt more like times this way. When not every inch of land was explored.

Yes they were very good for bribing. Though this time I'm not sure there needed for alliances as much. I mean honestly if a nation stays my ally I'd much rather the reason be political marriage then a little guy with a hat.


Another thing I liked doing with diplomats, was when I was at war with someone going to all the factions who hated that faction and ask how much they'd give to attack said faction. Like a little private war fund, maybe time time I can get my funds from the pope :).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius maximus

my only thoughts are that if im trying to negotitate the surrender of england as example and i am vastely superior than i cant see how the could refuse
like in RTW i could surround a faction and have four full stacks positioned around their only city and they wouldnt surrender:wall: which means i want limits to how much diplomacy the ai can refuse exspecialy in hopeless situations:shame:

---

Your requirement for the AI's behavior begs the question: Do you want the AI to act with historical realism, or to act something like another human player? If you want the AI to act "realistically", then what you're saying makes sense, a leader might surrender to keep his people (and especially himself) from being slaughtered. But if you turn the tables, would you surrender your last city to a computer-controlled faction's diplomat because the alternative is a hopeless battle? Probably not, I would guess you would tell that diplomat to shove off and you'd prepare for a last stand on the battlefield. Because your goal is to try to win, not to save your people from being slaughtered. The computer factions should behave similarly, as another player trying to win the game at all costs.

- Dan

Maybe it should depend on the AI general stats, whether he is more strict and corageous, or thoughtful of his people. What you say Dan does make sense, but many people want to have a realistic experience from Total War.

I totally agree with Tiberius maximus.

I'm still on other side of this coin. Countless generals did historically fight countless unwinnable battles. Heck look at the fall of Constaninople.Surrounded, outnumbered by quite a few, besieged, starving, and asked constantly to surrender. Not only did they fight there king charged the battlefield (streets of the city). So yes I could see a last ditch hoo ha of attack.


I think though certain factors should be taken into account. Like while English would never surrender or become protectorate to a Muslim faction, they very well may accept terms of negotiable surrender if they keep there land, and have a bigger military brother.

My problem with protectorate is even when I did get one, it never worked, because they never were my protectorate, they never gave me jack :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polemists

My problem with protectorate is even when I did get one, it never worked, because they never were my protectorate, they never gave me jack :inquisitive:

---

Well their lands did count towards your total provinces for the vistory conditions while there remained your protectorate...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denizar

First of all why can't generals sign treaties just like diplomats? It doesn't make sense to me that your general can't negotiate with an enemy general just like a diplomat would...

---

That is a good point too! How many times in MTW/RTW you start a battle outnumbering your enemy just to watch them run?Why not leave them be for healthy amount of cash)I remember in Civ3 hostile army was automaticaly removed from your territory by diplomatic means.In RTW you have to keep an eye on 4or5 hostile units that are taking a walk in your province just to be sure that they won't besiege one of your distant cities with weak garrison.I just hope that CA really improved diplomacy in MTW2,without it working by maxim"Promises are made to be broken"

I'm not a civ fan really, and I'd hate the day MTW became Civ. Still I did like option of something long lines of,

"Your men are in my country leave."


Then you'd have like 2 turns to do so, and if you want someone to walk about you can always give them military access rights and a alliance.

The only good news is this time your a bit safer if your Western Europe because if someone walks in your land and attacks pope will give them a bit to pull out or be excommunicated.

As for the Orthodox ppl, you outta luck :P

I also think that there ought to be only an "estimated" time of when the settlement falls. After all, in some sieges the defenders heroically held out far longer than they were expected to.

Would others be OK with there bieng a more random element to sieges? From the traitors give up much earlier / let the invaders in to hold out for longer / have an impromptu draft of citizens (a few feww units of troops for the duration of the siege).

Overall it would mean that a massive army will take a city, but when things are more finely balanced, events beyond your control might catch you off-foot.

~:smoking: