Speculation on Diplomacy, Nationality, and other matters.

[Fisherking]

Perhaps I am getting the wrong idea here. And we certainly don’t know too much about the game, but from what little I have gleaned from the diplomatic stand point it may be much tougher to go to war than it has in the past.

The parts about upsetting the populous when going to war with other factions they my look favorably on sort of rings a little bell.

So I suppose that some factions will be more difficult to go to war with just because of public opinion and depending on your government there will be a cretin amount of war weariness in almost any conflict.

The other thing is the recruiting of other nationals. In other words Germans in the British Forces and Irish and Scots in everyone else’s. Particularly in anyone’s who happen to be fighting the British!

We know about the Irish Brigade in the French Army, and they had a sizeable number of Scots too. The Prussians had Highlanders and there are notables in Russian service too. I just wonder if it is going to be portrayed in the game in some terms or if they will just be high level units in the order of battle in some countries.

An interesting footnote I found once said that 80% of the forces France deployed to North America in support of the Revelation were Scots and Irish.

I am also interested in seeing how easy or difficult it is for a Jocobite Rebellion to take place. From what has been said on Rebellions it would seem that almost any province can become independent or at least rebel and join some other or become it’s own faction.

I would imagine that if conditions were right the 13 Colonies could become a Jacobite Realm.

Anyone have any other thoughts on this?

[Thermal]

i know german mercenaries worked for england in america, and the indians with the french mostly, also i saw on video 3/5 that to step on someone elses land u need to be at war with them, so we have a stay of my land option at least, war could happen easier if anything, if all it takes is trespassing to spark one off

[Sir Beane]

I think you are certainly right that declaring war will be more difficult this time around. We already know that you cannot cross another factions borders without a military access treaty or a declaration of war, and that alone will make diplomacy more worthwhile.

As for recruiting foreign nationals, it may be possible to 'lend' and ally units to help in a war. Gifting units for a certain time period would be along the same lines as financial tribute, except much more useful for an ally. Ohter than that we might see foreign soldiers in the form of mercenary units.

It would be fantastic if nationalistic loyalty played a part in making it difficult to hold certain cities. For example if France took London they should face massive rebellion and popular uprising no matter what they do. Likewise European nations should not be able to wade merrily through Indian cities without seeing some backlash from the locals.

Another feature I would like to see is alliances forged between more than two partners. A league of nations formed by certain factions getting together for mutual benefit would go a long way to stopping one faction (usually the player) from steamrolling everyone else off the map.

[Fisherking]

I also saw a little thing on holding a Protectorate. Seems that Vassalage has become a Protectorate now. Though they can rebel. It may be the answer to my question of how Hanover will be handled once the Georges take the crown.

It also said that you receive 50% of their profits while you hold them, that would be better than Vassals who never seemed to have any profits at all.

[Megas Methuselah]

Another feature I would like to see is alliances forged between more than two partners. A league of nations formed by certain factions getting together for mutual benefit would go a long way to stopping one faction (usually the player) from steamrolling everyone else off the map.

I have my hopes up for not only coalitions, but also the possibility of those allies grouping their armies together to fight off their common enemy. I really hope alliances will mean something this time around.

[PBI]

Another feature I would like to see is alliances forged between more than two partners. A league of nations formed by certain factions getting together for mutual benefit would go a long way to stopping one faction (usually the player) from steamrolling everyone else off the map.

I like this idea; if one nation becomes too powerful, the other nations will form a coalition and go to war with them collectively, somewhat like the coalitions against Napoleon.

It would certainly help to make the lategame interesting with a huge climactic war rather than a tedious mopping up of vastly inferior enemies. Seems like it will be necessary for CA to add something like this; Rome had the Roman civil war, Medieval I and II had the Mongol invasions, so given that the Napoleonic Wars are likely to be just missed out in Empire this seems like the best way to make the endgame interesting.

Regarding war with a "friendly" nation causing unrest back home, I'm hoping that it'll just mean that declaring war on allies will be a less trivial matter than before, but fighting traditional enemies will be as uncomplicated as ever. As the British, I would imagine invading Portugal would cause a lot of unrest; however, I should certainly be quite able to wage war against the French more or less continuously without it having any effect on public order, so long as I don't have to put taxes up to pay for it.

[Fisherking]

Regarding war with a "friendly" nation causing unrest back home, I'm hoping that it'll just mean that declaring war on allies will be a less trivial matter than before, but fighting traditional enemies will be as uncomplicated as ever. As the British, I would imagine invading Portugal would cause a lot of unrest; however, I should certainly be quite able to wage war against the French more or less continuously without it having any effect on public order, so long as I don't have to put taxes up to pay for it.

