Is there any rhyme or reason to diplomacy AI?

I've had to stop yet another campaign because of the diplomacy AI, which seems utterly determined to attack me at random with little warning. For a while I thought having strong garrisons would deter any attacks by other factions. For a while, this worked, but at enormous expense, as those fleets and armies just love to keep my treasury nice and low. Then, all of a sudden, Sicily and Hungary attacked me for no reason, plunging my treasury into mega-debt, and, myself already at war with the Byzantines, I was forced into a very compromised position. Hence, the termination of my last campaign.

Is there any way to keep afloat in the campaign map, or am I doomed to being forced to fight a capricious AI no matter what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amon_Zeth

I've had to stop yet another campaign because of the diplomacy AI, which seems utterly determined to attack me at random with little warning. For a while I thought having strong garrisons would deter any attacks by other factions. For a while, this worked, but at enormous expense, as those fleets and armies just love to keep my treasury nice and low. Then, all of a sudden, Sicily and Hungary attacked me for no reason, plunging my treasury into mega-debt, and, myself already at war with the Byzantines, I was forced into a very compromised position. Hence, the termination of my last campaign.

Is there any way to keep afloat in the campaign map, or am I doomed to being forced to fight a capricious AI no matter what?

---

I think if you send them a little money every turn, say 50 per turn, that keeps them off your back. Or send them larger amounts every so often. It's cheaper than large garrisons :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amon_Zeth

Is there any way to keep afloat in the campaign map, or am I doomed to being forced to fight a capricious AI no matter what?

---

More or less. Its generally just better to stay on the offensive. That way you deny the AI the ability to make preparations to attack you. Plus conquering settlements can really boost your own treasury immediatly and then in the long run.

What i find really strange about the AI though is that sometimes they seem really angry when i offer them trade rights. I cant think of any reason to see this as an insult but sometimes the AI takes it as one. Am i the only one that finds this strange?

Hopefully in the patch they change this, but not too much. Keep in mind how turbulent Europe/Middle East/North Africa was at this point. I'm not saying it was as bad as people are saying the diplomacy is in game, I just don't want CA to destroy the intriuge and treachery. I doubt they will, but I jsut want to make sure.

No you're not. The ai is sometimes mad when I try to offer them trade rights

I think that is something to generally keep in mind gentlemen…and ladies.

The middle ages were in fact a time of very little actual peace.

Not only countries plotted against each other but also inside each nation was a second level of manoeuvring, treachery and scheming. This even extended to internal families of the ruling class.

It is certainly one thing I could not believe when I first began studying the history of the period at uni. I did ask many professors and they were all highly amused at our collective state of disbelief at the level of distrust we saw.

At higher difficulty levels I would expect this to be played out in a very hard, fast and brutal level of diplomacy.

If you approach this game using the relatively civilised conduct we see today then you are missing a whole load of options and scheming that was occurring during the time this game is being played.

If you want relatively “normal” relations I’d put the campaign AI down to medium.

I concur with AussieGiant. In fact, I'd even go as far as saying that this much hasn't changed *at all*, even to this day. What has changed is perhaps our detachment from violence, which we now are reluctant to initiate, but was very much a fact of life back then. So, today you probably won't see competing countries or companies take up the sword at the drop of a hat, but hostility and treachery can take many forms...

I do believe you'll find just as much backstabbing, treachery-when-convenient, double dealing etc... in today's economic warfare or in politics. We just don't wage wars for power/money anymore (oh wait, we do don't we ? :] ).

But think about it this way : you, the player, try and make alliances for two reasons : either to give you the time to tech up and later break the alliance and crush them, or to deal with a third faction, conquer it, and then when you're done you'll probably want to invade your ally next.

Conversely, if your AI ally was to leave his borders unguarded and his armies far away, would you not invade unless your own forces are busy somewhere else ?

