Dumb Diplomacy: 2nd 'Screw the Player Event' Avoided.

1731 and I just had my 2nd 'Screw the Player' event crop up in my Spanish Campaign, so it looks like you can expect one every 20 years of gameplay during the game. Be interesting to see if the next one is in 1751.

Anyway, this one wasn't quite as 'Dumb' as the first. This time Austria may have declared war on me for no reason whatsoever, but at least Austria and Spain aren't bossom buddies, in fact Spains 'Friend-o-Meter' rating with them is -57 as shown below.

https://img33.imageshack.us/img33/26...iendometer.jpg

However, as you can see most of this -57 is down to the mysterious 'Historical Grievances' factor which as someone pointed out on the TWC forums has no historical logic to it at all. (Apparently, Prussia has 'Historical Grievances' with factions that historically Prussia never even met, let alone had a chance to 'piss-off')

But I digress, there were two big problems resulting from Austria declaring war on me.

a) They are Allied with Britain, which if they had joined in the war would have complicated things for me in the Carribean. Nothing I couldn't handle but nevertheless unecessary hassle.

b) Clicking on the button to acknowledge the declaration caused an immediate crash to desktop. Thus ending my game.

So, whilst I might have gone along with this particular 'screw the player event' it was actually quite important to avoid it if I wanted to carry on playing.

Also despite the fact that Austria is not exactly pals with Spain, declaring war on me was a completely illogical action anyway. As you can see Austria could not possibly gain anything by it.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://img33.imageshack.us/img33/45...headriatic.jpg

It does have a couple of powerful fleets parked in the Adriatic, but it has no armies available to invade Naples and there is no way of getting them there other than by sea as Austria doesn't share any land borders with Spain or any of its colonies.
https://img33.imageshack.us/img33/61...opolitical.jpg
In addition, like France in 1711 it too is overcommitted militarily already with seperate and an ongoing wars against the Ottoman Empire, France and Poland. It's also Weak and its resources are Meagre, whereas Spain is Terrifying and Spectacular. So once again we see a faction being forced to commit military suicide just to screw with the player.

The good news is that just like last time reloading the game at the end of the previous turn and running the end of turn again resulted in the event not being triggerred, so I can get on with the game.

Another finger in face of the 'geek with the god complex' :laugh4:

I am happy for ya :clown:

--
On a different note, in this fashion you can avoid ANY random event, which you for some reason dislike. Making the gameplay, um... a bit dull, if I may say so.

Thanks! As I say in this particular case I might not have bothered but as it was triggering a CTD, it was just as well I discovered the way to aviod it.

Most of the wars are meaningless. In some cases they don’t even try to raid your towns.

Only the very early ones will make you sweat and that is mostly because you don’t know how weak they are.

The only place you can find some excitement is in India and that is hit and miss.

It is just my opinion, but the more aggressive AI with no resources is a joke. Everyone is pathetic and weak.

It was more challenging when they were pushing out their massive armies and even if the player had masses of cash the battles were at least fun.

I see what you mean about these screw the player events. I started a UP campaign this morning and the first thing i did was invade Flanders which put me at war with Spain, France and New Spain. New Spain was absorbed into Spain and ceased to be a faction, i made peace with France after taking French Guyana but forgot that i was at war with Spain still for around 3 years.

For that 3 years me and my neighbours lived in peace and traded, even with France. As i was looking through the diplomacy window i saw that i had forgotten to make peace with Spain, which i promptly did since i had no interest in being at war with them anymore, at least not for a while yet. After accepting peace, i had no enemies. When i ended turn, France broke 3 years of peace and trade to occupy a weavers cottage in Flanders. After a tiny and irrelevant battle, which i won, France made peace, once more putting me at peace with every nation on the map.

The next turn, Westphalia, with whom i had been trading with since the very first turn, declared war on me but took no action. There was no troop movement at all, just a declaration of war. I decided to nip it in the bud and go straight in for Rhineland, since we all know it's a very rich province i saw this as a good opportunity to balance the books, so i took Rhineland after a particularly nasty and chaotic battle in which the enemy outnumbered me 7-4 in infantry and 8-1 in cavalry. The battle turned into a mish mash blob of melee and i came out on top because i had line infantry with ring bayonets and they had militia with no tech.

After taking Westphalia, i once again had no enemies. The next turn, France declared war once more, and accepted peace after the 1 unit they sent to destroy a church in Flanders was destroyed by me.

At this point i decided to test out a theory i have heard here that the AI declares war on you if you are at total peace, which is what seemed to be happening. When i was at war, the war was contained to just me and that faction, when i was at peace, a random neighbour would declare war. So, i declared war on the Plains Nations, whom i will never make contact with, i just needed somebody to declare war on to test the theory.

