Diplomacy is entirely broken

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Ah yes. Good old "It's called Total War".
Could any of the gentlemen who used that line perhaps explain what they think Total War means? Could you look it up? THANK YOU!
The diplomacy in this game is bogus, and you know it is bogus. Some silly rationalization based on an erroneous understanding of the title will not make it any less bogus.

[A Very Super Market]

Total war simply means the devotion of an entire nation's resources into a war, not a huge fight between everyone. I felt like being annoying, so whatever.

[Prodigal]

Right last post on this as I'm coming out of the closet, there's nothing wrong with the diplomacy. That it doesn't work the way people think it should doesn't make it broken or bugged.

1700-1800 countries made & tore up treaties with each other any time they felt like it. Alliances are what you make in order to get something you want, accepting or declining to join in a war should be done based on what you're trying to get.

Current game is probably the most fun I've had since release, using the diplomacy & its working really well, managing to get my main rivals to both get badly mauled fighting each other while staying more or less neutral & only getting invloved when I see an opportunity. In other words not having ridiculous dow's & have manageable wars. And I am not spamming the alliance to buddy up with any faction that'll have me.

The 18th century was not known as a golden age of diplomacy, everyone was tearing each other up in a global land grab. The main diplomatic tool of the time seemed based on having an army large enough to enforce your right to whatever you wanted. So while playing the game pop on a lice filled powered wig, & only drink beer or wine because water will kill you, it'll change your whole outlook on finesse diplomacy

[crpcarrot]

i second prodigal

i dont think think diplomacy is perfect and i would love to see a civ 4 type diplomacy in game but i havent seen this alleged random DOW in my games . its probably my play style

its absurd for players to expect the IA to respond according to their version of whats logical and call the game broken if it does do exactly that. what would be the point of playing th game if you knew what the AI was going to do anyway???

[al Roumi]

i second prodigal

i dont think think diplomacy is perfect and i would love to see a civ 4 type diplomacy in game but i havent seen this alleged random DOW in my games . its probably my play style

its absurd for players to expect the IA to respond according to their version of whats logical and call the game broken if it does do exactly that. what would be the point of playing th game if you knew what the AI was going to do anyway???

Waow, what factions have you been playing? Have you engaged in any diplomatic relations? Had alliances with any neighbouring factions? Any protectorates? Not seen things like Poland, even though it has no port, declaring war on Malta?

Random isn't perhaps the right term, it's more that the decision making by some factions seems bizarre and inconsistent with what, ultimately, a human player might try to do in the same situation.

Knowing, to a degree of confidence, what the AI is up to or not means that you can actually plan around and with your allies and enemies, and maybe swing some undecided factions your way or another. I find it irritating when I've worked towards an agreement or something, only for it to be ripped up on the basis of nothing that i can understand.

I have no issue with people declaring war on me, it IS what the game is about, but I prefer it when such DoWs come from factions whom I'm not actually "friendly" with.

[Didz]

i dont think think diplomacy is perfect and i would love to see a civ 4 type diplomacy in game but i havent seen this alleged random DOW in my games . its probably my play style

I find that really have to believe as usually at least one occurs within the first few turns.

What factions have you played and at what difficult level?
And how many factions are you are war with by say the 10th turn of the game?

I'm currently playing France on Easy Campaign Difficulty just to test if it affects the volume of Random DOW's. It didn't but the 1.3 patch does seem to have results in my game going relatively quiet. I've only had 1 x Random DOW's in the last 10 turns or so, from Austria that couldn't actually reach me so I avoided the event by reloading and replaying the end of turn. Britiain offered me a trade for Kentucky which I refused but it didn't follow through. Britain is bankrupt in my game anyway simply because Prussia stuck a fleet in Greenwich on turn 2 and they never sent an army from London to liberate the port.

The other thing I've noticed with 1.3 is that now the pirates attack the Trade Ports none of the AI factions send any ships there. France actually has all the trade theatres to itself, even though I deliberately restrict myself to using no more than one Trade Post in each theatre, the others just sit empty.

[Turbosatan]

Right last post on this as I'm coming out of the closet, there's nothing wrong with the diplomacy. That it doesn't work the way people think it should doesn't make it broken or bugged.

