Diplomacy in ETW?

**Ibn-Khaldun** · 11-16-2007, 10:13

Well .. I would like to know is there more options in diplomacy??
Timeperiod in ETW was full of coalitions so is there possible to create them against some superpower or so??
What kind of diplomatic options to you people want to see in ETW that were not in previous TW games??
"Get out of my land" option??

**Sheogorath** · 11-16-2007, 19:16

I'd like the player to have a 'Get out' option, considering the computer has one. It'd be even better if it worked.
Basically, something like the 'cassus belli' code in Imperial Glory, where people didnt get pissed at you if you attacked somebody because they did something stupid or attacked your allies.

**Rhyfelwyr** · 11-16-2007, 20:30

You should be able to negotiate with besieged settlements to come to terms for a surrender, save the hassle of boring siege after siege...

Their decision would be basde around agreements such as letting soldiers live, agreeing not to sack the settlement, faction reputation (eg. will they kill everyone anyway), and any religious or cultural differences should also cause distrust in the negotiations.

Perhaps the above system could also be used when armies meet in the field.

**Mailman653** · 11-17-2007, 00:19

I think it's been also said that military will do as the goverment will when it comes to diplomacy, in other words you can make peace with a general and have war declared on you again on the next turn by his faction, or something like that.

**wumpus** · 11-17-2007, 07:44

There was a time, MTW to be precise, when you drop your emissary onto a princess by way of asking her hand in marriage, or drop your princess onto the king by way of asking to marry into his faction. How come I find this difficult to do in M2TW? I wish this feature--or at least I could do this more often--in the diplomatic transactions of ETW. What say you? Hawooh.

**wumpus** · 11-17-2007, 07:53

Yes, Ibn-Khaldun--you're exactly right. A neutral army passes through your land, you tell 'em "get out of my soil." My diplomat ought to be able to do this. I subscribe entirely to the idea.
Yes, Caledonian Rhyfelwyr--you besiege a town for years, then your diplomat tells the mayor or baron, "Let's end this madness and surrender your ruins without further ado." Great idea!

**Ibn-Khaldun** · 03-08-2008, 19:21

I have been away from this forum so I wouldn't now much about the games progress ..
So I would like to know about the development of the diplomacy ..
Will there be any changes?? Any new diplomatic option??

Have been playng Europa Universalis 3 and I think that the warscore is good idea .. this means that occuping settlements wouldn't make them yours but will give you points to get what you want with diplomacy ..

think that this could make the game much harder cause you can not blitz all over the world and recruit best troops from the conquered city ... you would need more planning for those wars and so .. only after you will get the city using diplomacy you will get the change to recruit troops ..

so I think that the "warscore" and "get out of my land" things could be in it ..
also option to create coalistions against some countries would be nice .. just like I said before ...

**Rhyfelwyr** · 03-08-2008, 22:00

Also a better general ability to create/break alliances is needed.

I just made Milan my vassal in M2TW, and as a result all my armies laying siege to HRE and Polish cities (allies of Milan) called of their sieges!

Surely I should be able to tell Milan to break its previous alliances in order to become my vassal.

They had one settlement left, besieged by me when the diplomacy took place.

**GFX707** · 03-09-2008, 16:08

I have said this a lot of times now, but all I want is for diplomacy to be of any use at all in this game. In RTW and MTW there was no point in making alliances because the AI did not seem to care at all for them, and it seemed to me to be more likely for an ally to stab you in the back than for a neutral power to attack you. Trade rights and map information were the only useful things out of the whole lot, and even an enemy that you'd reduced to one castle containing a peasant unit with about 20 troops with my full stack sitting outside would not even accept a status quo peace, never mind becoming a vassal or giving me any cash.

Please, please CA, could you make diplomacy more realistic in ETW? I am sure we are all looking forward to the pretty graphics but perhaps you could spend a little more time making an alliance mean an alliance (even if that means they're harder to get) and an enemy AI know when he's beaten?

It has seemed to me in the last two TW releases that the campaign has been a last minute, mostly overlooked thing. I know you have a lot of work to do, but for most of us the campaign is 50% (if not more) of the game.

**Ibn-Khaldun** · 03-09-2008, 16:45

An ally backstabbing you is one thing what makes me angry most of the times ..
I give them money to be happy and to help them with there wars but then they deside that it is good idea to block one of my ports with one ship or to attack my city with 2-3 peasant units .. this is just dumb

I know that players do this sometimes but the penalties from doing so should be very harsh .. like being an ally for 30 years or so and then attack them suddenly .. this should make your people unhappy and population in the settlements to riot ...

what you need is casus belli for wars .. can't just attack some faction out of the blue .. think that the diplomats should have option to "declare war"