Sure enough, after 4 or 5 turns of a random faction declaring war on me when i am at peace with everybody, the declarations stopped once i was at war with someone. It's only been 2 years, but so far the theory seems to be correct.

I guess that's the amazing AI. In Rome and M2 the AI plain and simply hated the human player. In this the AI is programmed to declare war on you if you're at peace. Is that amazing? Sounds like crap to me.

It not the AI. AI stands for 'Artificial Intelligance' and implies that the program has an element of logic and reason for its actions. These 'screw the player' events are completely random, they occur for no reason at all, and include a random choice of faction.

If there was an element of AI involved then the 'reload and rerun' workaround would not work, becuase the same logic and reason would prevail and the same response occur.

So, its not the AI doing this, its some geek programmer deliberately screwing up our games with a random DOW routine.

Yes Didz and it's probably been done deliberately to create a level of uncertainty in games so they don't play out the same way.

You're really pushing the conspiracy angle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

Yes Didz and it's probably been done deliberately to create a level of uncertainty in games so they don't play out the same way. You're really pushing the conspiracy angle.

---

I do agree with your point that some level of uncertainty should be included, but it should not be random, and it should not be illogical.

My own preference would be to replace all the pointless 'Mozart has constipation' messages with random events that have a relevance to gameplay and influence the diplomatic situation. Likewise, a change in the Head of State for a faction could bring into power a man with a quite different attitude to your faction, or the future goals of his own. e.g. Napoleon could be born early, or Hitler for that matter.

However, there is a world of difference between that approach which would provide the player with an ongoing challenge and a variety in gameplay, and the illogical fait-accompli 'screw the player' events that current get thrown out by the program.

As for the conspiracy angle, I think I've proven beyond a doubt that these events are not scripted or calculated by the AI. And to quote Data a.k.a Sherlock Holmes 'Once you have eliminated all other options, then what remains must by definition be the truth.'

So a random DOW script is not scripted?

It isn't uncertain though if we know it's coming. I just made peace with the Plains Nations, and sure enough, next turn France declared war, after several years of peace and trade. That isn't adding randomness, it's adding crap.

You're defending something that's clearly crap... how can you say somebody probably did it to add an element of randomness so that all campaigns don't play out the same? That's rubbish. An element of randomness is two AI nations going to war, in one campaign, and dragging so many allies into the war that it becomes a world war, with several nations being wiped out and a few becoming superpowers, and then in the next campaign you play, the two nations that started the world war in the previous campaign staying great allies for 100 years.

That's randomness! A script that forces a random neighbour or close neighbour to declare war on the human player if he is not at war with anybody is just crap, especially when they declare it for no reason, don't make any attempts to attack or block your trade, and accept peace the very next turn without hostilities being exchanged.

Nah, this isn't randomness, it's a disgraceful, pathetic attempt at randomnes, a lazy half arsed piece of script thrown in there to compensate for a lack of anything meaningful and worthwhile in the hopes that nobody would notice.

If it proves to be true and it's certainly seems to be the case with what you have observed Dayve, then it does seem a very rudimentary way of ensuring the player faction is constantly at war in one way or another.

This is quite artificial and there should be a far more sophisticated system in place which is what I think all of us want, but it is a Total War game and being able to complete the game or fulfil campaign objectives completely peacefully would seem to be counter intuitive and best left for other games which promote that type of game play.

Diplomacy in Total War (in my opinion of course) should be an extension of power and it's usage.

And Dayve, can you refrain from labelling my opinion as "rubbish"?

PLEASE?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

So a random DOW script is not scripted?

---

All the evidence suggests not, and I've tested it on at least a half a dozen 'screw the player' events so far.

Every 'Declaration of War' I have had so far has eventually disappeared simply by reloading the quick save taken just prior to the End Of Turn and re-running the end of turn procress. So, the only thing that has changed is the system clock, and yet the DOW doesn't occur again.

If these 'Declarations of War' were scripted, then assuming your definition of a script is the same as mine the same behaviour would occur given that the situation has not changed. But comparison its pretty certain that the 'Mozart is suffering from constipation' Events are scripted, in that they tend to occur in the same sequence and at the same time in every campaign.

I'm also pretty certain that not is the 'Declaration of War' event itself completely random and unscripted but that they choice of factions involved is also random, or at least Random within a list of candidate factions with very limited exclusions. Thus, you can and do get nations who have never met declaring war on each other, and nations who are the best of friends and mutually dependant upon each other declaring war on each other.

In effect these events have nothing to do with the situation in the game, whether diplomatic, military or economic, they are literally random events designed to screw up the players game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

This is quite artificial and there should be a far more sophisticated system in place which is what I think all of us want, but it is a Total War game and being able to complete the game or fulfil campaign objectives completely peacefully would seem to be counter intuitive and best left for other games which promote that type of game play.

