force diplomacy-fog of war-cheating...

[FOIBOS]

how do we force diplomacy?
how do we remove fog of war to see the entire map?
is there a way (cheat) to give/take a region to a faction and give/take money from them?

[eggthief]

toggle_fow for the map and force diplomacy is a mod, dont think u can cheat the settlements and money but u can do the add_money cheat and give it to the AI and with the force diplomacy mod u could exchange settlements and money with the AI methinks.

[FOIBOS]

any suggestion where to find the force diplomacy mod?
ohh and if you remove fog of war what's the effect on the game speed?

[mini]

There IS a search button you know..


anyway https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...17#post1891217

[/Bean\]

Foibos, most of these cheat/codes can be found very easily via google, though most of them only dehistoricalise (word?) the game so theres little point after all the work the EB team have done

[QuintusSertorius]

Foibos, most of these cheat/codes can be found very easily via google, though most of them only dehistoricalise (word?) the game so theres little point after all the work the EB team have done

Completely disagree with you, cheats and Force Diplomacy are completely necessary to reinforce historicity given the AI does stupid and ahistorical things. And doesn't know when it's beaten.

[Daos]

Why would you want to cheat? Are you that weak at this game that you can not finish it without it or what? Try easy mode...

[/Bean\]

no no you misunderstood me. i am entirely in favour of cheats and codes that enhance the historical acuracy of the game. Its cheats like the huge elephants and the movement of armies that i dislike

[Maion Maroneios]

Completely disagree with you, cheats and Force Diplomacy are completely necessary to reinforce historicity given the AI does stupid and ahistorical things. And doesn't know when it's beaten.

I have to agree with you I only use those ''cheats'' when necessary to improve the historical accuracy of my campaigns.

[Pezlu]

I installed the force diplomacy mod, but I'll use it only for roleplaying and historicity... for example, if I'm going to siege the last city of an AI faction, I think they should accept almost any offer that would save them... like becoming a protectorate, or pay me huge sums of money in exchange for a peace.

Anyway, my opinion is that as long as you're playing a single-player game, you can cheat as much as you want... not wise IMHO, since I usually find that cheating takes the fun out of a game.

But force diplomacy or cheating to make the game more historically accurate and enjoyable is perfectly acceptable I think. Cheating to become overly powerful and/or immortal is another thing entirely. But if someone finds it fun, who am I to criticize him?

[QuintusSertorius]

Why would you want to cheat? Are you that weak at this game that you can not finish it without it or what? Try easy mode...

Because I don't care in the slightest about being "strong" at a game. I don't play for "challenge" or any of that rot, I play for historical simulation. It's not about finishing the game, or how quickly it's done, or what odds I can beat.

There are lots of different ways of having fun with a game, "beating" a game is but one of them.

[sgsandor]

I cheat. I cheat alot. I cheat to make sure i can take the game slow and enjoy all the hard work EBers put into EB. Nothing like struggling for a few years and learning how to enjoy losing a battle with incredible odds. I love losing almost more then winning sometimes. But here is the thing, while i dont spam armies or run around with a parade stack, I do like my very lovely 6 to 12 unit armies doing some damage, sacking a city, and giving it to my allies, or even back to my foe. I dont want to recruit all the units. I want the abilty to FIGHT all the units. Going to Asia Minor as Rome and helping out Pontus (poor purple lil guys get bullied all the time in my campaigns) or Konion Hellon by giving them Pergamon or Halikarnassos. I dont want the map, I have had the map. I want great nail bitting battles with mixed and balanced troops. I want my navies to be sunk by Factions other then Eluthoroi(sp) So I cheat to ensure that. I love EB. I love every detail of this game, and i cheat not to win but experience it all, and I think we should let everyone enjoy the game as they see fit. You cheat once your always a cheater, but how and why you cheat is more important (or atleast thats what i told my gf when she finds out jk).

[Daos]

Because I don't care in the slightest about being "strong" at a game. I don't play for "challenge" or any of that rot, I play for historical simulation. It's not about finishing the game, or how quickly it's done, or what odds I can beat.

There are lots of different ways of having fun with a game, "beating" a game is but one of them.

You are a sad, sad person. Even if you use it to simulate cloud patterns for all I care you should still be able to finish it on easy at least...

[/Bean\]

Daos its not as if its against the rules to cheat. If he wants to cheat, let him be. Cheatings fun when you know how to use it lol. Lets just all enjoy EB differently in our own favourtie ways

[Pezlu]

You are a sad, sad person. Even if you use it to simulate cloud patterns for all I care you should still be able to finish it on easy at least...

Well, I guess you play for challenge. Why EB then? It's aim is historical accuracy, and if you can get better historical accuracy by using cheats and/or minimods, it's perfectly right to use them.

If you care for historical accuracy at least a bit, you should easily accept Quintus' position. If you play for challenge only, then why EB?

EDIT: no offence meant of course, if you actually enjoy EB but want challenge more than historical accuracy, it's ok with me. But I think Quintus' position is as valid as yours.

[QuintusSertorius]

You are a sad, sad person. Even if you use it to simulate cloud patterns for all I care you should still be able to finish it on easy at least...

I'm so badly hurt that some stranger who can't conceive of a notion of fun beyond their own narrow-minded view of it disapproves. Oh wait, no, I'm a grown-up and couldn't care less.