Damn straight. The amount of "it doesn't work the way it does in my head/in the actual 18th Century/in films/in Sharpe novels so it must be broken" threads I've seen since this game was released actually scares me. In MTW1, there were hundreds of features not covered by the manual or that did not work in a way that a new person to the game might consider intuitive -- the game had its kinks, its surprises, its limitations. To this day, people post on the MTW forums about how this is indicative of the game's great depth, its subtlety, its replay value. I think CA have aimed for the same thing with ETW, but the bugs at the game's release have soured all goodwill toward the game, skewing people's opinions so that unreasonable expectations are set in players' minds, leading them to post loudly & disappointedly when they find something they do not like or confuses them or works in a way that is different to their opinion of how it should be implemented.

You guys need to stop a minute & try to evaluate the actual game in & of itself, rather than comparing it to some utopian Platonic ideal that exists only in your heads. If you don't like it, fine, post away, but the use of the word "broken" has turned into a code that means the person using it can immediately get take umbrage (somewhere just outside Troy, I believe) & swell themselves up with self-righteousness.

OTOH, & being less charitable, it's like people don't know what the word "broken" means. On the various TW forums, if a player finds something not to their liking, then it must be broken.

For instance: today, the sun wouldn't stop shining, hurting my eyes. Therefore I declare the weather broken & demand God fixes it to my (& only my) satisfaction. Anything less will result in a class action lawsuit.

[Durallan]

The 18th century was not known as a golden age of diplomacy, everyone was tearing each other up in a global land grab. The main diplomatic tool of the time seemed based on having an army large enough to enforce your right to whatever you wanted. So while playing the game pop on a lice filled powered wig, & only drink beer or wine because water will kill you, it'll change your whole outlook on finesse diplomacy

Player: Russia we are both enemies with Poland and Sweden, lets ally up against them!

Russia AI : Sure!

*Poland Destoryed*

Russia AI: Player has destroyed poland with massive army. I have no massive army. Break Alliance and Attack Player.

Player: wtf? I thought we were allies!

Russia AI: send 2 small armies to harass Player's Buildings

Player: Dood if you don't sign this peace treaty I'm gunna destroy you.

Russia AI: NEVER! (Unless you give me everything you own.)

*Russia Destroyed*

Are you guys sure you are playing the same game?

while I have the imagination, I'm not going to use it to make up for the computer making lousy decisions. Computers should be putting 2 - 3 stack armies against a player if they really want to win, not the pathetic bunches they do right now.

Again like I said, I do not mind nations or big nations attacking me, if there is a good excuse, IE their ally declared war on me together they think they can beat me, breaking alliances is okay if the AI thinks it can win, but I find it hard to believe russia thought it could win, with it dealing with 2 different wars already, so you can make up whatever you want to think that diplomacy/AI faction reasoning works, but I agree with Didz and the others that it doesn't work as well as it should be working.

Okay Example: In Gal Civ 2 if an AI nation notices that its military is much superior to yours, it will begin to bully you and demand money and if you reject their threats then that can lead to war. THAT MAKES SENSE. Right now breaking an alliance without saying why doesn't make sense and yes while alot of things in life don't make sense, they do come with explanations where the Random DoW's in ETW don't.

[Didz]

I suspect these guys are just blitzing the game anyway, so they're not even trying to use the diplomacy system. Its the only way I can believe a statement that they have never seen a Random DOW. After all if you've already declared war on everyone anyway they can't DOW you. In that respect the Diplomacy system is an irrelevance to them.

I think its only fair to show some evidence of my own game to prove my point. The following image shows the diplomatic status of France at the end of 1720 in my game.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As you can see I've managed to avoid being at war with everyone except the Barbary States and the Pirates. However, this has only been achieved by reloading and replaying the End of Turn everytime I get a Random DOW that does not make sense.

Even using this technique I was still forced to accept war with the Dutch in the opening few turns of the game, simply because they declared war on Spain. Whilst that was no doubt a random event, it did at least make sense and the Dutch did at least invade Flanders. The problem was that they flatly refused to make peace, even after their army had been defeated, and as their fluyts were causing problems to my trade routes I was forced to eliminate them from the game. [e.g. The Rabid Lemming issue still persists]

As you can see I've also managed to complete the French Mission without provoking Britain, mainly because Britain is bankrupt due to its failure to deal with a Prussian Fleet which has been occupying its trade port for over 15 years. This is another long term AI issue that hasn't been addressed in 1.3. As a result Britain is feeble and destitute, which probably means I shall have no trouble achieving my other goals in North America.

So, overall this has turned out to be a very easy campaign, but I have still had four Random DOW's so far even on Easy Difficulty. The idea that Patch 1.3 has cured this problem is not borne out by my experiences at all.

