Diplomacy is entirely broken

[Husar]

I agree Lord Yunson, good post.

[timski]

Some of these irrational Declarations of War seem to stem from the inability of the AI to handle naval movement of troops strategically.

In my British game, I've enjoyed 25 turns of friendly (with Alliance/Trade treaties) relations with the United Provinces. They owned Dutch Guyana and I owned French Guyana. These 2 regions are notable because they have no land border with the rest of the Americas.

The Dutch had gradually built up almost an entire army stack in the region, which they positioned on the border between the Guyanas. Strategically, this was rather pointless, since French (that is British) Guyana was almost undefended, primarily because the only immediate "threat" would be from my allies. Capturing French Guyana would have required 4-5 units maximum. But we know that "building a big army" is a fairly typical AI response to anything. That isn't what makes this situation curious.

The Dutch are embroiled in a war against the French. The Dutch Caribbean fleet has held Barbados for several turns. Martinique is undefended, so a handful of army units could capture it. The Windward Isles have about the same economy value as French Guyana. The logical move would be to take some of the army from Dutch Guyana and attack the Windward Islands.

So what happens? You've guess it: The Dutch declare war on me and capture French Guyana. It feels like their army in the Guyanas is operating as an independent nation, and that the attack is inevitable, because that army has nowhere else to go.

Except that didn't happen, because I reloaded and sold French Guyana to the Dutch. It wasn't worth the hassle and financial loses of being forced to break my alliances.

[Durallan]

I'd say thats a very good idea, but as you say, if your city is undefended and the ai has a big enough army, it wouldn't care if you saved it entire nation from utter annihalation, gave them all the jewelery that makes up their crown jewels and gave them back every single territory they lost, they would still stab you in the back for one piece of wortheless land and then realise that they will lose everything else.

[Julius_Nepos]

I haven't played ETW since the new patches came out and at the moment I can't see any good reason to go back. This has been quite disappointing to me because the game in its 1.0 state still had great potential, some of which I think has been diminished by the recent patches. I do find it fascinating though how the changes have so polarized opinion. Generally the two camps either say the game is perfect or its an abomination, with very little in between. Personally I don't like the direction the AI is going, that is incredible stupidity mixed with dizzying levels of aggression. Therefore I've put the game aside in the hopes that someday patches or mods can fix things. It's a forlorn hope, but it's more than nothing.

What I'm wondering is how dumb is the ETW AI? Is it a step BACK from RTW/M2TW? If comparing the release 1.0 versions of all three, was ETW ahead of the game? I don't really remember all that much from the past releases other than RTW was called Rome: Total Bribery for a time, and M2TW had the passive AI bug/no naval invasions problem. I guess I want to make sure I'm not unfairly judging this new title, or looking at the past iterations through rose colored glasses. Last thing I want to do is give the game LESS credit than what it currently deserves.

[Husar]

I'd say thats a very good idea, but as you say, if your city is undefended and the ai has a big enough army, it wouldn't care if you saved it entire nation from utter annihalation, gave them all the jewelery that makes up their crown jewels and gave them back every single territory they lost, they would still stab you in the back for one piece of wortheless land and then realise that they will lose everything else.

Except they don't realise they're going to lose everything and play iraqi information minister in the diplomacy screen instead.

[Zenicetus]

What I'm wondering is how dumb is the ETW AI? Is it a step BACK from RTW/M2TW?

The impression I get, is that on the diplomatic level it's basically the same AI quality as RTW/M2TW (i.e. fairly minimal), but it's now being asked to deal with a more complicated game. Part of that is the way the world is already well-developed across multiple theaters, with colonies scattered about, just ready to start border disputes outside the core faction home. There are fewer neutral buffer zones between major powers like we had in the earlier games. And with all these factions, there are so many overlapping "gotta have it" territories they're trying to occupy, as a hardcoded AI script.

I think the game would have been better if it had a smaller number of major powers, and the smaller factions were dumb pushovers that didn't engage in diplomacy, basically like the un-allied rebel factions that start out as buffers between nations in RTW and M2TW. Giving those minor states the ability to form alliances and protectorate status really complicates the game. But it's also just the sheer number of main factions.

