Dumb Diplomacy: I think I may have discovered the solution.

[aimlesswanderer]

I agree Slaists, there need to be some degree of randomness, but it should not be insanely, suicidally random to often. Yes, they most definitely need to fix the AI and its inability to make peace with other AI factions, and its inability to build a decent military. We can only hope...

[AussieGiant]

I also believe Slaists requested fixes would do a great deal to solve the situation.

Nice executive summary on the Falklands War Didz. It's been a while since I studied that excellent little skirmish.

It might be as easy as the:

"Ends justify the means."

So, the next time you upset the Sun King by canceling alliance (for whatever reason) you'd have 2-3 French linemen stacks marching across Pyrenees the very first turn Louis gets out of his bed on the wrong foot.

If this was the situation, then it all becomes mute as to why the war began...the real issue is:

"How the hell do we prevent the French Guards from pillaging all of Spain?!"

[Didz]

Well it seems to me that someone has done a lot of excellent work in the background producing quite a nice factoring system to keep track of what the other factions think of you and why. Just a shame it doesn't seem to make much differece to game play.

I've been monitoring this quite closely since the random French Declaration of War and my reputation with France has risen steadily from the +35 it was then to somewhere around +88 the last time I looked.

Interestingly, I still have a -5 on most of the Factions Friend-o-meters for breaking an alliance even though the alliance wasn't with them, so thats worth noting for future reference.

Anyway, it seems that what other Factions think of you is quite well handled. What we seem to lack is any sort of routine that assesses what Factions think of themselves. There doesn't seem to be a system of sensible goals for each faction which drives their overall strategy,or even something like CIV4's (Builder, Expansionist, Aggressor) type motivation system, although of course that ought to be based upon the Head of States traits rather than the nation, and so could change over time. (Thats would actually give the assassins something useful to do)

More importantly, the AI factions never seem to do a proper Opportunity/Threat Assessment of their own position in relation to the other Factions. Nor, do they review their own performance and the performance of others to determine if their current policy needs to change.

As far as I can see, we are still looking at the basic reactive and short-sight faction attack system that existed in the very early TW games where all it does is check whether there is a nearby city with weak defences and tries to Ninja it if there is, regardless of the consequences.

The only good news, so far is that I haven't seen a Faction trigger a war by performing a pointless blockade on a friendly port. That was a feature of MTW2 as I recall, (or was it RTW.)

What is needed is something like the opening move script used in chess programmes that gives each faction a clear set of initial objectives (from a selection of different possible openings, and then constantly monitors the effect and modifies that strategy as needed)

It would also be nice to see a full implementation of the Friend-o-Meter system so that it influences foriegn policy according to your relationship with them.

Likewise the game needs a Threat-o-Meter that so that Factions correctly assess the danger they are in and from whom and used the results to influence their reactions.

Plus a How-Goes-The-War monitor that assesses their own performance, particularly in a war and encourages them to make peace or seek an alternative solution is things are clearly not going well. Nations do not go down fighting, they go down desperately seeking a way to avoid going down.

And a State-Of-The-Nation-System that assesses ways of improving the factions situation both by dipolomatic as well as military means and ensures that actions that are taken are goal oriented and viable. e.g. 'A successful nation first secures victory then goes to war, only an idiot goes to war hoping to secure victory.'

Add finally the factoring in the Head-Of-States personal influence based on his traits would add an element of interest to the state of the other nations governements which is completely lacking at the minute.

If CA did all that then we would be getting close to a decent campaign game. The good news is that most of it has already been done by other designers, so all CA really need to do is play a few other games and pinch the best of their idea's.

As far as Random Events are concerned, then I agree that they should exist. In fact, personally I'd dump all the meaningless crap about Blackbeard's Parrot Dying and Mozart's Constipation which is a complete was of data storage and replace these within meaningful Random Events that actually affect the game play. However, these events should influence the political and diplomatic situation they should not include 'screw the player' events, such as random declarations of war, unless of course the event just happened to tip your relationship over the edge.

