Diplomacy is entirely broken (The other side of the coin)

Let me paint a picture with all this AI diplomacy hammering going on:

"In all these examples, pretend if you will, or can, that the tables are turned. Just for a moment."

You the player, suddenly find yourself playing this small single province nation, or vastly reduced nation that has gotten the pants slapped out of it by a large, very well run, vastly superior Empire that is expanding across the globe at a rapid and terrifying rate. Clearly all it has in mind is total and complete world domination. You know it, your fellow kings, queens and Prime Ministers know it, and so does the ruler of this terrifying nation.

What do you do as this faction you suddenly find yourself playing?

a) Sue for peace, knowing that at any moment you can be crushed and that essentially you exist at the pleasure of some despot sitting on his throne, or in Parliament somewhere? Why do you know this? Because most of the time you share a boarder with this nation. You know the composition of its armed forces, economic power and demenour...it's not rocket science.

Your lot in life, to live a meek and completely irrelevant existence.

b) Sue for protectorate status, join this mighty empire, become it's lap dog, feed off its teat and enjoy the benefits of being part of the global domination, albeit limited as ou hand all your wealth across yearly to the rich greedy nation. Your lot in history is to forever be at the mercy of it's rulers.

c) Stick up two fingers, tell them to go to hell and go down fighting with all guns blazing. Forever refusing to capitulate roll over and die.

d) Stick up two fingers at this might Empire, build up the biggest army you can and sit, in defiance for the rest of time in your nations capital. Both you and this terrifying nation know full well that your goal is to ensure that IF this nation decides to attack, you will ensure that you take down as many of them as possible. Why do you do this? Because you don't have the capacity to raise enough troop to go on the offensive. You can't protect your homeland and attack.

Keep in mind I'm only talking about the AI diplomacy.

WHICH one would you choose?

I'm sick and tired of the eternal bashing going on. There seems to be a ground swell of thought pervading this board that things are really, really, really bad.

So I ask again, swap positions, just for a second, and see if ANY of the behaviour you are seeing would be something YOU would do as the player if you were playing that nation?

It doesn't explain all of it, but it certainly removes a lot of the complaints I'm seeing.

Well, you started the war.

I have a solution to this which I will detail in my own thread because I'd prefer that idea to be kept seperate from this, anyway

A) The AI never does this anyway.

B) becoming a protectorate is meant to be a little more than that, yes it does mean that you cede your national supreme soverignty, but it also means that the more powerful nation recognises your people and that you deserve to live as a separate entity and mostly rule yourselves and by the way, its not all their income, its half after what they have spent, so its not that bad. But I've never seen the AI do this anway unless you were never at war with them to begin with and I asked them to join in return for large sums of moneys and techs.

C) AI always does this anyway.

D)um, the AI does use its large garrisons to leave its region capitals defenseless to attack you, and its a very silly thing to do.

I'm also sick and tired of the pretending that there is nothing wrong :P

I would probably choose b.

But lets keep in mind aussie giant, its not the one region nations defending themselves to the bitter end that is the problem.. its the one region nations STARTING wars with much much bigger ones, instead of asking for protectionate status from other threats on their borders. Now if these tiny nations allied with other larger nations before starting an offensive on you, that would impress me and make me think twice, but no. Its the Black Knight AI thats the problem.

On larger nations being reduced and wanting their territory back and not signing a peace treaty, Well that kind of makes sense but then again these larger nations should be signing a peace treaty, rebuilding their forces and making attacks that do not fail to take back their territory, that means 1-2 stacks, I suppose the problem that most people have is that a nation thinks it is opportune to attack someone that they have had good relations with, have traded with for a very long time or even been allies for a short time, throwing all this good relations out of the window to raid your territory for no real reason, and then when you take a territory to prove a point, they accept, next turn declare war again send another 2 unit army to raid that territory, you get fed up with their stupid behaviour and take some more, and it gets to the point where they won't accept peace because you've taken too many territories to prove you are better than they are and they don't realise the point.

Civ 4 AI will sue for peace to rebuild its army and launch a suprise attack (if you weren't watching carefully and let your army go) so why can't Empires?

I NEVER had to break alliances and attack my protectorates to expand, other nations kept declaring war on me instead..

If you are the small nation and at peace, why would you declare war on this monstrum empire in the first place (which is waht the AI is doing)?
Why would you want to be the first empire to go down? Like raising your hand to be the first executed when you are currently trading and friendly with the overlord empire?

That is the problem the AI has. It should stay peaceful and go bother someone their own size if they can't realistically defeat you. Sure, you the human might leave a region undefened next to puny empire X, but is it really in their interest to take that undefended region with their puny army or would they do well to ignore that fact and stay in your good graces?

You tell me.

or team up with someone their own size and team up again until they have an alliance strong enough to defeat you ^^

You're at peace, living next door to a massive and ever expanding nation. You get on well with them and all is fine.

But lets not kid yourself.

If and when it's time your number is up, you know it, the massive nation next to you know's it.

Clearly CA have programmed the AI to attack you as soon as you have a border, because, like sands through the hour glass, there's a pretty good chance that the juggernaut player nation is about to begin systematically taking you to the cleaners.

It might seem artifical, but, you as a smaller nation, who now finds itself bordering this super nation realise the situation has suddenly changed.

While previously you enjoyed a happy, warm fuzzy profitable relationship, that's all about to change.

Why?

Because of the very reason your situation changed.

Prior, you had no border, now you do.

How did this happen?