Trust me on this : alliances of interest only hold as long as the interest itself lasts :) Alliance is not friendship or trust, it's just a way to fight a fight you couldn't win on your own... Why would you ally in the first place if you could just wipe the floor with them ? You want to win. So do they :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kobal2fr

I concur with AussieGiant. In fact, I'd even go as far as saying that this much hasn't changed *at all*, even to this day. What has changed is perhaps our detachment from violence, which we now are reluctant to initiate, but was very much a fact of life back then. So, today you probably won't see competing countries or companies take up the sword at the drop of a hat, but hostility and treachery can take many forms...

I do believe you'll find just as much backstabbing, treachery-when-convenient, double dealing etc... in today's economic warfare or in politics. We just don't wage wars for power/money anymore (oh wait, we do don't we ? :] ).

But think about it this way : you, the player, try and make alliances for two reasons : either to give you the time to tech up and later break the alliance and crush them, or to deal with a third faction, conquer it, and then when you're done you'll probably want to invade your ally next.

Conversely, if your AI ally was to leave his borders unguarded and his armies far away, would you not invade unless your own forces are busy somewhere else ?

Trust me on this : alliances of interest only hold as long as the interest itself lasts :) Alliance is not friendship or trust, it's just a way to fight a fight you couldn't win on your own... Why would you ally in the first place if you could just wipe the floor with them ? You want to win. So do they :)

---

Exactly Kobal2fr.

I'm finding it highly amusing to hear people complain about the AI on high levels suddenly nailing the player with a surprise attack, just because there was;

a) Alliance intact
b) Alliance intact for many years...

who cares...I always pretend to think about the move "If I was the AI". Now if I swap positions and draw the conclusion that it was in fact a good move...then well done the AI.

Some tips gentlemen...

I'd suggest that the AI is set around "Power Politics" permameters.

You have two options depending on the location of the country you are dealing with:

1) Have superior power in the region and Bully concession out of your neighbours (countries with common boarders), if you don't really want to fight them. If you don't have superior power then you are in deep trouble and will need to bribe them from taking you out.

2) Give money to those nations that are not your neighbours and get what you want while giving money or don't asked for anything and have better relations.

International Power Politics revolves around two single factors.

Physical Military Power and Cash!! That's it!! Nothing else matter. When you have one without the other then you still have a marco strategy, if you have both then you are in an ideal position to win...if you have neither...don't expect to last long.

You as players PICK on countries without either, like wise the AI should also.

Please keep in mind it is all relative.

if you are number three in military power but are snadwiched between 1 and 2 then your up a creek without a paddle. On the other hand if you are number 3 and are next to 6 and 7 then have fun. Likewise you don't have to attack 6 and 7, but I bet you can negotiate good deals out of them (money, trade, etc etc).

With relative military superiority be a bully, with lots of money be a briber.

These are simple theories as the Papacy and various hard coded racism will distort these concepts but they will work from what I have seen.

One tip. If you have loads of money GIVE it away to factions which have common goals, give it to the POPE, ask for things in return or just think of it as an investment...it does seem to work.

One thing that does annoy me with the ai is the fact that in my current (and only) campaign, my diplomatic rating has plunged to 'untrustworthy' despite never breaking a treaty :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sapi

One thing that does annoy me with the ai is the fact that in my current (and only) campaign, my diplomatic rating has plunged to 'untrustworthy' despite never breaking a treaty :(

---

Yeah I agree, the only reason I started attacking so early in my german campaign is because enemy factions seem to like to attack me. Then my relations go way down and seem to never be able to fix them. On top of it Pope ratings hit the fan because when you try to attack them he disapproves. Fortunately I've become a military blunderbuss and am only 4 cities away from knocking Denmark, Milan and the stupid Venetians out of the game. After that its time for some R&R, going to start teching up all my cities and cap a few more regions to hit my quota. We'll see how long it is before France and England are knocking on my door.

I do think its possible to be friends with everyone, say for the one or two nations you have to kill in order to win. We shall see though, lately my relations with the rest of the nations has been good and am currently allied with England, Egypt, Byzantium, and Spain. All powerful nations and if I can keep my ratings up with all it'll be a turn frenzy until the end.

