Printable View
Abolish 2/4 - War, Death, Famine, PestilenceQuote:
Originally Posted by peri
In the "world map", one turn equals about a month. In "negotiations", one hour equals about a day of negotiating (so expect most summits to take an afternoon).Quote:
Originally Posted by peri
Nah. That would be the goals you'd tell your citizens... but really the victory conditions need to be more realistic. Stuff like use using your diplomatic genius to trick the North Koreans into abandoning thier nuclear weapons program in favour of a space program that would lead to them relocating enmasse to mars, or even better, alpha centuri.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZachPruckowski
And for bonus points; blocking every proposal made by the French.
You could even use subterfuge and agents like maybe stalling UN meetings to buy time for your devious schemes by switching around all the nameplates in the UN meeting room causing chaos and much "harumphing".
tsk tsk poor SlippyBee:no:
United Nations and Total war dont even belong in the same sentence...
@ NONOPUST - I'll consider myself Tsk'ed.
@ Scraptower - See the "Irony Alert" Post
Yes, it is. Let's be simple. Share a border = ennemies to death. Doesn't share a border = want my kings head on a silver plater ? May sound like a feature to you, but it sounds like a bug to me. It can be exploited in many ways to get ceasefires and money : for example holding Antioche isn't worth it, just give it to the pope, get ceasefire with the neighbours (a few thousands florins very quickly made and of course top relations with the pope even if you fooled him) and get it the next turn when the city revolt. Do it again and again. Even better, someone hold Cyprus or Rhodes ? Not only you can take it but they will pay you for a ceasefire next turn since an island doesn't share border (makes Cyprus 10 times more valuable than Acre or Antioche). Still think its a feature ? well ever wondered what happens to a faction lonely on his island ? well, nothing : they sit there forever, not going to crusade or declaring war to anyone, try it : No borders, no wars.Quote:
The diplomacy system is not bugged. The diplomacy system works as designed (as I understand). The fact that the system doesn't work to your liking or my liking doesn't mean it doesn't work.
So, no, sorry but I don't believe there are "objectives behind the game" that nobody saw until today. There's just an agressive AI, relationships constantly decaying based on difficulty level and a 100x border-war-factor you can work around to exploit.
(Camera pans down to floor, Speaker for random nation stands up)
"Gentlemen, ladies and honored represenatives, delegates...."Ad naseum for about ten minutes. "I Propose that we set forth the 1000th sanction on Far Away land because they are making Bombs!!!"
(Cut Scene) Five days of harumphing and arguing resolving nothing. Ends with the proposing nation paying bribe to delegates of the security council, and getting an uneforceable and useless resolution passed.
BUT five thousand diplomacy points to proposing nation!:eyebrows:
a bug would suggest it's not working as the designer specified. I think it is working as speciified. The fact that you and I may not like what the game does does not mean it's bugged.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo
Again, I'm not here to defend the designers. I appreciate the Diplomacy system is an unsatisfactory element of the game for many people (including me).
I suppose I was trying (in a bit of a heavy handed way) to highlight that ;
a) Diplomacy and the objecives of the game are entirely at odds. The AI isn't coded to make what you and I might consider rationale decisions because the AIs objectives and motivations are not ones we would consider rational (ie survival and prosperity) but conquest and the AI factions collectively try and stop the human player.
b) Diplomacy is a facet of the game that will always split opinion. Many players want to conquer the whole map. Many others want more of a role playing experience. Many plaers want to be able to turn on the AI whenever they chose but don't seem to want the AI to be able to do the same thing. My point was that the game appears (unfortunately) to be all about conquering the map and not about simulating Medieval politics (whereas I hear there's a really popular UN Total War game in development that may be just the ticket for you).
c) If the AI didnt play aggressively on the campaign map - how long would it last against a capable human player. Thinking the Devs can give you AI which acts like a human being and makes rational decisions based upon immensely complex scenarios (many of which you and I can't see because the FOW stops us from seeing other factions at work) is unrealistic and going to lead to a deal of disapointment.
Lastly, and this is not a criticism of you directly, but if anybody finds an exploit and it upsets them that the exploit exists, may I humbly suggest you don't use the exploit any longer.
Enjoy the game - there's very little that compares to it IMHO
You don't design a game with intended flaws in it. If it's exploitable, breaks AI behiavour or prevents it to act rationnaly, it's a bug. What's the difference between AI not attacking on a siege and AI not moving anymore because it doesn't have any border-motive anymore ? What's the difference between battle AI making suicidal charges with general unit and campaign AI making suicide by refusing half another player's kingdom instead of being destroyed next turn ?
Relationships decay and agressive behaviour only makes things worse. I've had factions at war with me without ever attacking me : Portugal, in both my campaigns, on H and VH, never attacked me after declaring war by blocking one of my port (just couldn't bribe all of my neighbours) ... make Pampelune revolt and Bingo ! not only they accept a long waited ceasefire but also give thousands happily.