Well, the human controlled nation just took out and/or destroyed your neighbour/province. The very action that caused the change is the reason everything has just changed and the very reason why....YOU ARE NEXT.

And while you as the Player with the huge army and massive nation can sit there and say;

"We wont attack you, we still want to be at peace and trade."

That's only conveinient from your position. If you are playing the smaller nation, then you've got to be saying;

"Sure, riiight, what ever you say. That's only valid until such time as you want to pillage me."

All I'm saying is that if there were actually small nation controlled by players, you'd probably get your shots in and go down while you had suprise than wait for the inevitable end.

Considering that at peace + trade gives a lot more income for both factions involved, I would disgaree with your point. Why take out a tiny 1 province nation who can give you thousands in trade unless they are part of your victory objective?

Also, if they tiny nation were suicidal and wanted surprise as you say, maybe it should follow through with its declaration and not just declare and then sit there or once in a while send a 1 man raiding party through your lands to annoy you?

I can see you point if the big nation was the attacker, but having it the other way round is simply silly and unrealistic.

But declaring war on your massive neighbour and then standing around in your capital city? Not even leaving your borders? That is what the AI does, and that is not what I would do, at least.

Peace and trade gives a lot more income, until such time as the large human controlled nations say's they've had enough.

That's a fairly tenuous position considering the human controlled player probably has a good deal of aggressive behaviour to reference...you simply can't say that the smaller single nation state has to be comfortable with the situation. You can disagree FH, but you can't ignore the vunerable situation the small nation finds itself in. It's certainly plausible that they may just say;

"Screw it, I'm next, they are an expanding aggressive nation, it's only a matter of time."

As I said, if this was a coop online game with all AI's controlled by humans' you have to admit it would not be crazy to see small nations take one good shot before it ends. They have surprise if they attack first.

Your second line is exactly what I described in option d). What's wrong with calling a spade a spade. Declare war, lock up shop and wait. Therefore option d) seems another plausible option.

AG I appreciate your argument but if the player is at peace with nation X but is attacked by nation A who is a major power, and who as also just rolled over your buddy next door, why is it you wait to declare war on the player when he takes your buddy’s province away from nation A? Who was the aggressor here?

In very few campaigns have I ever declared war on anyone. It seems everyone is going to war with me. At the most I have entered a war because an ally or protectorate was attacked.

Why does Poland or Prussia want to go to war with the 13 Colonies? Why does Sweden want to go to war with Louisiana? Why does say Hanover who is very friendly with Austria, due to a state gift go to war with them when they take over the ex-Saxony from the Prussians ( with whom they were also not at war with )? And why won’t the small countries except peace in exchange for a cessation of hostilities when their capital is under siege and they are sure to lose? Not a forced trade agreement, forced alliance, protectorate, or anything else, just stop killing my people and burning my towns. No! they prefer to become part of an expanding empire built out of self defense, by means of suicide. Now does that really make a lot of sense?

It was not that way prior to making it all kill crazy with aggression.

It just does not need to be that way.

Ok I give up. It's relatively mad I concede. :balloon2:

I'll leave the room with one final statemen.

Some of the behaviour is not as irrational as it may seem. Especially, and ironically so when you the player pretend to be the smaller nation for just a second.

id just like to add something here:

as prussia, i have encountered very, very smart a.i. poland is my protectorate and austria(after taking one of their cities inm exchange for transylvania) is my ally.

ill start with the ottoman conflict in which they were reasonable:

so, i trade prague for transylvania, silesia and peace. the ottomans were going to invade anyway, and DoWed on me. so, after several close calls, i simply gave it to austria in return for becoming an ally. then, the ottomans agreed to peace the neext turn. stupid? i think not!

the other thing is what i like to call the 'Coalition of protectorates'. basically, hannover, westphalia, wurrtemberg, and bavaria all DoWed on me at the same exact time. the next turn they all allied, and began sending armies into silesia. they all have large garrisons in their capitals and border regions, so i basically am forced to defend until i have enough money to afford negative profits for a few turns so i can have a couple armies of swiss guards :D.

ive seen plenty of stupid a.i. moves, but this was certainly not a stupid a.i.

I'm so glad I live in my alternative dimension where the AI of Empire: Total War is so unaggressive even on VH that I had fifty years of peace because they didn't attack me and I didn't want to be the badguy and attack them. *Basks in the glory of his oddball AI :yes:*

I know when I first got the game, some of what the AI did seemed very subtle and astute. There is a lot of depth to what went into its development.

The trouble began when some called it too passive. Then they cranked up the aggression and the diplomacy when into the toilet.

There are good things in there if we could get passed the way it was dumbed down...

Unfortunately some people think they NEED to be at war with the whole world at once. For me it just takes away from the experience.

Maybe they just need a 5th level of difficulty for those who want that sort of thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Unfortunately some people think they NEED to be at war with the whole world at once. For me it just takes away from the experience.

---

I agree with this but the biggest problem as far as I'm concerned is that since Rome: Total War you have been under a time limit which for my playstyle is very tight. If I want to skip seven turns while my cities develop and my troops are trained then I will damnit! But with the Total War games I'll almost always run out of time. It's clear CA are moving away from the "Total War" notion and that's great but the trouble is the games themselves still encourage and indeed require an aggressive playstyle if you want to finish them.
I think CA need to make their minds up as to what they are going for. Is this simply a wargame where you crush all before you? Or is this meant to be an Empire simulator? Right now and since Rome I think it's just a mish-mash.