I wold like to give my opinion in this one :idea2:
To me the Campaign AI is TOTALLY BROKEN. They NEVER respect any aliances (they "do" when you ont share borders so i will ignore this excuse). This reputation/relations system is a blody joke. The Ai desnt give a fig for any of this. The AI doesnt think on the campaign map, it is truly random in all its acts. Thats ridiculous, for a "strategy game". Fight armys consisting of peasants and catapults?
And that deamenor stuff? That dont work. The thing is, if you are at war with the ai it will find any, i sayd ANY purpose demanding. Thats ridiculous too.
Some people say "You got pay tribute to the AI". Thats nonsense. The ai never payd tribute to me, why should i, with more money, more soldiers, more lands, more technology give any florin to the AI? I shouldnt even dream about it. Thats not imersive and, to me, sounds like a exploit.
It is the same AI from Rome, the same wich blocked ally ports with a fleet of 2 bouts starting a war... totally random, totaly sad. This is TOTAL SAD! You dont see this in any other stategy game. The AI think on civilization 4 (for example, if it feel its will lose the war it asks, it begs for a cease fire), the same in Age of Empires, you never see the AI sending a stupid army without any balance, bahs.
Not long before, i readed an enterview where some CA guy sayd "now you can trust your alys" thats a lie!
Some people dont bother with this, and will say: the AI is perfect, attacking you for no reason, and acting with no reason cuz this game is called "total war". Wel, if it is so, they should just burn this diplomacy option, forget about diplomats, forget about trade rights, just make an army, conquer a city, burn it, the same again, again, again... yeah, TOTAL AND BORING WAR.
Nothing changed from RTW (in this field). The AI acting without reason in a strategy game is ridiculous and a very bad joke.

Let's keep this thread focussed on diplomacy, not CA bashing, please. Off topic posts will be deleted.

Holy Hell, one day of posting in Europe and the US and this is on page 3!!

Things are busy.

A bump to see if anyone has had Diplomatic success.

I read Beefeaters English short story on H Campaign and he had very realistic diplomatic success.

Anyone else?

I'm currently playing the Venetians and it seems everybody wants to attack Venice. Venice is right next to Bologna and only my ally Sicily is interested in Bologna, which they conquered early on. Both Milan and the HRE tried multiple times already to attack Venice, even when they get completely owned time and again and when Bologna has a much weaker garrison.

I quit my first game when both Milan and the HRE attacked Venice in the space of a few turns each, while I was at war with the Byzantines, who attacked me early on. It still seems to me like the AI factions are more likely to attack the player and less likely to accept ceasefires with the player compared with other factions.

Hi andrewt,

What difficulty?

Started two campaigns as catholic factions in medium difficulty:

In the first one the Pope didn't like me and everybody was attacking without an obvious reason.

In the second I had better relations with the Pope than my neighbors and even if they attacked they did stop on the next turn. I guess it was the hand of the Pope not letting them continue. I had no serious wars with other catholics for ages!

Another thing: I am not a 100% certain but I think that if you reload there is a chance that the diplomacy AI breaks down and doesn't accept anything. A save/reload bug may be?

Which factions Nestor??

First one with Venice, second with the Scots. I got really annoyed in the first one with everybody attacking, even close allies, so I chose a faction somewhat isolated for the second. In the second, a couple of times I'd sent an army to stand next to an invading force without attacking and next turn they left for good. Thats why I am talking about the Pope intervening. Once Milan asked for a ceasefire after only one battle.

The save/reload thing happened in both campaigns, IIRC.

Well mainland Europe tends to be a bit of a WWF match so even on medium it can get hairy.

What is the characteristics of this save/load behavior?

Save the game, make negotiations pushing the opponent for what they offer, they respond but you don't get a result.

Reload and nothing is less than very demanding on the same negotiation screen you were before (where you could actually negotiate in the first place)

Maybe...just maybe it is coding designed to prevent smart alics from taking advantage of the game?

I hope so.

I've noticed some peopel say that appeasing the AI by giving them some gold is effective in keeping them from attacking. What works better- giving the gold in a deal every once in a while, or giving them regular tribute?

It's personal preference I'd say.