Of course, if they had reduced the game down to just 4 or 5 main factions to streamline the diplomacy and make it easier for the AI to handle, then everyone who didn't get their favorite nation picked would have screamed bloody murder. Remember all those hot-tempered "what factions should be playable?" threads before the final game features were announced? This may be a case where the player community shot itself in the foot, by asking for so many playable factions.

Or, it could just be that the devs wanted to go in that direction anyway, then decided the AI couldn't really handle the complexity, so they'd fall back on random (or at least frequent) DOW's supported by artificial cash infusions to make the game "challenging."

P.S. I wouldn't still play this game occasionally, or post here, if I didn't think the series had so much potential. And to be honest, because there is nothing else out there like this game series.

[Sheogorath]

The problem with 'dumb diplomacy' in ETW is that trade features so heavily. States like the UP, with very small starting provinces and very minimal tax income, RELY in trade. While it is easy to simply rush Paris, it feels cheesy and like you're breaking some rule. The Netherlands should NOT be able to conquer France in two turns. And then had it over to Savoy because they didn't want it.

I even offered it to Spain in exchange for a peace treaty. Spain told me to bugger off. Ten turns later I'd taken over all of their new world colonies, destroyed their fleets, annihilated their armies and had a full stack set to besiege Madrid. I offered peace and Spain shot back saying "Give us 2800 gold."

Now, that's not a large amount, but the sheer cheek of it made me angry enough that I took over Madrid, destroyed all the buildings and gave it to Morocco.

[Julius_Nepos]

One of the earliest games I played in ETW was as Austria. This was back before the patches came through and I recall that right away I was basically at war with Prussia, Poland, Venice and the Ottoman Empire. One thing I found was that no matter how many territories I took from Poland, territories I did not want, they would never take them back in a peace deal or in exchange for Peace. All I wanted was West Prussia, but instead I had take over practically all of Poland to end the war, and even then they re-declared war on me a few times later on before finally giving it up and being annihilated totally. From what I'm hearing this situation has actually gotten worse with the new patches. And this does very much remind me of RTW.

I also agree the game is now far too complex for the Campaign AI, and so its faults are even more apparent now than ever before. I don't seem to be the typical TW player though, I hear alot of guys over at TWCenter like how things are. I have a hard time understanding that since there's no real depth to the game at all other than total war, all the time. I think this is one time where knowing alot about history is interfering with my ability to enjoy the game. I know this is the era of the balance of power, so the way the game plays is SO far off from what happened in reality I just can't accept it without reservation. I wish this wasn't so, let me tell you.

[Fisherking]

I too am disappointed in some of the changes made since 1.0.

This game was advertised to have had different national personalities for the factions and even the generals.

As it is at least since 1.2 the Campaign AI is just that, one AI for everyone and a rabid one at that.

Every campaign turns into world domination simply because leaving enemies on every border is not desirable and they all refuse to make peace. The AI once made peace when it was losing, it just wouldn’t make peace with other AI factions. Now it will only make peace if it is harmful to the player (unreliable ally penalty).

The thing is, the more we complain about the AI, the worse it seems to get!

I am beginning to think it is deliberate.

If it was decent before (1.0) then making slight adjustments should not be that difficult. In stead we get over the top changes almost every time.

It is as if they are saying; okay you don’t like it this way, you are not going to like it that way either! Take this!

[Lemur]

Since we did all of our fireworks and festivizing yesterday, I spent a little quality time with the Ottomans today. I bribed Russia to keep them out of my hair at first, since the early turns as Ottoman are sheer hell.

Later, when I had my economy under control and those nifty fez-wearing dudes as my line infantry, Russia went all Black Knight on me. Once again, no matter how many armies of theirs I decimated, no matter how many provinces I took away from them, they would accept no terms for peace. Just freakin' irritating. Eventually I took Moscow just to show those stiff-necked Russkies how the big dogs play. ('Tis but a scratch!, they probably yelled.)

CA needs to re-work the AI so it isn't so suicidal. Peace offerings from larger, stronger, higher-teched enemies should be accepted. With alacrity.