I'm in 1757 of a Prestige campaign and the AI has been excellent on H/M.

I've been at peace most of the time. The only instance of a Black Knight AI was when I got a border with the US just recently. As soon as I got a border with them that DOW on me. But I had kicked the French out of most of the colonies and it was clear they were next.

Once I took New France I was even able to ask for peace from the French who accepted.

The rest of the game has been an excellent balance of ensuring trade agreements are kept configured for maximum gain, as nantions blockade each other and I suffer as a concenquence. I've declared war on a few nations because of this.

It's been excellent. However, I realise that as GB you don't have a lot of borders. Still, in this game I a new border with Spain down in Louisiana and they have not DOW on me.

Everything from start to finish has been very realisitic, except the complete inability to trade techs. The AI simply will not do it.

All in all, it's worked out very well. Of course next I'm going to play a continental nation so I can see what all the issues are about.

Nice account of good AI there Prussian Iron. Good to hear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

I know when I first got the game, some of what the AI did seemed very subtle and astute. There is a lot of depth to what went into its development.

The trouble began when some called it too passive. Then they cranked up the aggression and the diplomacy when into the toilet.

There are good things in there if we could get passed the way it was dumbed down...

Unfortunately some people think they NEED to be at war with the whole world at once. For me it just takes away from the experience.

Maybe they just need a 5th level of difficulty for those who want that sort of thing.

---

Come on... the vanilla campaign AI WAS passive. I played the whole game from start to finish twice in vanilla and in both games the AI just sat around and did absolutely nothing neither in the colonial theaters nor in India. Even after DOW on another faction, the AI would just sit around for decades and do just that: nothing. North American Indians and Marathas were the two notable exceptions.

I am not saying the current solution is the optimal, but at least there is something happening on the map...

When it came to war, the AI was too passive. They rarely attempted any real aggression, and only sent small armies. The wars would only be as intense as the player wanted them to be. If they just improved the AI's movements during wartime, then the diplomacy would be ten times better.

I still have hope, they did significantly improve the AI in MTW2, but it was still suicidal at times. There are notable differences between ETW and the previous games, alliances mean a lot more and its significantly harder for the AI and player to pick and choose their battles. My guess is, the AI doesn't take into account how many alliances a nation has, but rather "they control this region, so I want them dead".

It'd be good if CA could program it so that the AI takes the prestige meter into account when it comes to declaring war.
Let's say nation X is allied to nation Y and Z. So overall, nation X's military strength would come out as
X + Y + Z. (Atleast when being attacked)
X's main enemy is nation A, who is allied to nation B. So when planning on attacking nation X, A can only hope that B will join them. So, when the AI is calculating whether to declare war it should be.
Is Nation A's strength greater than X, or, in other words, is Nation A's strength greater than X, Y, and Z? Then again, the probability of nation B entering the war shouldn't be ignored, but its too complex for me to express.

This would make the AI passive, perhaps too passive, but it shouldn't effect the AI when it comes to dealing with small nation-states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slaists

Come on... the vanilla campaign AI WAS passive. I played the whole game from start to finish twice in vanilla and in both games the AI just sat around and did absolutely nothing neither in the colonial theaters nor in India. Even after DOW on another faction, the AI would just sit around for decades and do just that: nothing. North American Indians and Marathas were the two notable exceptions.

I am not saying the current solution is the optimal, but at least there is something happening on the map...

---

And I didn't find it passive!

I got DoWs from factions but usually with some basic reason to go to war, and when they did they also had armies to fight them. They didn't sit home waiting to be attacked after making a DoW.

At the same time you had people crying about the minors taking out major powers and being too aggressive.

The campaigns were different, each one. You might get several DoWs quick or you might be left alone for 20 years.


And as to TOTAL WAR...


There seems to be a broad misunderstanding of what Total War means.

It leads some to think that you are at war with the world. That is just not so.

The most concise definition I have found comes from Wikipedia, believe it our not. And I looked at a bunch!

Quote:

---

Total war: is a conflict of unlimited scope in which a belligerent engages in a mobilization of all available resources at their disposal, whether human, industrial, agricultural, military, natural, technological, or otherwise, in order to entirely destroy or render beyond use of their rival's capacity to continue resistance. The practice of total war has been in use for centuries, but it was only in the middle to late 19th century that total war was identified by scholars as a separate class of warfare. In a total war, there is less (or no) differentiation between combatants and non-combatants (civilians) than in other conflicts, as nearly every person from a particular country (or opposing area), civilians and soldiers alike, can be considered to be part of the belligerent effort.

---

As you can see it is a way of waging war and not with whom you are at war.

It was never about being totally engulfed in wars, but instead about the national commitment to war and the way it is fought.

The series gives you command of the resources to wage total war and that is what it is all about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slaists

Come on... the vanilla campaign AI WAS passive. I played the whole game from start to finish twice in vanilla and in both games the AI just sat around and did absolutely nothing neither in the colonial theaters nor in India. Even after DOW on another faction, the AI would just sit around for decades and do just that: nothing. North American Indians and Marathas were the two notable exceptions.

I am not saying the current solution is the optimal, but at least there is something happening on the map...

---

Slaists I agree the vanilla AI was passive, but it did have a sense of diplomacy. What he have now is an AI that declares war extremely often, is more resistant to diplomacy, and yet still fails to present any decent strategical or tactical challenge. As more wars simply put do not make the game more difficult, it merely reduces trade revenue to a point where that part of the game becomes largely irrelevant.