[crpcarrot]

i'm sorry didz but jsut becasuse we dont agree with your doent mean we dont know how to play the game.

i play on hard on H/H

i dont blitz and i never have from the time i started playing STW. i usually play to carve out a small empire and just roleplay the rest of the game or until i get bored and start another campaign.

i ahve had allies and i do have protectorates whome i support financially and militarily against my enemies.

as far as i can remember i havent been at war with more than 5-6 factions at a time. in my current campaign i dont think i ever had more than 4 enemies ata time and when i make reasonable offers for peace the AI has accepted it.

i have avoided posting about this because i expected exactly the reply i got. and whatever you may think about how me or others who agree that it is not perfect but certainly not broken, play, we are still entitled to our opinion and we would appreciate the same respect we give you when you post a half page rant be given to us. please dont make this forum another .com.

if the bugs were as bad as the end year bug in RTW then i would consider it broken. if you call this game broken i'ts a wonder you mangaed to ever play any previous TW titles.

"Random isn't perhaps the right term, it's more that the decision making by some factions seems bizarre and inconsistent with what, ultimately, a human player might try to do in the same situation."

if you expecting human reactions from an AI we are still a few years away from that mate. you will have to accept a level of .. well non human behaviour from any game.

and you are right random is probably the wrong word. i probably see plenty of what you would term random DOW but to be honest as long as its not to do with my faction i dont really pay much atrtnention unless its affecting my trade. and i certainly dont consider a minor faction declaring war on me randon or broken. sure i'm bigger than he is and he has no chance of defeating me totally. but if he has nowhere else to expand to and my bodering provinces are lightly guarded, why not?? its certaibly what some oppotunistic humans would do. maybe it was trying to grab the provice and sell ti back to me? or sell ti to someone else. point is i dont know and just cos i dont know i dont assume its broken.

edit please excuse my bad typing. somehow everytime i use a keyboard i beocme very dyslexic.

[Didz]

i'm sorry didz but jsut becasuse we dont agree with your doent mean we dont know how to play the game.

I never said you don't know how to play the game. What I said was the only way I think that you might be able to avoid having any 'Random DOW' is if you were blitzing the map and thus there were no factions available at peace with you for the 'screw the play routine' to use to declare war on you. I was actually responding to your own comment that we must be playing the game differently.

None of the other reasons you have mentioned would have any effect on the 'Random DOW' event because its completely random and doesn't take anything from the diplomacy system into account. The only thing that might shut it up is if when it triggers it perceives that the player is already at war with the miniumum number of factions it has been programmed to accept and so it can see no need to create further strife for the player. Some players have noted that deliberately declaring war or remote AI factions can placate the 'player hate routine'.

However, as has been noted repeatedly Allies, Friends even protectorates can and do declare war at random on the players faction, if the Random DOW routine decree's it.

"Random isn't perhaps the right term, it's more that the decision making by some factions seems bizarre and inconsistent with what, ultimately, a human player might try to do in the same situation."

I disagree, Random is the only word for it, as the events have no logical explanation, and more to the point if you reload from the 'Autosave' and run the End of Turn again they rarely re-appear. Proving beyond doubt that their appearance had nothing to do with the diplomatic or strategic situation but was simple a random event triggerred by an unlucky roll of the 'player hate routine'.

if you expecting human reactions from an AI we are still a few years away from that mate. you will have to accept a level of .. well non human behaviour from any game.

Nope! I just expect CA to produce a strategy game that approximately equates to the standards produced by other designers. As things stand it is impossible to play this game strategically, because the diplomacy system is either not being used, or is broken.

[Cheetah]

I suspect these guys are just blitzing the game anyway, so they're not even trying to use the diplomacy system. Its the only way I can believe a statement that they have never seen a Random DOW. After all if you've already declared war on everyone anyway they can't DOW you. In that respect the Diplomacy system is an irrelevance to them.

This is definitely not the case. I give you examples.

1, First game I play Poland. (it was pre-patch)

Prussia DoWs on me.
Sweden attacks Courland, I join in.
Later on the Chrimean Chanate captures Kiev and after that DoWs on me.
Courland beats back the Swedish attack; I propose peace, they accept.
For some 20 years I got no DoWs (and I have 4 inland provinces).
I build up a decent stack and take out the Chrimena chanate, then take Saxony from the Prussians.
First Austria, then the Ottomans Dows on me (I had bad relations with both).
Russia holds out as an ally through the game (even though I am completely blocking their way to Europe and reject their offers for Vilnius).