[Zarky]

What I'm starting to think is that major nations are way more suicidal than minors, as Ottomans I captured Persia and Azerbaizan from Persia, then got peace offering them Azerbaizan and they accepted (offered mainly because they had 10 or so stacks of two all over my new regions). 3 Turns later I of course backstabbed them and finished them.
That's by far the easiest peace AI has accepted in 1.3 at least for me. What caught my attention in that peace was that I wasn't at war with anyone else and they were largish minor nation. Could it be that major nations are too proud to admit defeat, and that if you at war with anyone else (let's say Hurons and Cherokee but share no border with them) they think that together they can win you.

[Didz]

I don't think the AI is even that clever. There is no intelligence in the AI, and as things stand the non-player factions are merely pawns of the player hate routine.

[Durallan]

I dunno in my prussia game, Persia in the middle of the game almost looked to be like a mighty empire, stretching into india and out almost past constantinople (instanbul?) but later one they began to lose more and more provinces from the mughals ottomans and russians and now they only own Constantinople but they still won't make peace with me. Didn't take any of their regions either

[aimlesswanderer]

I've played Sweden, Prussia, Poland and Austria, and each time have found myself in a war with the Russians just about to the bitter end. Even after losing all but the crappiest of their provinces they have a marked tendency to either not want peace at all, or declare war again after a few turns and get hammered, again. The only exception was when I got so annoyed I took all but 1 of their provinces and made them a protectorate. Having given away most of their land to my other protectorates or in exchanges for Caribbean islands, they continued to war on my protectorates, but after 10 years they hadn't declared war on me again, perhaps a record.

I wasn't interested in taking their land (except as Sweden I think, a victory condition), but found myself at war with them each time. And since I wasn't going to give them all my land, all my money and technology we just stayed at war.

I have also found that, for example, Denmark always likes DoWs against Hannover (inevitably my protectorate) after about 1730, when I am 20+ provinces. They don't last long, and only once have them moved troops into Hannover.

The ridiculous DoWs are not only a major annoyance, they markedly decrease the gaming experience. Why would a tiny 1 province nation decide to declare war on the largest most powerful country in the world which is right next door? And then decide to just sit around within its borders waiting for the stacks to arrive and obliterate it (sadly there is no massacre population option any more).

The number of times that has happened is countless.

Then there are the completely bizarre and seemingly random ones... like UP against my protectorate Courland (Courland didn't even have a port!).

And, as has been mentioned, if you get peace with a faction, all your allies and protectorates remain at war with it while you have moved on and are trading with them again. So they keep blockading your trade with them.

So much promised, which fell far short of what was delivered. It could have been so much better.

[Husar]

And, as has been mentioned, if you get peace with a faction, all your allies and protectorates remain at war with it while you have moved on and are trading with them again. So they keep blockading your trade with them.

I never ask them for help in the war and just go to war myself, trying to avoid such problems and because I don't expect them to be of much help anyway, especially when they aren't even close to the enemy.

[aimlesswanderer]

I never ask them for help in the war and just go to war myself, trying to avoid such problems and because I don't expect them to be of much help anyway, especially when they aren't even close to the enemy.

Yeah, true, your allies' armies are practically stationary. But I usually have no navy, and they can usually harass the evil doers and keep my ports clearer.

[Sheogorath]

Actually, I've found that the German States at least have VERY active armies.

In my UP campaign, Westphalia and Austria have been at war pretty much since the start of the game. Westphillia has annexed most of the other German states besides Hannover and Saxony, and I gave them France because Savoy (who I gave it to before, because nobody else wanted it or would pay me for it :\) back stabbed me.

Now The Westphalians are actually fighting a very active war with the Austrians. Provinces are changing hands with regularity and there's been several major battles. It's a stalemate, though, which would seem kind of odd, but for some reason the minor factions seem to have better strategic/tactical AI than the majors, even the landlocked ones like Austria and Prussia.

[Fisherking]

Actually, I've found that the German States at least have VERY active armies.

In my UP campaign, Westphalia and Austria have been at war pretty much since the start of the game. Westphillia has annexed most of the other German states besides Hannover and Saxony, and I gave them France because Savoy (who I gave it to before, because nobody else wanted it or would pay me for it :\) back stabbed me.