I too am a player who doesn't see the need to declare war on anyone, as it seems 2-3 nations must always be at war with me, and as soon as one is knocked out, another neighbour tries their hand at taking me out.

Honestly I'd prefer the diplomacy of the vanilla AI with a beefed up 1.03 AI that actually fights in a coherent manner.

It's all about taste gentlemen, it's all about taste.

One man's monkey brains are another man's hot chocolate fudge Sunday.

You can argue this until the end of time. And I think we have.:2thumbsup:

If we're talking 18th century terms here, the smaller nation would almost invariably sue for peace, accept some form of protectorate status and move on.

With wars between larger states, things never went to the stage of one state being annihilated. Usually they fought until one side threw in the towel, some land and money changed hands and that was that. Next war enemies would be fighting on the same side.

While I don't argue that ETW should replicate 18th century politics and warfare perfectly, after all, some people just want to take over the world, there's something to be said for accepting peace when a state clearly not interested in taking over the world, but rather just looking to trade and maybe snag a few extra colonies, has performed the international equivalent of kicking your door down with a SWAT team, pinning your national leader to the ground and shoving a peace treaty in front of him.

I'll give you a hint. In that sort of situation, it's best not to respond with, "Sir, diplomatic niceties are the only thing saving you from a horse-whipping!"

That sort of talk gets you bayoneted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheogorath

I'll give you a hint. In that sort of situation, it's best not to respond with, "Sir, diplomatic niceties are the only thing saving you from a horse-whipping!"

That sort of talk gets you bayoneted.

---

That's some funny stuff right there. I laughed out loud at that one. :beam:

Another Dumb diplomacy example from this evenings ETW session of my French Campaign.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://img10.imageshack.us/img10/511/italianstates.jpg

Here you see the Italian States (Feeble/Destitute/Indifferent), just prior to being ordered by the player hate routine to commit faction suicide by declaring war on France.

What happens at the end of turn is that they declare war and then march their entire army from Milan to attack Turin (the red line), completely ignoring the fact that France actually has a much larger army in Genoa which can nip across the bridge (yellow line) and knock them out of the game.

Not only that but the Italian States are already at war with Spain who are chewing their way up the Italian peninsula, and they have absolutely no allies.

Artificial Intelligence, where?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

That's some funny stuff right there. I laughed out loud at that one. :beam:

---

I do wish you could respond the the computers little quotes. The first time it threw that up on the screen to a VERY generous offer for peace, I REALLY wanted to say "No, sir, that would be the bayonets."

They really need an 'execute diplomat' button.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

Let me paint a picture with all this AI diplomacy hammering going on:

"In all these examples, pretend if you will, or can, that the tables are turned. Just for a moment."

You the player, suddenly find yourself playing this small single province nation, or vastly reduced nation that has gotten the pants slapped out of it by a large, very well run, vastly superior Empire that is expanding across the globe at a rapid and terrifying rate. Clearly all it has in mind is total and complete world domination. You know it, your fellow kings, queens and Prime Ministers know it, and so does the ruler of this terrifying nation.

What do you do as this faction you suddenly find yourself playing?

a) Sue for peace, knowing that at any moment you can be crushed and that essentially you exist at the pleasure of some despot sitting on his throne, or in Parliament somewhere? Why do you know this? Because most of the time you share a boarder with this nation. You know the composition of its armed forces, economic power and demenour...it's not rocket science.

Your lot in life, to live a meek and completely irrelevant existence.

b) Sue for protectorate status, join this mighty empire, become it's lap dog, feed off its teat and enjoy the benefits of being part of the global domination, albeit limited as ou hand all your wealth across yearly to the rich greedy nation. Your lot in history is to forever be at the mercy of it's rulers.

c) Stick up two fingers, tell them to go to hell and go down fighting with all guns blazing. Forever refusing to capitulate roll over and die.

d) Stick up two fingers at this might Empire, build up the biggest army you can and sit, in defiance for the rest of time in your nations capital. Both you and this terrifying nation know full well that your goal is to ensure that IF this nation decides to attack, you will ensure that you take down as many of them as possible. Why do you do this? Because you don't have the capacity to raise enough troop to go on the offensive. You can't protect your homeland and attack.

Keep in mind I'm only talking about the AI diplomacy.

WHICH one would you choose?

I'm sick and tired of the eternal bashing going on. There seems to be a ground swell of thought pervading this board that things are really, really, really bad.

So I ask again, swap positions, just for a second, and see if ANY of the behaviour you are seeing would be something YOU would do as the player if you were playing that nation?

It doesn't explain all of it, but it certainly removes a lot of the complaints I'm seeing.

---

you forgot E) act like your best mates - all the time placating him, stroking his ego, anything for peace, behind his back go and find some other nations who also hate the upcoming empire or are scared of them - then after some years of fat peace whilest you and your allies have been training and building up your armies - you stike with the speed of a cobra and the might of the thunder god himself - and your great enemy is no more.


now wouldnt that be cool


you can see the human player now FAT on his throne, comfortable in his delusions of grandure, an emisary from the pathetic nation of Hanover sir - "have you come for your monthly tribute" - No your majesty I have come for your surrender - "BAH HA HA HA - you and what army BOY" - me and the french army sir, and the Bavarian army sir, and the people of Austria, and the Danes"

"Sounds like thunder"