---

Yep! We are in complete agreement on this point.

All I am looking for is a tanglible link between the current diplomatic, economic and military situation and the behaviour of the factions. So, that at least I can 'play the game', and not be 'played by it'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

If it proves to be true and it's certainly seems to be the case with what you have observed Dayve, then it does seem a very rudimentary way of ensuring the player faction is constantly at war in one way or another.

This is quite artificial and there should be a far more sophisticated system in place which is what I think all of us want, but it is a Total War game and being able to complete the game or fulfil campaign objectives completely peacefully would seem to be counter intuitive and best left for other games which promote that type of game play.

Diplomacy in Total War (in my opinion of course) should be an extension of power and it's usage.

And Dayve, can you refrain from labelling my opinion as "rubbish"?

PLEASE?!

---

Well... i would if you'd stop defending the most pathetic excuses for AI, they're clearly crap. There are other ways for war to be declared than a pathetic scripted event, and i don't think diplomacy should be just an extension of power. These games aren't called Total War because you're supposed to be at war 24/7, they're called Total War because it's catchy. Some people, me being one of them, enjoy playing politically and without war as much as playing WITH war. I like wars in a 5 year burst every 20 years. The rest, i like peace and consolidation, revolution and diplomacy. I like funding wars rather than fighting them most of the time.

I don't always feel like fighting a battle every single turn in the game, and i should be able to achieve that, at least some of the time. As it is, i can't. I can't have any peace. Peace is more important than war, In reality, nations back then were involved in a major war for maybe 15-20% of a century, AT WORST! Not 100% of it.

Well speaking as someone who took great pride in being one of the few players to win Shogun Totalwar without declaring war on anyone, I would argue that 'The Player' should be given the choice of how he wants to play the game, and that the game should be designed to allow him to make that choice, not railroad him into 400 turns of meaningless conflict.

ETW is supposed to be a strategy game, that in itself implies that the player should be able to use some level of strategy in order to prevail.

@ Dayve: So you'll stop stating my opinion is "rubbish" if I stop saying that CA have done a reasonable job on the AI and have room to improve? i.e. defending that point?

In addition you just stated that the Total War series is named "Total War" because it's catchy, rather than the concept that the games will be about war and perhaps "a lot of war'?

Let me ask you another question.

What would it take for you to agree that there are other points of view in this game that are as valid as yours?


@Didz:

What I meant by script is a piece of code, not a preset time for a DOW to occur. Meaning, there is a script running that periodically selects a random time, for a random faction to declare war on the player faction.

This of course would have absolutely nothing to do with any aspect of the game and what is happening in it. This does seem to be what has been observed by yourself and Dayve.

I'd say we agree on this.

The difference is, your stance on this is that it screws up the game, while my stance is that it seems to be a piece of code designed to ensure the player faction is not left "alone" for too long. That seems somewhat acceptable as Empire: Total Peace is not the solution.

Having said that, I just want to say what I said before. IF, this is the case, then it does seem a little pathetic after so many years of AI programming by CA. I expect a fully immersive interactive, AND slightly random, AI diplomacy system by now. I certainly see you point in terms of feeling "played" rather than "playing" the game.

I had an identical experience with the Dutch, except that I never made peace with the Spanish. After I took Westphalia, I made all my new neighbors my protectorates. So far, in all the games I've played, only once has one of my protectorates declared war on me. F*cking Mysore in southern India, while I was the Dutch and held whatever region is shaped like a J at the southern tip of India.

I have also had the experience of the game seemingly needed me to be at war with someone. I too think that's silly. The point of war is to hopefully achieve a peace that's more beneficial to you than the peace you had before you were at went to war. World domination is not a viable goal, evidenced by Rome and Great Britain. Perpetual war is also silly since it a never-ending war is an extremely inefficient use of resources. Therefore, peace (albiet one advantageous to you) is the logical goal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

What I meant by script is a piece of code, not a preset time for a DOW to occur. Meaning, there is a script running that periodically selects a random time, for a random faction to declare war on the player faction.

---

Oh! well I don't think anyone has suggested that the DOW event is not caused by a piece of code. ETW is a computer program after all.

No, in the context of this discussion I am using the term script/scripted to define an predetermined event or sequence of events which will occur based upon a set of predetermined conditions. e.g. 'It's 1776 so the American Revolution will Start', or 'The King of Austria has died, France has declared war on Austria and a French Privateer has just attacked an British East Indiamen in the Channel.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

The difference is, your stance on this is that it screws up the game, while my stance is that it seems to be a piece of code designed to ensure the player faction is not left "alone" for too long. That seems somewhat acceptable as Empire: Total Peace is not the solution.

---

Yes! My opinion is that this is a game breaker.