In the meantime, I'm really pleased that I've managed to find a work around for something which was very much a game killer. Just wish I'd discovered it before I abandoned my Dutch campaign in disgust.

[Turbosatan]

May I just interject to mention that "Friend-o-meter" is my new favourite word?

Thank you.

[Didz]

May I just interject to mention that "Friend-o-meter" is my new favourite word?

Thank you.

Your welcome, though I actually stole the idea from the 'Pope-O-Meter' which was a vital aspect of MTW2 and showed what your reputation and standing was with the head of the Catholic Church.

[Xipe Totec]

As GB conquering India I have more of a 'hate-o-meter' with the Mughals at -536. They are certainly not 'very friendly' and won't be getting any more sets of Wedgewood from me.

On that point I have usually found most countries can be bought off with china plates if you time it right. A few times I have seen the writing on the wall when a half stack started wandering my way and by then it was too late to stop the inevitable DOW. Those gifts would have been better spent on raising troops or stocking up the warchest.

[Hosakawa Tito]

I'd like to know how some of the calculations on the "Friend-o-Meter" work. Especially the "acts of sabotage". Some factions I've tried to negotiate trade deals with show negative numbers and I know for a fact I've never committed nor attempted any sabotage against them. Does it just calculate any sabotage any where, sabotage against allies and/or trade partners, or what? Is it bugged and not working correctly?

[Didz]

I've spotted a couple of gliches with the 'Friend-o-Meter' which I've mentioned in passing, but its not too bad overall. As far a sabotage is converned I don't think it affects your reputation with anyone other than the faction occupying the target at the time. At least I've not noticed anyone else upset about me blowing up Rotterdam apart from the Dutch and the French who happened to have ships in the harbour at the time.

Incidently, I've just spotted that you get a -10 Territorial Expansion penalty every time you take a province in the same theatre as another faction. Thats something to watch-out for if you want to stay friends.
[Hmm! thats weird. Actually its not just with factions that own territory in the same theatre. I just took Texas and got a -10 on Russia and Prussia even though they are not in America, and yet I got no penalty on the Ottoman Empire, Muhgal Empire or Maratha Confederacy. So, how's that work then?]

[Fisherking]

Well the title is dumb diplomacy and I just had one of the dumbest things happen yet.

Everyone knows that the UP is a Republic and in the hands of the AI they stay that way. Well they just declared war on me as Sweden. And not just any war but a war of secession.

Who thinks these things up? I mean I could see Denmark if they were not already at war with me, or even Russia, who is not. Just about anyone could have done that other than the UP…

But they were just another target. Feeble and destitute with the French blockading their trade.

What is feeble and destitute is the Campaign AI and its diplomacy, declarations of war, economic abilities, and its military builds are not the greatest either…

[GFX707]

I think everyone is missing a very important point here. It doesn't matter whether wars can occur in real life for irrational reasons. It doesn't matter whether or not the game would be boring if things were predictable.

What matters is that AI nations with tiny piddly little armies who are at feeble/destitute should NOT be declaring war ALONE on nations that are terrifying/spectacular because this is just suicide. I can't count the amount of times the AI has done this to my 50 province ultra-rich superpower and I have been forced to crush them without even trying.

[Fisherking]

I think everyone is missing a very important point here. It doesn't matter whether wars can occur in real life for irrational reasons. It doesn't matter whether or not the game would be boring if things were predictable.

What matters is that AI nations with tiny piddly little armies who are at feeble/destitute should NOT be declaring war ALONE on nations that are terrifying/spectacular because this is just suicide. I can't count the amount of times the AI has done this to my 50 province ultra-rich superpower and I have been forced to crush them without even trying.

Isn’t this what I have been complaining about since we go the patch?

The AI is aggressive but it has no means to do anything with. It just makes its self a one turn target. Even major powers end up this way. One region per turn and sometimes two. They have no means to resist.

No cash, high upkeep equals no armies or armies too weak to matter.