That would be french artillary sir


or F) Side with him and use him as your rabid dog on a leash to dominate other smaller nations, let the Human destroy the army while you sneak in and take the province, growing little by little a province here and there on the tail of the tiger, using your alliance with him to intimidate bigger neighbours and get rich. Until one of them makes you an offer to be rid of your great friend once and for all - hmm tempting

this is the politics of the day, double dealing, making any agreement to ensure you werent swallowed up, then switching sides at the last minute once you were sure of victory - not the beligerant model we have currently

I appreciate your trying to take a glass half full view over the half empty

but honestly mate you need to have some beer in the glass first

very good post Yunson :)

and good posts further up!

yes those are the kinds of things we want to see. By the way why should protectorates not trust a larger nation? my Prussian game is 1791, I have been the protectorates of Westphalia, Wurttemburg, Bavaria and Hannover for 91 years. I have actually given them territories because I hoped that they might be able to do some sea trade or other things. My trade bonus with each one is worth 3000 gold each and trading with them is worth 5000+ for EACH nation. I couldn't make that much money if they weren't there! Granted I haven't given them territories to become major nations in their own right that would be silly, they are subnations in my mighty prussian empire, but I have been at peace with them since turn 1. why would they think I could possibly be interested in taking their territory now?

Although they are COMPLETELY useless when it comes to fighting wars, they won't send armies to assist you, (that would be really nice if they would give you an army you could control on the campagin map and the ai would control on the battle map) of course you couldn't use their army to declare war, but it would be able to help with the battle
and then if someone declared war on them then you could give them an army to control ont he campaign map and when they use it in battle you could control it.

ironically having been allies with the mughals for a very long time and with them being at war with the russians and leaving the rest of the russians land alone, who do they decide to attack? the Ottomans? no, the russians? no, my allies the venetians! why couldn't they have both become allies?:no: :no: so anyway now I'm pretty much at war with everyone in the world, just waiting for the UP and venice to declare war on me so then I have my only friends left my protectorates.

I can take screenshots if you like and show you that most AI nations are at war with practically everyone


and Drumroll... Last turn, Sweden Declared war on the United States! :clown:

Quote:

---

It's all about taste gentlemen, it's all about taste.

---

More to the point, I think, is gaming experience. Is it simply hack and slash, or are there other levels to explore. I think it's profitable to quote some of the posts made over at the "other" TW forum, please bear with........(highlites are my own)

[original poster Anda01]

Descriptive definition "Meaningful play in a game emerges from the relationship between player action and system outcome; it is the process by which a player takes action within the designed system of a game and the system responds to the action. The meaning of an action in a game resides in the relationship between action and outcome"

Evaluative definition "Meaningful play is what occurs when the relationships between actions and outcomes in a game are both discernable and integrated into the larger context of the game."

The terms "random" and "stupid" however does not apply at all to a system that is programmed. In fact (referring to Salen and Zimmerman) true randomness can not be achieved within a system based on mathematical rules, so this is solely a matter of perception on the part of the player. This is not just a result of erroneous AI, but just as much a question of how the AI is presented to the player. In other words it's a matter of game design. I imagine that a game designer would want the player to percieve the AI as smart, responsive and rescourceful, and this should in part be done by translating the behavior of the progam in a way that is meaningful to the player.

[Ultrarilo]

Makes it difficult to roleplay. Ideally, if I were writing an AAR, I could say things like "My French empire was attacked by the great Huron tribe in North America, who, despite having been friends with my great nation, were forced into doing so by an alliance with their Iroquois brother who themselves were at war blah blah blah."

Instead, I get "The Hurons, my friends, attacked me for no reason. As did Austria, Poland Lithuania, Russia, Prussia, etc. Then I took their capitals, which were defended by militia and flintlock. I did it over and over and over again and the game eventually ended."

[ChStryker]

I feel that because of my inability to judge the AI factions' motives, all semblance of strategy is removed from the game. For instance, as GB in the Grand Campaign, I find myself constantly at war with the Spanish, Americans, French, and every Indian faction. This is after concluding multiple peace treaties with the French and Spanish (which lasted about 5-10 turns on average).

My interpretation is therefore that the AI decides it has certain objectives that it wants to achieve. Yet since I can't understand them at all I have no choice but to totally destroy both factions or completely remove their ability to wage war.

What I interpret from the above quotes is a lack of richness and depth to the game. If I want to blitz, then I can have fun crushing all underneath my bootheels; but if I want to be sly and sneaky and outmaneuver my opponents by means other than direct military force, I should be able to have fun with that gaming experience, as well.

For the "it is Total War, after all", group....my reply is that there are many pure tactical games much better than the TW series out there: if I want to spend the entire game fighting, I can do so with much more enjoyment elsewhere. I play TW for that blend of strategy, fighting battles, and role-playing that is hard to find in any genre. Since RTW, my enjoyment of the TW series has been rapidly diminishing as the game becomes more one dimensional (IMHO).

As to the dilemma in the OP this poster has an interesting proposition:

[greanmeany]

One thing that I keep thinging is missing is assurances between nations. If the games logic is saying that your a major threat that will attack soon it should ask you out right for assurances that you won't along with an offer of money/region etc or issue a threat telling you to back off. Breaking these assurances or refusing to listen will make you strongly disliked by other factions.

Too simple for CA, I guess:dizzy2:

IMHO the best thing that could happen to the TW genre is for a competitor to step in and give CA a run for their money.