Empire Totalwar is a Strategy Game, not a shoot'em'up. By implication as a strategy game it should present the player with a celebral challenge not a click-fest challenge. Therefore, throwing random mobs at the player just to screw up his chances of winning is not acceptable, just as the random barrage ballons in the Dambuster Simulation game was not acceptable in the flight simulation programme.

In my opinion its lazy system design, especially as its clear that someone actually did put some effort into trying to produce a decent diplomacy system. Basically, it looks to me as though someone at CA with a time constraint or lack of interest overruled the design team and told them to stop wasting time trying to produce a decent diplomacy system and just throw in a Random DOW generator.

Basically, any idiot could do that in five minutes, but what it has left us with is a broken diplomacy system (or at best one thats unfinished) and a game that can't be played as a strategy game becuase it doesn't respond logically to the players actions and doesn't present the player with any viable strategic options, other than blitz everything that moves.

As you say, this is all rather pathetic. After so many years in the business one would have expected better from CA. The only good news is that there is a work around.

The sad news is of course that because all DOW's are random, not only do stupid ones occur, such as Poland declaring war on New Spain. But the reverse is equally true, and situations which truly do warrant an AI faction going to war actually get ignored.

Quote:

---

Lol! I quite literally just finished typing the above when I actually had a DOW that made a lot of sense. In fact, if I didn't already know that they were completely random I would have been quite impressed. The situation was that my army in America under General McDowell having captured Georgia from the Cherokee had noticed that the reason Georgia had been unguarded was that the Cherokee had just captured Florida off the Spanish. Considering this to be an opportunity too good to miss McDowell had marched south and seized Florida destroying what he thought was the main Cherokee force defending it. I was feeling quited pleased with myself until a large Cherokee force appeared in Carolina and overan the colonials trashing the entire colony before marching north and repeating the dirty deed in Virginia. (For some reason the Colonials have been investing heavily in a Navy instead of defending their homes.)

Anyway, McDowell force marches North, recaptures Carolina and heads off on the road to Williamsburg, Virginia. So, I'm thinking...hey this is not so bad I'm gaining extra provinces here without having to complete the 13 Colonies mission, perhaps I should let the indian's trash the other colonial states.

End Turn: Random DOW - France declares war on the Thirteen Colonies are you prepared to defend your Ally? (Spain is an Ally of France) Doh!

Now! as I say that would have been clever, if I didn't know already that it was pure chance. France has decided to invade Maine from the North and grab itself some extra land whilst the colonies are in a state of disarray and I'm up to my ears in Indian's. Add to that the fact that France and Spain together have a decent sized navy and I could be in trouble.

Unfortunately, things didn't quite go Frances way. Again if I thought there was any logic behind the event I would have said that France had misread the diplomatic situation. The first thing that went wrong for them was that Spain declined to join the war, leaving them all alone to face Britain and its navy. The second thing that went wrong was that the Colonists declared their independance the United States emerges early and Frances Army was teleported back to Canada. At the same time all the Indian's were sent back to back to their reservations. So, instead of an elegant 'coupe de main', France is now right back where it started with its arse hanging out of its pants.

But it was a nice try, shame it wasn't the result of some clever programming by CA.

---

I play Prussia and I realized that Poland and Sweden seem to declare war to me at random.
The strange thing is that they often do not attack immediately, maybe just block a port or do nothing at all. When I offer them peace (and nothing else but maybe a trade-agreement) the next round, they always accept! :thumbsdown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayve

I don't always feel like fighting a battle every single turn in the game.

---

More importantly, it's a pretty boring game when you've won by 1705 after weathering the initial deluge of incompetent belligerence.

@ Didz. Liked your last post.

I completely understand your position.

Funny example you gave of what seems to be semi intelligent play by France, which, if the end result had not been so bad, would have been quite a move by the French AI. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ordani

More importantly, it's a pretty boring game when you've won by 1705 after weathering the initial deluge of incompetent belligerence.

---

Sometimes it's hard not to though. I mean, sometimes an AI faction declares war on you and won't accept peace, and all they do every turn is raid your towns with units of militia or militia cavalry, and after 4 or 5 turns you just think SCREW IT and come down on them like a ton of bricks and spank them so hard that they'll never recover because you've taken half their land and gifted it to an ally to create a buffer between their annoying asses and you, and you've unbalanced the balance of power without wanting to, and i work hard to balance things out, i watched Prussia spend the first 5 years of this campaign steamrolling east and west, so i gifted Russia and Poland with all the bayonet tech and things began to balance out.

One thing I've done in the past is post militia units in my outlying settlements. I find sometimes the fact that they have to attack something disuades them from raiding. When playing the Dutch I even went all out and invested in a full border defence of Vauban fortifications, just in case the French decided to get ambitious.

The original diplomacy was better. Allies stuck with you, your relationship mattered, and the only oddball DoWs were from the North American Tribes.