I don't know which way is better but I would lean towards lump sums or as part of other negotiations. Regular tributes gives the wrong impression as far as I would be concerned.

I play on medium. I restarted my first campaign because of the gangbang. On my second campaign, I posted more garrison troops in Venice, attacked the Byzantines sooner than they attacked me the first campaign, and had my diplomat go around starting the first turn offering trade rights and alliances to every faction in western Europe close to me.

I had a few times when an "allied" faction would go near Venice. I'd immediately train additional Italian spear militia and would move a few troops from Zagreb on the way to Venice. They'd immediately leave the vicinity and I would move the troops back to Zagreb. Of course, Milan eventually attacked but it was maybe a few turns later than they did during my first campaign. I repulsed them a few times while I was busy with the Byzantines. I eventually conquered them except for Anjou.

HRE didn't get the chance since Sicily attacked Bologna again and again and eventually won control. Of course, Sicily hates me but we've had an alliance close to 100 turns now. They still hate me but have never betrayed me.

Rhyme & Reason? Some, but there's still work to be done.

Poland wins my prize for most ridiculous diplomacy AI with this stunning move:
They sent a diplomat to offer trade rights and alliance (to me, the HRE), which I accept, and on the very same turn attacking a fully garrisoned Prague with a family member and two depleted units of peasants! :dizzy2:

That's neither diplomacy nor warfare, that's just pissing away your credibility and reputation.

So I crushed them, naturally, taking all their baltic provinces and their capital and only stopping because the russians started looking scared and you don't mess with a scared russian. The silly poles agree to a ceasefire, called by me this time, and on the next turn they blockade my newly acquired port in Riga with their "navy" (two leaking boats with skeleton crews) that I didn't even know they had. My field army is only two squares away from their new and largely unprotected capital!

I guess being known as "weak" and "untrustworthy" wasn't enough. Once I get home tonight, they'll be known as "dead"! :thumbsdown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Temujin

Rhyme & Reason? Some, but there's still work to be done.

Poland wins my prize for most ridiculous diplomacy AI with this stunning move:
They sent a diplomat to offer trade rights and alliance (to me, the HRE), which I accept, and on the very same turn attacking a fully garrisoned Prague with a family member and two depleted units of peasants! :dizzy2:

That's neither diplomacy nor warfare, that's just pissing away your credibility and reputation.

So I crushed them, naturally, taking all their baltic provinces and their capital and only stopping because the russians started looking scared and you don't mess with a scared russian. The silly poles agree to a ceasefire, called by me this time, and on the next turn they blockade my newly acquired port in Riga with their "navy" (two leaking boats with skeleton crews) that I didn't even know they had. My field army is only two squares away from their new and largely unprotected capital!

I guess being known as "weak" and "untrustworthy" wasn't enough. Once I get home tonight, they'll be known as "dead"! :thumbsdown:

---

Well you have to give them credit for being plucky!! :2thumbsup:

Great line about going near scared Russian's....YOU don't want to get involved there. What difficulty level was it?

The wierdest thing that happened to me was, in my turn, asking the Turks to become my allies and be angrily refused. ("Not interested yaddayadda") and then right after that, in their turn, they ask ME for an alliance and even offer me about 3k for it. Why do things the easy way, huh...

On a similar note, it seems that I can't offer alliances to some factions. E.g as the Scottish, I want to offer an alliance to Poland, but the option is missing from the list. I am not at war with any of their allies and our standings aren't that bad... strange

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

Well you have to give them credit for being plucky!! :2thumbsup:

Great line about going near scared Russian's....YOU don't want to get involved there. What difficulty level was it?

---

Plucky? They're insane, that's what they are!

I'm playing on medium everything.

I've just seen yet another boneheaded move by the AI. Playing as England I had taken Bruges and the Danes had Antwerp. After a few turns Antwerp rebelled and a half stack appeared consisting of flemish pikemen and militia. The Danes Assaulted the city the next turn with the remnants of their garrison (not even half the strength of the rebels) and were repulsed and retreated. Being the opportunist I am I marched about half my stack from Bruges and sieged, taking the town after waiting two turns for a ballista to arrive from Caen.