Perhaps we need to look at this in another way and think about solutions or how to achieve the diplomacy we want

1) minor nations should not declare war against large nations (they may be drawn into a war as a protectorate)

1a) for any alliance there is an alliance leader based on prestige

2) when alliance leaders make peace so should the protectorates and allies

3) if minor nations want to ally against the major nations - good - but they cannot do this as protectorates - they should be independent and then form coalitions or defense pacts but not aggressively pursue war.

4) alliances should be meaningful - yes backstabbing needs to be present but not as frequent as it is (eg. as Prussia, Poland goes to war with Austria. Poland should approach prussia for alliance, Once the Human moves against Austria - Poland needs to calculate a higher opportunity benefit from staying allied with Prussia - picking up poorly defended provinces in the Humans wake - also there are big trade econs benefits - its should not opportunistically backstab -as it does now- because it will lose everything).

5) big penalties for breaking alliance - no nations will sign alliance with you for many turns if ever. This goes for the AI too.
(the two above will hopefully result in large offensive/defensive pacts which is what we want - we want the globe divided up into 3-4 major spheres of power resulting in huge wars) what we dont want is declarations of war with everyone sitting home defending against backstabbing - when your alliance declares war all armies of those nations should move aggresively against their enemies.

6) get rid of target province DOWs (I know people wanted goals or achiements back since MTW - but it really doesnt work well with the non-risk map and yourve goto say the glorious achiements side of the game is pretty weak - basically it results in rigid diplomacy of nation A wants province X and this persists throughout the game). The goals need to be better developed - the first to attain tech X, control of India, control of the Americas, X amount of gold per year in trade, scourge of pirates, control europe (with allies), build the spanish armada (as spain), build your elite unit, convert 10 provinces to your religion etc etc.

7) need a rake info screen where you can see who likes and dislikes you and why.

If you backstab too much you should become a hated pariah who no-one will trade with and everyone defends against and sign alliances against

The large alliance pacts should act as a deterent against the nations declaring war at a whim.

Ok clearly all the above would reduce DOWs so we need some triggers to start wars.

1. declaring war against nations that are not your allies carries no penalty

2. when you choose a side in ally war the correct penalty/reward needs to be applied.

3. Wars of succession - should cause everyone to coose a side

4. monachys dont like republics and are prone to DOW.

5. catholics dont like protestants and are prone to DOW.

6. Indian nations will ally against colonial invasion?

this is food for discussion not a definative list. and its getting a bit wayward so over to you guys....ideas?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Yunson

you forgot E) act like your best mates - all the time placating him, stroking his ego, anything for peace, behind his back go and find some other nations who also hate the upcoming empire or are scared of them - then after some years of fat peace whilest you and your allies have been training and building up your armies - you stike with the speed of a cobra and the might of the thunder god himself - and your great enemy is no more.


now wouldnt that be cool


you can see the human player now FAT on his throne, comfortable in his delusions of grandure, an emisary from the pathetic nation of Hanover sir - "have you come for your monthly tribute" - No your majesty I have come for your surrender - "BAH HA HA HA - you and what army BOY" - me and the french army sir, and the Bavarian army sir, and the people of Austria, and the Danes"

"Sounds like thunder"

That would be french artillary sir


or F) Side with him and use him as your rabid dog on a leash to dominate other smaller nations, let the Human destroy the army while you sneak in and take the province, growing little by little a province here and there on the tail of the tiger, using your alliance with him to intimidate bigger neighbours and get rich. Until one of them makes you an offer to be rid of your great friend once and for all - hmm tempting

this is the politics of the day, double dealing, making any agreement to ensure you werent swallowed up, then switching sides at the last minute once you were sure of victory - not the beligerant model we have currently

I appreciate your trying to take a glass half full view over the half empty

but honestly mate you need to have some beer in the glass first

---

*Looks into his pint. Realising it's empty he throws it on the ground in disgust*

We can, in fact, look at one nation and see how it handled Aussiegiants scenario.

'GB' at the start of the 18th was in a situation that resembles it quite well.

It was not all that stong, did not have vast resources, it's Army was pitifully small and made up of "Scum of the earth, enlisted for drink" (Wellington) and a navy that was manned by press-ganged sailors and unless actually at war had a large chunk of it 'laid up' rotting and half it's officers on half pay.

Across the channel was a wealthy UP - it had not too many years before actually sailed a fleet up the Thames and bombarded London.

Further south is the fading yet still powerful Spanish and then there was France , always France lol

True GB had some colonies in the Caribbean and N America - but the N American Colonies aren't much help with resources or manpower and are threatened by France's colonies to the North and Spanish Cuba etc - and so demanding at least as a much resources to protect as they bring in.

in the last 50 years they have fought two terrible Civil Wars and the Scottish highlands are simmering as always - ready to attack if the Stuart lands to 'reclaim' the throne.

so I would say the position of GB at the beginning of the 18th is a fair place to look to see what humans would do.

And what they did has already been said.

They made alliances with weaker nations , sometimes going to war and sometimes not but the name of the game was to prevent any power getting strong enough to start looking hungrily at GB's overseas posessions, trade routes - or thinking about having another go at crossing that 20 mile moat...

What they DIDN'T do was declare war on half the planet then stick a full stack army in London and wait for someone to attack them !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

Let me paint a picture with all this AI diplomacy hammering going on:

"In all these examples, pretend if you will, or can, that the tables are turned. Just for a moment."

You the player, suddenly find yourself playing this small single province nation, or vastly reduced nation that has gotten the pants slapped out of it by a large, very well run, vastly superior Empire that is expanding across the globe at a rapid and terrifying rate. Clearly all it has in mind is total and complete world domination. You know it, your fellow kings, queens and Prime Ministers know it, and so does the ruler of this terrifying nation.