Wich one of these Dows are "random"?

2, Second game I play GBR.

It is 1730 and I received only one Dow in the game: form the Hurons who attacked Moose factory. Also, I am very far from "blitzing", I captured only the pirate islands, Mauritius, Florida, and Carolina.

Allies got the following Dows (relatively early on):

Austria from: Prussia, Poland and Russia (I join in)
UP from Maratha (I join in)
Portugal from Spain (I refuse)
13 colonies from all native factiosnexcept Hurons and from France (I join in)

much later:

13 colonies from Sweeden (I reject because Sweeden is my trade partner)

Which one of the above do you think is a random DoW?

So, overall this has turned out to be a very easy campaign, but I have still had four Random DOW's so far even on Easy Difficulty. The idea that Patch 1.3 has cured this problem is not borne out by my experiences at all.

Could you list the Dows you got, perhaps they were not entirely random?

Also, you reload the game whenever you got attacked and conclude that it was very easy (on easy difficulty!).

[Didz]

Could you list the Dows you got, perhaps they were not entirely random?

They are all entirely Random, the test and proof of this is perfectly simple.

1) As soon as you get a DOW, reload the game from the Autosave taken just before you ended the last turn.

2) Re-run the end of turn.

If the DOW is based upon logic and the diplomatic/geopolitical situation at the end of that turn then nothing has changed and the same faction will DOW you every turn. If it doesn't, and never bothers you again then clearly it was a completely random event.


@Ordani: No they are NOT reproducible from saves thats the whole point. Nor is the selection of the opponent based on any evaluation of its likely success, or even abilty, to persecute a war against you, it is totally random.

It makes no difference what difficulty level you are on. At the moment I am trying a campaign on Easy Difficulty to test whether the frequency of the Random DOW events is lower at easier settings. The frequency is certainly lower on Easy since the patch, but the DOW's that do occur are still random.

I've also been told that the Random DOW's can be avoided provided as a faction you remain at war with a minimum number of AI controlled factions. I haven't tested this but assuming that the Random DOW's are triggerred by the 'Player Hate Routine' it would make logical sense to assume that if as a player you are already seen by the AI to be at war with several factions it might be programmed not to trigger any further wars.

The test for this will be to start a new campaign using a faction that has no colonial aspirations (e.g. Prussia/Austria) and to immdeiately declare war on all the Native American Factions and possibily the Indian factions that can't possibly interfere with your European goals. If as a result the 'Player Hate Routine' leaves you alone then that would prove the theory, that Random DOW's are only triggered to keep the player faction in a permanent state of conflict.

[Prodigal]

@Hussar, no what I wrote wasn't bollox you just didn't get it.

This whole thing seems based around people who don't see a major problem, & another bunch who want to prove that its a game breaker.

The fact that the AI does not sue for peace, or form new alliances is a bug, but it does not mean that the game is unplayable, and doubt it would have a great affect on the game dynamic even if they did.

Wait till after the summer, 1.3 cannot have been the last patch, think everyone would agree that there is room for considerable improvment and no doubt it'll be addressed sooner or later.

[Husar]

Right last post on this as I'm coming out of the closet, there's nothing wrong with the diplomacy. That it doesn't work the way people think it should doesn't make it broken or bugged.

1700-1800 countries made & tore up treaties with each other any time they felt like it. Alliances are what you make in order to get something you want, accepting or declining to join in a war should be done based on what you're trying to get.

It would be valid if the AI actually would make alliances and peace, but all they ever do is declare war and then keep that status until either faction is eliminated.
I must say my spanish campaign is now in 1757 and while the random declarations of war have stopped, which makes m somewhat happy, there has not been a single peace treaty signed in the entire campaign, except if initiated by myself!

All we expect is that the AI factions behave somewhat reasonable, that they don't go to berserk mode like the third reich and try to take on everybody at once and completely exhaust eachother until the player steamrolls them, something like that, I just invaded three turkish provinces and they didn't send a single of their full stacks to prevent me from doing that, maybe that was because they're at war with Austria, several italian states, Marathas etc. or maybe' they're just stupid.
So I took the fourth province, Baghdad, before the huge marathas empire could, turkey besieged it with a full stack later on but Marathas wanted the province from me, plus 5900 gold in return for giving me unlimited military access (pretty useless considering Marathas is the only faction in that direction), I declined, they declared war. Now that's not bad, having demands before declaring war, but there are still quite a few holes, I will probably have to conquer all of India now to get "peace" with them, what I'd find more useful is to beat them in a few battles, maybe take a province or two and then negotiate a peace treaty once they lost their major armies and found out they cannot stop me easily anymore. Instead, the current AI seems to fight until you take their last province which is just rediculous, self-destructive berserk behaviour and not what you expect from a so-called "strategy game" since berserk mode is not really a strategy.