Immediately the next turn the survivors of the Danish force, now down to maybe 200 men at most, wandered back into the area and attacked against my garrison of about 600. I sallied forth and used my archers and ballista to cut as many down as I could before charging the remnants with my mailed knights. The AI really should be a bit smarter than that. For all the improvements to the AI, which definitely overall plays a better game than in previous games, they still tend to make some astoundingly stupid decisions sometimes.

What makes this more annoying is that while Antwerp was in rebellion and our borders did not meet the Danes and I were getting along reasonably well, but as soon as we shared a border those lunatic vikings felt it prudent to mount a suicide attack against me. If they're going to attack they could at least send a suitable force to do the job.

In my campaign the Danes consistently invaded my land regardless of the fact that we were allies (I was vassal). Only after taking their capital city (A something) did they agree to a cease fire. I have never had a peace between myself and HRE that wasnt instigated by the Pope. I gotta say one thing though, sometimes the AI really upholds its deals. I was allied with Russia for nearly my entire game (168 turns) until our relationship deteriorated and now I have to face a fairly large invasion while my troops are on a crusade.

Personally, I find the AI is fine except for they don't tend to see reason when you're massively overpowering them and they won't take a ceasefire.

For me, to have everyone surrounding you, attacking you is fine - what do you expect? By the very nature of the game, and by it's very purpous, you, as the Human player are a massively expansionist faction. Wouldn't you, as the AI, try to take you out? I would. So people, stop whinging about being at war and wait for CA to make Medieval: Total Peace. :inquisitive:

I've had mixed results with diplomacy. In my French campaign I've kept most of my allies that I had from near the start. Spain and Portugal have been steadfast, despite a 'so-so' relationship... we've been basically ignoring each other. It probably helps that there's now two rebel states forming a border, but even before then Spain shared a border that I barely had any defenders on and it stayed put... perhaps it's too busy with the Moors... my other long term ally (not sure how I'm keeping both...). Having my western borders at peace has allowed me to deal with all the oathbreakers to my east....

Danes pulled the whole 'Let's have trade rights together... and, sure! We'll take that alliance you're offering!', then attack scenario... no sense. Then Milan betrays us and the HRE decides the same turn that it might as well offer its solidarity to its northern and southern neighbors.

For me, the most frustrating, but also best and perhaps most realistic part was that the pope definitely had a hand in it, even if the AI wasn't actually working that way and I'm just pretending it was planned. They'd attack me, capture a city and the very next turn the pope would tell me he'd excommunicate me if I didn't cease hostilities... effectively giving them the cities since I couldn't retake them for 7-8 turns. Fortunately for me, the secretly female pope who followed him was friendlier to me and eventually excommunicated the three countries, which gave me some leeway and allowed to call in my Venetian allies (who basically all but committed suicide against the Milanese...). Since then a third pope has reconciled everyone and doesn't really seem to be playing favorites at the moment....

I've been at war with them for ages now and the wars have worn me down, but they don't feel any need to stop despite that I've had all the long term successes (in each case I've eventually captured a few of their cities). I've even tried offering a city or two back to them for a ceasefire and they all still reject the offers.. heck, I offered the HRE all three of its territories back... which would've more than doubled its current pathetic size and it still felt the ceasefire request was 'demanding'. Maybe the AI thought it was a sign of my own weakness, but I honestly hold nothing against the sausage-eating, beer-swilling, Imperial pudding heads as they merely sought a land grab while I fought the two countries that betrayed me.

I do wish there was more war-weariness and other factors the played into the diplomacy. The fact that Total War has always been about offense and constant conquering and allows for standing armies has never allowed that concept to flourish, but it would be nice to see something closer to Crusader Kings in its short, sometimes pointless wars.