What do you do as this faction you suddenly find yourself playing?

a) Sue for peace, knowing that at any moment you can be crushed and that essentially you exist at the pleasure of some despot sitting on his throne, or in Parliament somewhere? Why do you know this? Because most of the time you share a boarder with this nation. You know the composition of its armed forces, economic power and demenour...it's not rocket science.

Your lot in life, to live a meek and completely irrelevant existence.

b) Sue for protectorate status, join this mighty empire, become it's lap dog, feed off its teat and enjoy the benefits of being part of the global domination, albeit limited as ou hand all your wealth across yearly to the rich greedy nation. Your lot in history is to forever be at the mercy of it's rulers.

c) Stick up two fingers, tell them to go to hell and go down fighting with all guns blazing. Forever refusing to capitulate roll over and die.

d) Stick up two fingers at this might Empire, build up the biggest army you can and sit, in defiance for the rest of time in your nations capital. Both you and this terrifying nation know full well that your goal is to ensure that IF this nation decides to attack, you will ensure that you take down as many of them as possible. Why do you do this? Because you don't have the capacity to raise enough troop to go on the offensive. You can't protect your homeland and attack.

Keep in mind I'm only talking about the AI diplomacy.

WHICH one would you choose?

I'm sick and tired of the eternal bashing going on. There seems to be a ground swell of thought pervading this board that things are really, really, really bad.

So I ask again, swap positions, just for a second, and see if ANY of the behaviour you are seeing would be something YOU would do as the player if you were playing that nation?

It doesn't explain all of it, but it certainly removes a lot of the complaints I'm seeing.

---

The first duty of every state is to ensure the survival of itself. That said, having sovereignty under another country is always better than having no sovereignty at all, and it becomes apparent that the "Going down with guns blazing" isn't really a scenario which applies to real life, provided that you have been throughly defeated and the victorious country is very open to peace. Even so of all the scenarios you describe, scenario b) is a good one, as the balance of powers might shift in one moment or another and then it would be a good time to rebel and join the enemies of your Protector, so it wouldn't be a perpetual protectorate. Just a way to buy off time until the scales of justice tip against the country which won against you. It is how every country acts. You shall not find a single example in history of a country which, having been completely crushed, decides that annexation is better than the preservation of itself as a separate entity provided the victorious countries are open to it. Not one example in history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucius Verenus

They made alliances with weaker nations , sometimes going to war and sometimes not but the name of the game was to prevent any power getting strong enough to start looking hungrily at GB's overseas posessions, trade routes - or thinking about having another go at crossing that 20 mile moat...

What they DIDN'T do was declare war on half the planet then stick a full stack army in London and wait for someone to attack them !!

---

Yup, they did not. Actually, at the time the American revolution broke out British world-wide regular troops numbered only around 30K... (not counting sailors and navy). Imagine... ruling a good chunk of the world with only 30K men...

I think that the main problem with these DOWs are not that we cannot come up with some nice story but that:

1, Most of these are scripted DOWs; do whatever you want the AI will declare war on you.
Example: as GBR conquered the Pueblo nations, guess what, next turn Spain declares war on me.

2, Even bigger problem is that apparently these DOWs hurt the AI more then they hurt the human player. Any decent player human player is now prepared for them, actually they make the game easier since you don't have to bother with war declarations. On the other hand the strategic AI is completely unaware of the fact that contact means war, as a result it is completely unprepared on most occasions and it seems that it is even unaware of the ongoing war.
Example: in the above case Spain after declaring war on me sent one brig to blockade Mauritius! Spain is one of the largest empires, it conquered Portugal, it had all its American possessions, maxed out farms etc, yet all it sends is one bloody brig. If that is not enough I sent a half stack to conquer Mexico. Yes you guessed right it was defended by three units of armed citizenry! It had all slots maxed out, Spain could have trained anything from dragoons to horse artilery yet it chosed to ignore to defend it. If it is still not enough later it turned out that it had two less than half stacks (7 and 8 units better than mine, including line infantry and one howitzer) on the shore of the pacific watching the waves rolling to shore while I conquered Mexico! All in all, one of the largest empire declares war on the human player due to a script, sends one brig to attack, ignores to defend one of its richest provinces, builds nothing and even moves (leaves) existing troops out of harms way. Not very efficient to say the least ... :laugh4:

During the Napoleanic wars practically all of continental Europe became protectorates of France because it was a powerful terrifying land grabbing nation. They all sent armies to assist Napoleon in crushing Russia

Then they all turned on France at the first sign of weakness and allied together to defeat him

So rather than puny rouge nations fighting you. The game should be able to form alliances against you more easily. It would be cool if a diplomatic message said nations X,Y and Z demand that you cease hostilities or maybe surrender province A, If you do not comply it will be war

Then if you go to war all those nations and their economies will be geared towards destroying you. They will make peace with all of their other enemies or put those conflicts on the back burner and also try to pull other nations into the war against or at least stop trading with you which should be easy because of your constant expansionist threat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slaists

Yup, they did not. Actually, at the time the American revolution broke out British world-wide regular troops numbered only around 30K... (not counting sailors and navy). Imagine... ruling a good chunk of the world with only 30K men...