[Husar]

edit: just tried and offered peace to Marathas before we even fought a single battle and they accepted, relations are friendly now. Could this be tied to how the relations are like in previous titles?
Iff so, I guess this needs a change, a crushed opponent will hardly be friendly towards you, yet it makes sense for them to accept a peace deal.

actual edit: guess that was the quote button...

[jsberry]

Right last post on this as I'm coming out of the closet, there's nothing wrong with the diplomacy. That it doesn't work the way people think it should doesn't make it broken or bugged.

You should try playing something besides Britain on Easy.

The AI is programmed to ALWAYS attack when it shares a border.

The century 1700-1800 contained 4 wars of 7-8 years in length. That was 30 years of war and 70 years of diplomacy. Version 1.3 is 100 years of war.

There is a friend-o-meter with lots of factors. And the factors themselves are pretty well worked out. The result is a number that makes the AI of that country "friendly" or "hostile." But then that number is COMPLETELY IGNORED by that country. That means it is BROKEN.

[Didz]

Ahem! broken in my dictionary means not working, or in pieces, both of which are accurate descriptions of the ETW diplomacy system.

[oz_wwjd]

I also had problems with after I've just conquered the french. I moved my army down to make war on spain but westphlia decided it was a good idea to take me on for some reason,despite the fact that my army outnumbered and outgunned their Milita army. They were at indifferent before that,so I don't know what the AI was thinking as it was destoyed shortly after that.

[Fisherking]

There are changes in the system I have seen for a wile now. Where as it was once possible to reload and get some different outcome, they don't seem to be altered very easily now and usually when you get a change, it is much worse than the event you were trying to avoid.

It doesn’t mean that the game is less out to get the player, it just means that some mechanism has made it less easy to avoid.

[al Roumi]

I've recently noticed a change in v1.3, having a different govt radicaly changes people's disposition towards you (AM to Rep = -140 odd relation). I was playing as Spain, had a revolution and became a republic. Everyone, even France (who had been very friendly) turned Hostile!

A couple of turns of state gifts and things were better again but I'm glad to see this has a bearing on relation scores at least (i was probably at war with anyone who would have DoW'd on me anyway.

[Didz]

Yes! I've noticed since Patch 1.3 that avoiding 'dumb diplomacy' is much harder. The good news is that the the AI is now more consistent and persistent, the bad news is that its now consistently and persistently stupid.

[FactionHeir]

There are changes in the system I have seen for a wile now. Where as it was once possible to reload and get some different outcome, they don't seem to be altered very easily now and usually when you get a change, it is much worse than the event you were trying to avoid.

It doesn’t mean that the game is less out to get the player, it just means that some mechanism has made it less easy to avoid.

More consistent than 1.2, but still very inconsistent overall.
Better than M2TW in any case, where reloading a turn would even cause the AI to unsiege your settlements!

[FactionHeir]

I love this "diplomacy"



Um hello, this offer makes no sense given that I share no borders or enemies with Russia....


In other news, my long time ally France decided to attack my friendly ally Genoa. Decided to side with Genoa as they have helped in in naval battles before. Three turns later and France is down to just Saxony in Europe, and its northern holdings in America, having lost France, Savoy, Rhineland, Württemberg, French Guyana and Windward Islands to me.

So I offer them peace, figure that since we share loads of mutual enemies and France has no trade partners whatsoever left and is at war with everyone and their dog, they ought to accept in their dire position. Well, guess what, they didn't.

In 1.0-1.2 at least, they'd accept peace once you take just France itself. If you took a bit more, they'd even throw in all their regions save their new capitol. 1.3 and they reject any peace treaty, even when I even offered to throw in a dozen techs and 30000 in cash.

They also seem to have no problem fielding 3 full stacks composed of line infantry and 12lber artillery 60-40 ratio. I wonder where they get all that money when I can barely field 4 full stacks and hold most of America, and the left side and the bottom of Europe along with all the Med islands.