Two other interesting alliances: After a short war when they sided with the Danes, and subsequently lost all their continental holdings to me, the English have been peacefully my allies. Perhaps the Scots are keeping them busy or perhaps the channel's enough of a 'border'. More interesting is Egypt. Took Jerusalem from them on a crusade, then held up and sued for peace, which eventually became trade, then an actual alliance. They subsequently happily allowed my occupation of Jerusalem without any blatant attacks (they did have Imans preaching outside and maybe a spy or two I never detected, but they never attacked, despite big enough stacks to wipe my forces clean). Eventually God decided we shouldn't be in Jerusalem and caused an earthquake that killed my governor and three preaching priests and Jerusalem rebelled, but it still shocked me how peaceful Egypt was despite bordering it on all sides and outnumbering my forces there.

I dunno, really. I mean, the AI is mean, stupid even, and yes, bezerk sometimes. But I like my AI to be mean. And Bezerk might pay off, especially when it's the Danes :laugh4:

I played Venice for a while, and was attacked by Milan pretty early, HRE was allied so decided to whack me too and of course the next turn the byzantines wanted to try some hostile real estate takeover of their own and guess who's the turkey?
Now a few turns later, the Pope, with which I had a pretty darn bad relation since I voted against him :thumbsdown: :sweatdrop: :whip:
actually excommunicated the Milans! jippy for the Pope!

Now, all in all, I must say, of course it can do better, of course it can be improved. I've seen the AI sieging me in ways which were pretty darn stupid, somethimes they come with a force half the amount needed to even stand a chance, and yes, diplomacy is .... strange at best. And wanna build a trade empire? Better only take trade resources in your own back yard, because without assassins you're toast.. :juggle2:

But on the whole? Not bad. In my current game I'm the Danes, at war with Poland and HRE. Crusade just underway, so bereft of my best forces, I'm facing 3-4 stacks of troops with 2-3 of my own.. And thats just what I can see coming.. Aint it beautifull?

Regards,
SD

As I already sayd, i think we should report it as a MAJOR bug. We got do something about it.

Erm, I dunno.. what's Major? Major is when your Siege towers trip over boulders or when the enemy starts shooting bows instead of arrows.

What do you think it was like back then? nice and cozy I agree, let's not fight you, let's see if we can help you get real big and strong and then we all keep living happyly together? That land you conquer has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere isn't likely to agree, to lay back and stop their efforts in hitting you with serpent-diplomacy tactics.

Diplomacy is nice, but this game is about war. And playing on the thougher levels, I expect to be ganged upon. Over and over and over again. That happens to be the way I like it..

MTW2: Total Gang War!

Getting attacked form all sides by the AI or stabbed in the back is what the AI is supposed to do. It is programmed to try and beat you. That is the concept of a game, a winner and a loser.
Complaining that the AI is not behaving the way you expect to and adressing it as a bug seems a bit far fetched. Think for once that the AI is NOT programmed to try and beat you. Looks a bit boring game to me.

And the dipomacy is still very simple in MTW2. On VH or H the AI will attack you from all sides, that is the only real mechanic to make the game more of a challange for the experienced players.

In general if in the game you can pay opponents off, and when they attack you don't grab his cities Or give your conquest back. AI is far more likely to make peace after a while. That is how it worked in real life as well and still does.
An opponent is more inclined to settle if his losses are small.
I would say, well done CA to incoperate that into the game.

many complaints or so called bugs are far more likely to be not enough knowledge pf the game. Some elements have changed, CA frogot to mention that I think. The more I play the game, the less problems I have.
Inquisition, spies, merchant, diplomacy, assasinations, cav charges and whatever I am able to use them far more effective as in my first campaign.

Poland seems okay in my game, I guess...

I have a h/h Russian campaign going, where I was allied to just about everybody (including Poland). About turn 50 or so they decided it was a splendid idea to attack Novgorod, my capital. I had seen this coming, though, as they are one of my target nations to eliminate and I kept getting messages saying our relations had worsened. I don't know how, since I was being a good Russian boy and staying quiet in my own country, waiting for the Mongols. Anyway, the Poles attack Novgorod and I beat them in a heroic battle (got the cross and everything). I then took Riga from them, sent a diplomat and asked for a ceasefire and trade rights. They got all excited and were thankful I did not crush their tiny nation. I then broke that ceasefire and took Vilnius, and once again asked for a ceasefire. They happily accepted. I think this is due to the fact that my armies have grown considerably in size, and the Poles were also at war with Venice. But they have been behaving since, and its about turn 110. The Mongols ended up going south into Egypt, and Hungary decided I was ripe for attack. So I am at war with them now, and they seem hell bent on suiciding themselves on me. Such is my luck.