When they went to war you knew that you were in for it because they had strong armies.

Now they are all feeble and destitute. They may be on friendly terms and have nothing to gain by going to war except becoming more feeble and more destitute, or just plain dead.

People wanted it more aggressive but less powerful…well it was a big mistake. They went too far with everything.

It is just my opinion but I think the game started off pretty good. It had issues but the game seemed good. There was a bit too much cash when you really got up and running but the AI made you sweat to start off. Also if you had agreements they usually stuck with them. If they went to war you might see a motive behind it. Now it is just random madness. The biggest detractor is that when they go to war they lack the means to put up a credible defense, let-alone any attack more than just a few raids.

I agree. In the last patch, diplomacy was much better. Still crap overall, but much better than what we have now. That goes for the whole game. In fact, the only problem the game had before this latest patch was that everybody had way too much money. We've gone from one extreme to the other, now nobody has any money at all.

The human player has a hard time financially at the start, but if you can survive the first 10 years and make some half-decent decisions economy wise, you can give your economy a good kickstart, you can even put yourself in a situation where you have too much money and the game becomes boring, but i don't do that because, well, the game becomes boring.

The problem is that the AI just can't get their own economy going. This is less true for purely land based people like Russia, Prussia, Poland and Austria, who make money because they expand all the time and have more provinces to tax, but even they begin to royally struggle toward mid-game, and they slow down completely. For sea and trade based factions like Britain, France, Spain and UP, the game is over right from the start, because they simply don't understand how to use their empires for profit, and the tax is so low due to low populations in colonies that they are bankrupt right from the second turn, unless the human plays them.

The AI seems to over tax and stifle growth. When you take a region it is under developed and towns are usually ready to pop up as soon as you exempt taxes. That or there are undeveloped towns just sitting because there is no money for development.

I liked the strong armies of the AI factions in the original game. Some factions might have been a bit over powered but overall it was not all that bad.

As the game stands now everyone it too weak and most proposed and undocumented changes just make them weaker.

The unit densities could be 25% to 50% greater. Fleets are extremely expensive to build and maintain.

The human player will find a way to adapt but the AI is not able to. The strengths of units also need to be looked at as how they read on the strength bar.

I had a battle that read out as 50/50 on the bar with the AI. I had 8 light dragoons, 2 howitzers, 3 line infantry, 2 grenadiers, and a rifleman. The enemy was one household cavalry. Now tell me how that was an equal battle?

I suppose it may be when they nerf the artillery so it can’t hit anything or if it does it has little effect, but still…

I think that CA misunderstood the request for more aggression. I wanted some more aggression on the diplomatic front but more aggression once the faction had declared war. Hostile factions were way too impassive once they declared war. A full stack doing nothing for ten, twenty turns is not what you expect from a warring faction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monsieur Alphonse

I think that CA misunderstood the request for more aggression. I wanted some more aggression on the diplomatic front but more aggression once the faction had declared war. Hostile factions were way too impassive once they declared war. A full stack doing nothing for ten, twenty turns is not what you expect from a warring faction.

---

Well they made it aggressive diplomatically but not militarily.

That is the reverse of what was needed.

In part the AI taxing policies my be the cause. They need a full stack to keep it quite and can not go moving out.

We need military aggression and not diplomatic aggression.

Well to be strictly correct we need military aggression to be an extension of diplomatic policy.

Thus, no military action should be taken unless it is a diplomatic necessity, and if it is then it should be focussed on resolving the diplomatic issue that triggerred it. What we are getting now is a random declaration of a war and that has no goals, because it has nothing to do with the diplomatic situation. So the military has no objectives to acheive and either does nothing or wanders about aimlessly trying to find something useful it can do.

If an AI faction can't actually achieve anything by going to war, then basically it should not declare war, or if its already in one it should be desperately trying to negotiate a peace. What we have at the minute is just a farce.

I find some nations are more agressive than others. In my current UP game, France declares war every turn but never makes any hostilities whatsoever, and then accepts peace the very next turn. Even if i don't ask for peace, which they always accept, they don't do anything with their armies, which sit in and around Paris doing nothing. Westphalia was the same. Declared war with a stack of 8 units of cavalry and 7 units of infantry to their name, then sat in Rhineland and waited for me to conquer them.

Mysore in India, however, declared war on me when i took Goa from the rebels that popped up after Portugal was wiped out, and on the very same turn they hit Goa with a full stack to my 6 units and took it from me. After that they used their meager navy to wipe out my even meagerer navy in India, but never attempted any blockades. They took the southern tip of the continent from the Marathas, and i seized an opportunity to take it from them when they left it undefended. However, while i was holed up within the city walls, unable to leave their safety because i was so few in numbers and bankrupt, they used what forces they had to keep absolutely every single town, farm, plantation, gem mine and port in that region destroyed.