Now The Westphalians are actually fighting a very active war with the Austrians. Provinces are changing hands with regularity and there's been several major battles. It's a stalemate, though, which would seem kind of odd, but for some reason the minor factions seem to have better strategic/tactical AI than the majors, even the landlocked ones like Austria and Prussia.

Austria’s units and order of battle are also crap. Most minor factions have better troops!

[aimlesswanderer]

I have found the German city states to be extremely passive militarily. However, since I try and make them my protectorates early on that may nerf them somewhat. However, when I drag them into war with a neighbouring country (say Austria, Denmark, UP or France) they just sit around gazing at their navels, and even have half their army in a town on the opposite side of the province from where the enemy is.

[Zarky]

From German minors, I've seen Westphalia own whole Western Germany and Netherlands. Hannover always goes after Denmark and they often raid their farms, school etc. but can't get to Copenhagen because Denmark always has ships nearby.

[Discoman]

Minor Nations are usually passive because the AI seems to be programmed to protect their capital/last settlement with all their military strength.

[Zorbane]

Don't know if this has happened to anyone but as Maratha I was "funding" the Ottoman's war with...basically the rest of the world. After each turn I'd give whatever cash I had left over to them. It ranged from 2k to 30k.

I was never allied with them, just peace and a trade agreement.

Then one day they declared war on me :(

[Durallan]

be wary doing this with warmongering nations, I did that to the Mughal empire (and allied with them) and they got all the way to constantinople with my money, and then they declared war on my other ally venice. When I sided with venice, every ally IMMEDIATELY hated me, even my protectorates were hostile for defending an ally from an agressive one?, which makes NO SENSE. because that would mean if I went on the mughals side, everytime they decided to attack an ally of mine, I'd ahve to side with them and all my other allies would get wiped out and I wouldn't ahve been much of an ally to them.

[Zorbane]

be wary doing this with warmongering nations, I did that to the Mughal empire (and allied with them) and they got all the way to constantinople with my money, and then they declared war on my other ally venice. When I sided with venice, every ally IMMEDIATELY hated me, even my protectorates were hostile for defending an ally from an agressive one?, which makes NO SENSE. because that would mean if I went on the mughals side, everytime they decided to attack an ally of mine, I'd ahve to side with them and all my other allies would get wiped out and I wouldn't ahve been much of an ally to them.

Thing is in my game I was doing it because I was using the Ottomans as a buffer between the rest of Europe.

They were getting beat up in Africa by Spain and in Europe by Austria so I thought I'd help them in so they wouldn't get slaughtered.

[Zenicetus]

With the game in its current state, would it make sense for the player to just avoid all alliances, period? I'm thinking of starting a new game and trying that, since it seems they're more trouble than they're worth -- getting dragged into wars you don't want, or not being able to stop allies from continuing when you get a peace deal, etc. It would also avoid the frustration of being attacked by an ally when there's no apparent motivation, just a random dice roll for who is going to annoy the player next.

Has anyone else tried it? If so, what are the effects on trade and your ability to avoid petty warfare?

[Beskar]

If anything, your allies not attacking is a good thing. With all the other countries constantly at war with each other, it makes it easier for you to be the superior power.

[Discoman]

With the game in its current state, would it make sense for the player to just avoid all alliances, period? I'm thinking of starting a new game and trying that, since it seems they're more trouble than they're worth -- getting dragged into wars you don't want, or not being able to stop allies from continuing when you get a peace deal, etc. It would also avoid the frustration of being attacked by an ally when there's no apparent motivation, just a random dice roll for who is going to annoy the player next.

Has anyone else tried it? If so, what are the effects on trade and your ability to avoid petty warfare?

In my new Marathas campaign I didn't bother allying anyone, and it did work out. I have complete control of India and the only people that don't like me is Persia, everyone else is bright green because I'm not ensnared in alliances.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

huh so what about a nation like great britain who starts the game allied with people? is it better to just break those alliances (does that give a hit to diplomacy?)

[Didz]

Probably, not as I think you take a huge hit on the 'Freind-o-meter' if you do.

However, I certainly wouldn't make any new alliances. They don't have many benefits and cause a hell of a lot of problems.

[Sheogorath]

You could try declaring war on an allies protectorate.