Anyway, diplomacy seems to be a much more rational thing in my experience. ;)

The AI should be programmed to beat you IF NECESSARY... It should be programmed to beat you if you are at war... It should be programmed to honour alliances, especially if you are trustworthy, and if you break a treaty you should be punished heavily for it by getting a bad reputation, just as the AI should.

Now i see you all saying that maybe CA wanted it this way, and to stop whining, well this is pish and i'm going to explain why.

If CA wanted the game to be nonstop war, there would be no diplomats and no diplomatic options whatsoever, there would be no option for the pope to excommunicate you and there would be no 'Relations' message telling you how good or bad you and whatever nation are getting along.

But since all of the above IS in the game, then it suggests to me that this is not the way CA intended the AI to behave, but either cannot do anything about it or simply doesn't want to take the time to do anything about it... I'm hoping it's the second, because if it is then maybe if we whine enough they'll fix something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amon_Zeth

I've had to stop yet another campaign because of the diplomacy AI, which seems utterly determined to attack me at random with little warning. For a while I thought having strong garrisons would deter any attacks by other factions. For a while, this worked, but at enormous expense, as those fleets and armies just love to keep my treasury nice and low. Then, all of a sudden, Sicily and Hungary attacked me for no reason, plunging my treasury into mega-debt, and, myself already at war with the Byzantines, I was forced into a very compromised position. Hence, the termination of my last campaign.

---

Which is exactly what I would have done If I'd been the Sicilians or the Hungarians.

If you're big and successful, you are attacked. If you are big and successful and vulnerable, it hurts.


Attack, attack, attack.

Do you remember how spys use to work in STW times? Remember when they use to tell "this faction plans to attack this province in 2 turns" ? Some people dont get why spys only act as recon units since RTW. I will tell you why. There is no reason in the AI behavior. Spys cant do that anymore cuz the AI now acts randomcily, it kind "play the dices" and send a ship to block a port guarded for an entire fleet.
The AI doesnt break aliances cuz your provinces are weak, it doesnt attack you cuz it "wanna win at any cost", its all about the "dices result". When AI acts without any "reason", diplomacy is worthless, diplomacy is useless. I got your point when you say "this game is called total war". But some people bought it cuz CA bragged a lot about this "incredible brand new diplomacy sistem". I bought it cuz i believed that...
Again, if i got your point, there is no meaning in any kind of diplomacy in "Total War". If you are saying that the game is all about raise armys, take citys, burn citys, take new citys, burn again, sake them, and the same again and again Total War, as it is now, is working perfectily and also is perfectily boring.

To me the problem is not that the AI is aggressive and untrustworthy, it should be. Rather it is that it tends to make really stupid choices about when and where to attack. This is a game about war yes, but it is incredibly annoying to me when I get attacked by a faction when doing so can only lead to disaster for them. Add to that the fact that factions that border you seem to have no instinct for preserving themselves and would rather throw their pathetic, disorganized armies at you to be slaughtered than consider the fact that it might be wiser to accept a ceasefire and regain their strength and perhaps try expanding in another direction.

This is not artificial intelligence, more accurate to call in artificial insanity. War and diplomacy go hand in hand, if im significantly more powerful than my neighbor they should not blindly launch an ill-conceived invasion of territories, they should seek to maintain peace with me while they build their strength and prey on weaker neighbors until they are ready to confront me.

Just because the game is called total war does not mean that the AI should be blindly aggressive and attack the player just for the sake of it when it confers no benefit to them but instead puts them directly in my sights and ensures that they will be destroyed at the first opportunity. As it is I find myself easily crushing my neighbors because they attack me well before they are in a position to legitimately challenge me and the game is made all the easier as a result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayve

The AI should be programmed to beat you IF NECESSARY... It should be programmed to beat you if you are at war... It should be programmed to honour alliances, especially if you are trustworthy, and if you break a treaty you should be punished heavily for it by getting a bad reputation, just as the AI should.