It was looking like i would lose it at this time, but then it fell apart for them. I brought my army over from America, where i had finished carving out my desired empire there consisting of the pirate and French islands, and pushed them back to Mysore and repaired all the buildings. I then took Mysore from them and left them with only the tiny region of Goa. Now, they sit in Goa with 3 full stack armies and do nothing, and absolutely refuse peace with me.

That's a hell of a lot better than what France did, which was declare war and sit doing nothing until i ask for peace.

@ Didz

I tried this in the RTI as they enter the grand campaign. Well the events are different in each campaign but the method doesn’t work there. It seems to be more set in stone there that in the campaign UP will declare war on France or England is going to war with you. It is still random but it must be done at the beginning of the campaign because it becomes scripted.

The DoWs are just as dumb but there is nothing you can do about it.
_________________________________________________________

As to the over all diplomacy, I think it is very, very poor as it is done now.

Surprises are one thing but this is not a surprise. It is just annoying and sometimes a game breaker. Surprises with a few factions with unpredictable rulers are okay, but all are unreasonable all the time and frankly. they are too weak to bother fighting! That is something else that needs fixed!

Most players don’t like to be at war with everyone all of the time!

Most players like to have diplomatic interplay that is meaningful!

Granted that some enjoy all the aggression and belligerency but I think you will find they are a minority.

As the game is now, the friend-o-meter is no longer a tool. Most of the interesting features are just turned off and we are left with the crap from M2TW etc. This is a different game in a different time. If you want that go play the other game. Don’t remake this one into what the others were with muskets.

Use the features and subtleties that were put into the game to start with and don’t turn them off!

Much of what was promised in the game is missing. Some of it is a result of it simply not being used because of the more aggressive posture of the AI.

If some players want to be at war with everyone around them, they are free to declare war. But the AI doing it when it is weak and feeble is only a death wish and since they have no troops to even mount meaningful raids, quite pointless.

Well as I've said repeatedly. As a strategy game ETW (and all TW titles) ought to adhere to the maxim 'First secure the victory and then go to war'. In other words, victory should be secured via the Diplomacy System, by careful negotiation of treaties, alliances and trade deals etc., and only when a faction has the upper hand, a clear motive and certainty of victory should a faction go to war.

As things stand we have the opposite scenario 'Go to war and then seek a victory.' and so you see the ridiculous scenario's of 'feeble/destitute' nations going to war with 'Terrifying/Spectacular' ones without any allies and sometimes already at war with half the world, and of course the equally stupid 'Poland declares war on New Spain' type scenario's where Poland has no means whatsoever of coming into contact with their enemy let alone victory.

The failure of the diplomacy system really discredits the entire game in my opinion. It comes across as nothing more than a 'shoot-em up' pretending to be a strategy game.

When your neighbours declare war on you there should be some sense or logic behind it.

*They dislike you and decide to spank you. (High negative reputation).
*Their allies are at war with you and could move in to help them.
*You make a bad diplomatic proposal.
*They see an oppturinty to grab weakly defended area(s) from you.

And they should have the armies/navies available to do so as well.
If factions just randomly declare war, what is the point with Diplomacy system really.
My favourite dream come true, would be if another company or companies decided to make Total War style games. CA lacks real competition.

I never played M2TW for more than 8 hours total (not counting Broken Crescent). I absolutely hated how the AI was programmed to attack you no matter what. Kingdoms was the first TW product I did not buy (in addition to Alexander). The demo of ETW made me preorder though and I havent regretted it.

Note: I don't play as much ETW as I used too, due to the latest patch changes. But ETW is among the best TW games I've played and they have added a lot new concepts and game mechanics and improved many areas from earlier TW games. Thought I'd mention that, so no one will call me anti-ETWer or something.

I've totally given up on ETW. As it stands now it was a colossal waste of money to buy the game at all. In effect, the complainers got their way, exactly as I had feared. They wanted more aggression, and they sure got it. It's not smart, it's not reasonable, it's not historically accurate or even politically productive, but now we can all be sure that the AI will declare war on anything that's even remotely alive. Great job guys, the game is a whole lot better now!

Of course I'm only being partly sarcastic, over on total war center, lots of people seem to be pleased with the changes; bringing up the fact (ad nauseum) that this game isn't Total Diplomacy or Total Balance of Power. So be it, that's obviously all well and good for some, but I was hoping for a more complex and refined gaming experience for ETW, instead we seem to have taken a big step back. I think now more than ever it was a mistake to choose the 18th century as a backdrop for a Total War title. The only way to make the game acceptable or interesting to many is to obliterate the historical underpinnings and simply make the whole affair a free for all. A situation that has no connection, whatsoever, with the political and diplomatic wranglings that characterized conflicts of the era like the War of the Austrian succession.