---

Didnt they have a lot of locally levied troops and maybe East Inda Company troops to supplement theier forces significantly, I thought they did but wasnt sure

There is a significant difference between the nature of warfare in the Napoleonic period and that which occurred in the period covered by ETW. It would be wrong to try and model anything in ETW on the method of warfare 100 years later, just as it would be wrong to model a WW1 game on the type of warfare conducted in WW2.

This has become the first TW of the series that I actually started rage quitting.
Its a sad day.
The sheer frustration at the many glitches, and foibles of the BAI, the ludiocraty of the CAI, the two hour turns(fighting the mutiples battles every turn), nonsense diplomacy, nonsense AI moves and strategies. Look at my sig, it used to be 80hrs, now that time represents 1 or 2 turns a week. Whats most disturbing is the rapidity of the decent of this game from my most loved to most hated.

I question if CA have a clear vision/goal of what this completed game is, and how it plays, because it appears to be more a reaction to a loud minority on the forums (who dont know what they want at the best of times, in fact many complain about something before having to be told it already exists). I didnt buy kingdums because M2 was such poo. I bought ETW because I read all this guff about the AI this and fixed that, which I see now was all BS, and further it appears the developer has no clear vision of how its own game should play - certainly the AI has no clue how to play the game - there is no game.

It will take a lot to convince me that this company has sufficiently altered its priorities for the next title (this one is shelved). First get an idea for a GAME, then paint on the pretty graphics - not the other way around - this game had promise when I thought the developers just needed time to get it playing as it should - now its clear they have little idea of what the game is let alone how it should play.

sorry for the rant

this game reminds me so much of Imperial Glory - unachieved potential

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Yunson

I didnt buy kingdums because M2 was such poo.

---

Buy kingdoms ASAP and use one of the many excellent mods!!! Stainless Steel, Long Road, Pro Rege at Deo, any of them! You will be rewarded. :yes:

I must agree. CA are sufferring from a lack of competition. Its made them lazy and complacent and the quality of the product is sufferring as a result.

I had hoped that once CA had shown what can be done with a tabletop style battlefield system other game design companies would have jumped on the band wagon and driven up the standards of the campaign system, but for some reason the other companies seem determined to ride the hex based boardgame system into oblivion instead of switching and so we now have two distinct camps in wargame design. One where the campaign system works but the battle are rubbish, and one where the battles work but the campaigns are rubbish.

Why can't someone just put the two together for :daisy: sake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didz

I must agree. CA are sufferring from a lack of competition. Its made them lazy and complacent and the quality of the product is sufferring as a result.

I had hoped that once CA had shown what can be done with a tabletop style battlefield system other game design companies would have jumped on the band wagon and driven up the standards of the campaign system, but for some reason the other companies seem determined to ride the hex based boardgame system into oblivion instead of switching and so we now have two distinct camps in wargame design. One where the campaign system works but the battle are rubbish, and one where the battles work but the campaigns are rubbish.

Why can't someone just put the two together for :daisy: sake.

---

I love the mix of a turn based campaign and resource management with the real-time battles.

Why no one else seems to put it all together is beyond me.

I don’t understand the lack of decent player-AI interaction, other than they are trying to please too different playing styles’ and it just can’t be both ways.

But, you know if the AI was begging for peace it might even excite the people who want to kill everyone and wipe the map. Never being able to get peace at any price, or at least a reasonable one is a real drag for me. I liked the earlier model where they would give you almost anything for not taking their capital or to get it back.

I could live with the fast and furious DoWs if they were ever willing to except peace.

Well to be totally accurate Napoleon 1813 attempted it, and would have been a brilliant success if some idiot at Empire Interactive hadn't opted for a real time campaign movement system that screwed up the entire game.

http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/n...tech_info.html

I still can't believe nobody went back and sorted this game out, it would have wiped the floor with the Totalwar series if it had worked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

Let me paint a picture with all this AI diplomacy hammering going on:

"In all these examples, pretend if you will, or can, that the tables are turned.

....

It doesn't explain all of it, but it certainly removes a lot of the complaints I'm seeing.

---

Playing as UP I am observing the behavior of France whom I let to survive (for game-play reasons). After I had destroyed all their navies and continental armies I took Paris. I held it for a turn and burnt down all the province developments and city buildings and gave it back to France. Then I proceeded to take Strasburgh (and keep it) and sued for peace.

So, basically, France was left as a handicapped blob in the middle of Europe: no navies, no army, nothing... About ten years later, I checked their diplomacy status: to my surprise they were at war with about everyone in Europe including their former ally: Spain. At the same time, they had no trade partners whatsoever.

At the time I was at war with Spain. I conquered Spanish held Portugal and gave it to France in exchange for trade rights. What do you think they did next? DOW on me (still having no standing continental armies and a few sloop fleets facing my 2nd rates in the channel)... :wall:

Now, I'm not sure I'd ever do that if I was them...

Anyway the question what to do with that pesky faction is still open. I can take Paris and wipe them out (they lost Portugal to Spain already), taking France, but that would go against my initial plans to keep Dutch European presence to minimum. I guess, I'll still wipe the French out and give France to my protectorate: Wurtemberg...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZIM!!

Didnt they have a lot of locally levied troops and maybe East Inda Company troops to supplement theier forces significantly, I thought they did but wasnt sure

---

Sure, there were local levies (and allies), but the fact still remains that their regular army at the breakout of the American revolution was only 30K. By comparison, Marathas could field around 400K troops more than a hundred years earlier.

As to East India Company, I don't remember (I could be wrong) any precedent of their sort of 'private' troops fighting anywhere outside of their direct zone of control (and the neighboring territories).