Now i see you all saying that maybe CA wanted it this way, and to stop whining, well this is pish and i'm going to explain why.

If CA wanted the game to be nonstop war, there would be no diplomats and no diplomatic options whatsoever, there would be no option for the pope to excommunicate you and there would be no 'Relations' message telling you how good or bad you and whatever nation are getting along.

But since all of the above IS in the game, then it suggests to me that this is not the way CA intended the AI to behave, but either cannot do anything about it or simply doesn't want to take the time to do anything about it... I'm hoping it's the second, because if it is then maybe if we whine enough they'll fix something.

---

If it aint broke, don't fix it. Diplomacy is flavour in this game. Trade, it's a means to an end, and that is building troops or buildings that build better troops.

Ever heared of the game diplomacy? It is one of the meanest, nastiest game known to gaming-man. It's sole focus it to [censored] the other one in the [censored].

Okay, sometimes the AI is behaving quircky in diplomacy. But I have examples too of enemies begging for peace when hurt and overpowered, and many have been shared here. And others that have parties that stayed allied truthfully. Now why do you want to stay friends with parties, just because you don't attack them?

Welcome to total war. Nothing is for granted, all is at stake. And if the enemies are ganging up to put me on that stake, hell, let them try, that's the challenge I want, to prevent that, or die trying.

I was playing Venice. I destroyed Milan, took those rich islands and had the strongest army in the game. Then France sent a princess, offered marriage with i promptly accepeted. I was happy with that aliance. Then next turn they sent a royal family member with some peasants and other stupid units and sieged one of my citys. Tell me its not broken now.

True story.

Rome Total War came out. Somebody posted a complaint, saying he's paid 5,000 bucks for a ceasefire. The ceasefire lasted one turn. He was very upset.

My reaction, frankly, was that he got what he deserved. He gave his mortal enemy 5,000 in gold, making his enemy 5,000 coins richer and himself 5,000 poorer.

There are legitimate, serious complaints about diplomacy, but all ranting about the "stupid" AI doesn't help. The ranting is worsened by players who make terrible mistakes like the one in my story and blame the AI for being a backstabber. The AI is trying to stop the human player from winning the game.

As I once said — and was quoted in a sig — CA seems to think the problems with diplomacy stem from a lack of clarity. To many of us, the problem seems to be a lack of sanity. There is a lack of pursuit of faction self-interest by AI, and I readily acknowledge. There is not, however, a lack of rhyme and reason.

I'd also point out that, for all I know, other factions are working at diplomacy. Maybe some faction got 5,000 florins to attack me and blockading a port was the most risk-free way of doing that.

I have yet to face this kind of utter stupidity in my campaigns so far (playing on M/VH, I want my assassins to actually assassinate, thankyouverymuch), and most of the time when I'm betrayed, I'm betrayed big time. I also find that most of the time when a weaker faction attacks me, it is because they've made alliances and hope I'll get gangbanged. Sometimes it works, sometimes their allies give them the shaft, and sometimes their allies actually turn on them (by the way, somewhat related since I noticed it receiving one of the aforementionned ganglovin' : you can't bribe a faction into attacking one of its allies, which is a shame.)

Maybe Artificial Suicide is more common in VH campaign, I don't know. From what I read here it seems VH AI will never give you a break, which is in part why I stay in medium.

From what I can see the other factions do engage in some form of meaningful diplomacy with each other, obviously it's not possible to really know whats going on between them though. I have seen alliances form between factions with common enemies, and it is entirely likely that they are making deals to attack the player. The AI is better across the board in this game, but it frustrates me to see that in practice the way they deal with the player doesn't seem to have changed much from Rome. I had high hopes for the diplomatic aspect of this game but thus far it hasn't lived up to those hopes. It's still a great game and ill be playing it for a long time to come regardless of if changes are made or not.