At any rate I suspect there is little reason to anticipate improvement in this situation in the near future, so I'm just sitting things out and waiting to see where the patches go. Perhaps if the modding tools ever come out, that will make things more tolerable. It's a big disappointment for me, but least I can fall back on EU3: In Nomine, it's not an exact substitute, but it's not bad at all.

So is this the old share border declare war diplomacy from M2TW - the same 'feature' that made M2TW the most boring and unchallenging game in the TW series?

Thats really sad

and you whats even sadder, we cant choose not to apply the patch :bigcry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didz

1731 and I just had my 2nd 'Screw the Player' event crop up in my Spanish Campaign, so it looks like you can expect one every 20 years of gameplay during the game. Be interesting to see if the next one is in 1751.

Anyway, this one wasn't quite as 'Dumb' as the first. This time Austria may have declared war on me for no reason whatsoever, but at least Austria and Spain aren't bossom buddies, in fact Spains 'Friend-o-Meter' rating with them is -57 as shown below.

https://img33.imageshack.us/img33/26...iendometer.jpg

However, as you can see most of this -57 is down to the mysterious 'Historical Grievances' factor which as someone pointed out on the TWC forums has no historical logic to it at all. (Apparently, Prussia has 'Historical Grievances' with factions that historically Prussia never even met, let alone had a chance to 'piss-off')

But I digress, there were two big problems resulting from Austria declaring war on me.

a) They are Allied with Britain, which if they had joined in the war would have complicated things for me in the Carribean. Nothing I couldn't handle but nevertheless unecessary hassle.

b) Clicking on the button to acknowledge the declaration caused an immediate crash to desktop. Thus ending my game.

So, whilst I might have gone along with this particular 'screw the player event' it was actually quite important to avoid it if I wanted to carry on playing.

Also despite the fact that Austria is not exactly pals with Spain, declaring war on me was a completely illogical action anyway. As you can see Austria could not possibly gain anything by it.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://img33.imageshack.us/img33/45...headriatic.jpg

It does have a couple of powerful fleets parked in the Adriatic, but it has no armies available to invade Naples and there is no way of getting them there other than by sea as Austria doesn't share any land borders with Spain or any of its colonies.
https://img33.imageshack.us/img33/61...opolitical.jpg
In addition, like France in 1711 it too is overcommitted militarily already with seperate and an ongoing wars against the Ottoman Empire, France and Poland. It's also Weak and its resources are Meagre, whereas Spain is Terrifying and Spectacular. So once again we see a faction being forced to commit military suicide just to screw with the player.

The good news is that just like last time reloading the game at the end of the previous turn and running the end of turn again resulted in the event not being triggerred, so I can get on with the game.

Another finger in face of the 'geek with the god complex' :laugh4:

---

So I went searching for 1751 because Ive got a CTD in prussian Campaign at 1751 everytime it comes to spains turn

If this is some stupid event that they've BALLSED UP - :furious3: and now my campaign crashes at 1751 :furious3:

Im sorry the units only get me so far a game needs to include some gameplay

so what now... start another campaign that may also crash at a certain year

I played Galactic civs2 all weekend and had great fun like a book I couldnt put down

havent felt that way about a Total war since RTW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Yunson

So I went searching for 1751 because Ive got a CTD in prussian Campaign at 1751 everytime it comes to spains turn

---

This a CTD during the End Turn process, when it reaches Spain?

If so it can only really be an event triggerred CTD. I assume you've reloaded and re-run the End Turn a few times without success.

Have you tried going back a few turns?

Oh! also can I ask if New Spain still exists, I had CTD's when I played Spain that were caused by completion of the New Spain Mission.

just referring to aussie giants it being titled total war, post much earlier on, I don't know if he is still of the same opinion, but if he is, why do they bother with a campaign map if its just going to be 100% war all the time? :dizzy2:

Curious. The latest patch seems to have turned Austria into the Milan of ETW, AKA: A rabid monkey ODing on viagra.

They, more than any other faction now (disregarding the old 'scripted' ones, such as Georgia and Dageistan), seem to enter 'berserker' mode. In my Russian campaign, Austria's second DoW saw them reduced to Silesia. I offered the return of the entire Austrian empire and 10,000 gold for peace and was rejected. Apparently the Austrian diplomat thought that the only thing saving me from a horse whipping was diplomatic niceties, rather than the bayonets pointed at him.

EDIT:

Furthermore, in two seperate campaigns, Austria has somehow managed to gain 'Hostile' relations with all of Europe and most of those outside of it.
Seriously. Click on Austria and the ENTIRE MAP turns bright red.

I had the same problem with russia, click on the map and its entirely red.