That is true of England Proper but not of the rest of the Isles. Scotland had the Auld Alliance and Ireland had an affinity of calling on the French and Spanish for aid in rebellion. Not that it ever worked out as they wished. But even that could lead to some interesting development if the affinities are province by province and not just National.

[Polemists]

I'm not sure war will be "harder" so much as take more thought. I remeber devs stating at some point that certain factions were more predisposed to waring with each other , such as England and France.


I took this to mean that if you are a monarch, your people have no freedoms, you declare war on france, your fine.

On other hand, you've allied with Prussia for past 10 years, your a Constitutional Monarchy, and suddenly out of blue you just invade them for no reason, your people are kinda miffed.


I could be wrong as no one has seen diplomacy worked out.

IGN has a recent hands on preview that mentions diplomacy. Might be worth a read for those of you interested.

[Sheogorath]

Much as I am loath to admit it, Imperial Glory got one thing right, and that was the diplomacy. It looks like (from what we've heard thus far) that ETW's diplomacy will be even better than that.
Here's hoping.

I personally hope to see a system for coalitions set up. IE: "I declare war on this person. Everybody else who doesn't like this person, join in!"
It would act as a sort of temporary alliance until the end of the war with whoever.

Likewise, I'd like to see a decent system for surrendering set up. AI's should, naturally, be loath to part with their homelands, but in terms of colonies and subjects, the AI should be a little more willing to part with them after its capitol has been occupied and its armies are raven snacks.

I'd also like to see things that don't directly affect the world map or military in there as well. For instance, imposing trade agreements which are very favorable to you on nations (Give you money, but take away income from the other nations...sort of like tribute, but based on the other nations trade), or even stuff with little/no actual gameplay impact, like extraterritoriality.

Other options, like limiting the size of a nations army, or where its navy can go (Russia kicked Persia out of the Caspian, the British (very briefly) forbid the Russians from having a Black Sea Fleet), and stuff like that.

I realize, of course, that going in and kicking ass was more popular in the 1700's, but it'd be fun.

[Megas Methuselah]

I personally hope to see a system for coalitions set up. IE: "I declare war on this person. Everybody else who doesn't like this person, join in!"
It would act as a sort of temporary alliance until the end of the war with whoever.

YES. Moreover, I want to see members of coalitions gather together their armies and actually work together, not seperately.

Likewise, I'd like to see a decent system for surrendering set up. AI's should, naturally, be loath to part with their homelands, but in terms of colonies and subjects, the AI should be a little more willing to part with them after its capitol has been occupied and its armies are raven snacks.

YES.

Yes at everything else you said, too.

[Sheogorath]

I also think flaming pigs should play an important part in diplomacy ;)

[Fisherking]

I also think flaming pigs should play an important part in diplomacy ;)

Only in video clips!

But Rouges should be able to inspire Screaming Women in the Enemy’s rear!
;)

[Megas Methuselah]

inspire Screaming Women in the Enemy’s rear!

Only for the French.

[Sheogorath]

Only in video clips!

But Rouges should be able to inspire Screaming Women in the Enemy’s rear!
;)

I'd like to inspire some screaming women mys- PG-13, PG-13!

[Martok]

That is true of England Proper but not of the rest of the Isles. Scotland had the Auld Alliance and Ireland had an affinity of calling on the French and Spanish for aid in rebellion. Not that it ever worked out as they wished. But even that could lead to some interesting development if the affinities are province by province and not just National.

Good point, Fisherking. Would love to see something like this in the game.

[Sir Beane]

I really hope that the current monarchs family connections would play a big role in diplomacy. Look at the sort of fighting caused by the family issues surrounding the spanish throne (The War of Spanish Succession).

And then there's the ties between the Dutch and British thrones. England and the Dutch should be best pals, for as long as a Dutchman holds the British throne.

Then later on we have the attempts of Europe's royalty to rescue the French royal family during the revolution.

My hope is that we will have well developed, extensive family trees to track the various royal dynasties, and that politcal leanings and faction disposition should be affected by the various familial bonds/rivalries.

I would also hope we can use marriage as the diplomatic weapon it should have been in Medieval 2, and was in the original Medieval. Since your royal sons and daughters are unlikely to be a unit in battle or an agent (princesses) anymore it would be nice if we could use them as political bargaining chips.

That would also open up the chance of making claims to foreign territory if a king dies without legitimate heirs.

[Fondor_Yards]

That would also open up the chance of making claims to foreign territory if a king dies without legitimate heirs.

Yes! I would love maneuvering my kids into a rival royal family, and then killing off the King and Prince(s) till mine became the rulers and gave control of the nation to me.