[MerlinusCDXX]

I understand that these options are called "cheats", but IMO cheating depends on whether you abuse the abilities that FD and toggle_fow give you. I use FD to simulate the realities of long unpriductive wars. It is simply not historical that once a nation goes to war, that it will not stop until the other side is gone.

[QuintusSertorius]

I understand that these options are called "cheats", but IMO cheating depends on whether you abuse the abilities that FD and toggle_fow give you. I use FD to simulate the realities of long unpriductive wars. It is simply not historical that once a nation goes to war, that it will not stop until the other side is gone.

Except for Rome's treatment of some (even then it wasn't annihilation, but submission and allied-client status), and even then they were forced on occasion to a humbling Hellenic-style treaty, like that ending the First Macedonian War.

[MerlinusCDXX]

Except for Rome's treatment of some (even then it wasn't annihilation, but submission and allied-client status), and even then they were forced on occasion to a humbling Hellenic-style treaty, like that ending the First Macedonian War.

Exactly, and since the AI (on anything above Medium difficulty) will not EVER accept even a ceasefire if there are common land borders, you can't even simulate full submission with diplomacy the way it is. That being said, I have my own rules on protectorates and the like. I never force a protectorate unless a faction has less than 3 territories, no field forces, and I have at least a full (or 3/4 elite) stack in position to beseige THAT turn. Though FD'ing ceasefires IMO doesn't give you any real advantage, since the AI will just re-declare war on the next turn most of the time.

[Fish-got-a-Sniper]

I have to agree with you I only use those ''cheats'' when necessary to improve the historical accuracy of my campaigns.

While the game may be very detailed as far as history goes, what's the fun in playing a historically accurate campaign? That would be no fun. RTW and all its mods are about creating an alternate history. This isn't a simulator.

[QuintusSertorius]

Exactly, and since the AI (on anything above Medium difficulty) will not EVER accept even a ceasefire if there are common land borders, you can't even simulate full submission with diplomacy the way it is. That being said, I have my own rules on protectorates and the like. I never force a protectorate unless a faction has less than 3 territories, no field forces, and I have at least a full (or 3/4 elite) stack in position to beseige THAT turn. Though FD'ing ceasefires IMO doesn't give you any real advantage, since the AI will just re-declare war on the next turn most of the time.

Well people keep saying that, but I don't find the AI is all that aggressive if you give them no means to start a war again. With BI's executable that was certainly the case that the moment you started a war with a faction with a common body of water, it was on for good. That actually forced me to go back to rtw.exe to end the madness of three-unit stacks being landed on Sardinia constantly. But if you give trade rights, and possibly a regular, but small tribute, they'll leave you alone. Especially if, like the Gallic factions they've got more immediate concerns.

While the game may be very detailed as far as history goes, what's the fun in playing a historically accurate campaign? That would be no fun. RTW and all its mods are about creating an alternate history. This isn't a simulator.

No fun for you, maybe. Different people have fun in different ways, variety is the spice of life and all that jazz.

[Fish-got-a-Sniper]

Well, if you play historically accurate, you wouldn't be able to play any other factions besides Rome, Pahlava, Saka, Sabeans, and the Samartians without facing untimely defeat. You would rarely fight battles and managing the same provinces for 600 some odd turns would get very tedious.

[QuintusSertorius]

Well, if you play historically accurate, you wouldn't be able to play any other factions besides Rome, Pahlava, Saka, Sabeans, and the Samartians without facing untimely defeat. You would rarely fight battles and managing the same provinces for 600 some odd turns would get very tedious.

Lucky for me, then that I've no interest in playing any other faction but Rome.

[Olaf The Great]

Well, if you play historically accurate, you wouldn't be able to play any other factions besides Rome, Pahlava, Saka, Sabeans, and the Samartians without facing untimely defeat. You would rarely fight battles and managing the same provinces for 600 some odd turns would get very tedious.

By historically accurate he means giving money to factions getting pwned unduly (Macedon for example) or factions stagnating and doing nothing (Sabean, Hai, Casse, etc).

He also means(and this is what he means by "historically" by preventing factions from conquering the steppes rather than usefull territory or Rome expanding in one direction too far.


Atleast thats what I think he means, and thats what I do.

I also bribe certain cities using force diplomacy and add_money for roleplaying reasons.

IE-Playing Koinion Hellenon, I bribe Thermon and use the excuse "they joined the league against Macedon.

Of course the general of Thermon has that annoying "No bribes" trait..but If only...

[QuintusSertorius]

Yep, stopping Hayasdan and Makedonia rushing off north is one of the big things, and in 1.1 slowing down Pahlava and Baktria's expansion is another. Preventing the Aedui steamrollering the Arverni early too.

[/Bean\]

i'm glad someone else has noticed the Adeuii's steamrolling lol. The Arverni SHOULD have the better starting position, but they get massacred.

[PersianFire]

"A bit of a silly question...but, can one hypothetically speaking when imposing FD conditions on a subjugated Kingdom/Empire, in this case, force them to attack another faction which you are already at war with or not at war as could be the case?

Indeed, it doesn't even have to be a subjugated faction really I suppose, you force one n/bour to attack another?

Playing with K/H and trying to get Lusotannians to assist against Rome who are making serious headway into Iberia. My K/H presence there is slightly weak. I fought an ill-advised war again the Ptollies......"

[QuintusSertorius]

Well, you can get them to agree to do an assisted attack with FD, but they rarely follow through with it.