Another example of stupid behaviour, okay, I'm Prussia, border spain in the americas, have trade with them and very friendly. They are allied to france who declared war on me. I asked them to help and they broke the alliance so I wasn't too happy about that. But anyway, I decide I want Gibraltar. I offer Spain a LARGE amount of money and technologies for it and they accept. I realised I didn't have an army to move in and defend it anyway I send a ship to stop the british from morocco crossing the land border to take it. Spain is very happy and we have never had any historical grievances. Spain likes me more than France (dislikes france actually even though theyre allies) +71 in the friendship panel.

Note Gibraltar is now the only province that i border spain with in europe, I have bordered spain for a few turns in the america's aswell with no problems.

okay so the very turn I've bought Gibraltar from the spanish legit, hit end turn, Spain Declares war and takes Gibraltar back. Spain has now lost the lucrative trade with me that was worth around 4000 gold a turn, invoked the most powerful nation in the worlds wrath, and doesn't seem interested in attacking anything else, so now they have made themselves look about as reliable as something very unreliable.

Now you could say that I was a sucker and they were waiting for me to do that, but A: how would they have known and B: I realise they were allies with france but I get a feeling thats more a coincidence than a contributing factor to declaring war on me. I get the feeling it was just sharing a european border with them that did it.

Seeing as 'total war' IS part of the game title, it makes sense to me that you should always be at war with at least a few nations. Now having the nations do something about it would be nice. It would be great if enemy nations were constantly trying to invade you, because that way it lives up to the game's title and having the whole campaign worried about losing and such would be a serious challenge. As it is right now, you are at war with many nations but they don't bother attacking you.

I've had some luck so far; enemy navies seem rather active now and enjoy chasing my fleets around the atlantic when I'm at a slight disadvantage(I'm a terrible admiral)

EDIT:
I've seen a few posts arguing about this 'total war in the title' thing, so:

Main Entry: total war
Part of Speech: n
Definition: a war in which every available weapon is used and the nation's full financial resources are devoted

which means the game is centered around war, and nations need to go and fight with all their resources. Come on CA, you've got the first half finished!

well if its going to be always about total war and not some sort of strategy, then i guess I'm going back to civ 4 and gal civ... cause ain't no point in there being a strategy map if there's no strategy. I have to say I am getting very weary of this "well the title is total war so it must be total war!" excuse, I know what the game is called, the box sits on my shelf.

If it is TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL WAR!

why is there a diplomacy button?

why can you if your lucky sometimes declare peace with another nation?

why not just give the player a set amount of money each turn and see how he does with the whole world set against him?

why are there quotes about peace in the loading screen?

I don't buy that theyve done this just because its total war, and if it is and theyre gonna continue this into their next games, well I won't be gettin those. The idea I thought was that the player could make a choice as to how he carves out his empire in a period of conflict, that doesn't mean as soon as you've beaten a nation into vassalship that another one has to declare war on you instantly without being prepared or depending on its strength compared to yours, right now the game is a cakewalk and having pathetic nations declaring war on terrifyingly superior ones, without a bunch of them being allied against you makes no sense. I'm sorry but not everyone shares your wish to be constantly at war for no apparent reason in a game that defines itself as a strategy game. In civ 4, if an AI can beat you up it will, right now AI's can't really manage their economies as well as a players to even attempt it.

EDIT: by the way it says Total war, not CONSTANT war.

and if any CA representative is reading, please please please tell us whether this is intentional behaviour or not so it can be clarified once and for all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peacemaker

Seeing as 'total war' IS part of the game title, it makes sense to me that you should always be at war with at least a few nations. Now having the nations do something about it would be nice. It would be great if enemy nations were constantly trying to invade you, because that way it lives up to the game's title and having the whole campaign worried about losing and such would be a serious challenge. As it is right now, you are at war with many nations but they don't bother attacking you.

I've had some luck so far; enemy navies seem rather active now and enjoy chasing my fleets around the atlantic when I'm at a slight disadvantage(I'm a terrible admiral)

EDIT:
I've seen a few posts arguing about this 'total war in the title' thing, so:

Main Entry: total war
Part of Speech: n
Definition: a war in which every available weapon is used and the nation's full financial resources are devoted

which means the game is centered around war, and nations need to go and fight with all their resources. Come on CA, you've got the first half finished!

---

Great, now they just need to eliminate research, get rid of the diplomacy option and stop buggering around with trade. After all, states should be devoting %100 of their resources to war, right?

Well in fact there is no need to bother with the campaign map at all just stick a city in each country of the battlefield and lets duke it out Command and Conquer style. Might as well if thats all the game is about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didz

Well in fact there is no need to bother with the campaign map at all just stick a city in each country of the battlefield and lets duke it out Command and Conquer style. Might as well if thats all the game is about.

---

Why even bother with that? Let's just have a program that takes the stats and number of units and crunches the numbers to determine victory.