Diplomacy is entirely broken (The other side of the coin)

[Yun Dog]

Let me paint a picture with all this AI diplomacy hammering going on:

"In all these examples, pretend if you will, or can, that the tables are turned. Just for a moment."

You the player, suddenly find yourself playing this small single province nation, or vastly reduced nation that has gotten the pants slapped out of it by a large, very well run, vastly superior Empire that is expanding across the globe at a rapid and terrifying rate. Clearly all it has in mind is total and complete world domination. You know it, your fellow kings, queens and Prime Ministers know it, and so does the ruler of this terrifying nation.

What do you do as this faction you suddenly find yourself playing?

a) Sue for peace, knowing that at any moment you can be crushed and that essentially you exist at the pleasure of some despot sitting on his throne, or in Parliament somewhere? Why do you know this? Because most of the time you share a boarder with this nation. You know the composition of its armed forces, economic power and demenour...it's not rocket science.

Your lot in life, to live a meek and completely irrelevant existence.

b) Sue for protectorate status, join this mighty empire, become it's lap dog, feed off its teat and enjoy the benefits of being part of the global domination, albeit limited as ou hand all your wealth across yearly to the rich greedy nation. Your lot in history is to forever be at the mercy of it's rulers.

c) Stick up two fingers, tell them to go to hell and go down fighting with all guns blazing. Forever refusing to capitulate roll over and die.

d) Stick up two fingers at this might Empire, build up the biggest army you can and sit, in defiance for the rest of time in your nations capital. Both you and this terrifying nation know full well that your goal is to ensure that IF this nation decides to attack, you will ensure that you take down as many of them as possible. Why do you do this? Because you don't have the capacity to raise enough troop to go on the offensive. You can't protect your homeland and attack.

Keep in mind I'm only talking about the AI diplomacy.

WHICH one would you choose?

I'm sick and tired of the eternal bashing going on. There seems to be a ground swell of thought pervading this board that things are really, really, really bad.

So I ask again, swap positions, just for a second, and see if ANY of the behaviour you are seeing would be something YOU would do as the player if you were playing that nation?

It doesn't explain all of it, but it certainly removes a lot of the complaints I'm seeing.

you forgot E) act like your best mates - all the time placating him, stroking his ego, anything for peace, behind his back go and find some other nations who also hate the upcoming empire or are scared of them - then after some years of fat peace whilest you and your allies have been training and building up your armies - you stike with the speed of a cobra and the might of the thunder god himself - and your great enemy is no more.


now wouldnt that be cool


you can see the human player now FAT on his throne, comfortable in his delusions of grandure, an emisary from the pathetic nation of Hanover sir - "have you come for your monthly tribute" - No your majesty I have come for your surrender - "BAH HA HA HA - you and what army BOY" - me and the french army sir, and the Bavarian army sir, and the people of Austria, and the Danes"

"Sounds like thunder"

That would be french artillary sir


or F) Side with him and use him as your rabid dog on a leash to dominate other smaller nations, let the Human destroy the army while you sneak in and take the province, growing little by little a province here and there on the tail of the tiger, using your alliance with him to intimidate bigger neighbours and get rich. Until one of them makes you an offer to be rid of your great friend once and for all - hmm tempting

this is the politics of the day, double dealing, making any agreement to ensure you werent swallowed up, then switching sides at the last minute once you were sure of victory - not the beligerant model we have currently

I appreciate your trying to take a glass half full view over the half empty

but honestly mate you need to have some beer in the glass first

[Durallan]

very good post Yunson :)

and good posts further up!

yes those are the kinds of things we want to see. By the way why should protectorates not trust a larger nation? my Prussian game is 1791, I have been the protectorates of Westphalia, Wurttemburg, Bavaria and Hannover for 91 years. I have actually given them territories because I hoped that they might be able to do some sea trade or other things. My trade bonus with each one is worth 3000 gold each and trading with them is worth 5000+ for EACH nation. I couldn't make that much money if they weren't there! Granted I haven't given them territories to become major nations in their own right that would be silly, they are subnations in my mighty prussian empire, but I have been at peace with them since turn 1. why would they think I could possibly be interested in taking their territory now?

Although they are COMPLETELY useless when it comes to fighting wars, they won't send armies to assist you, (that would be really nice if they would give you an army you could control on the campagin map and the ai would control on the battle map) of course you couldn't use their army to declare war, but it would be able to help with the battle
and then if someone declared war on them then you could give them an army to control ont he campaign map and when they use it in battle you could control it.

ironically having been allies with the mughals for a very long time and with them being at war with the russians and leaving the rest of the russians land alone, who do they decide to attack? the Ottomans? no, the russians? no, my allies the venetians! why couldn't they have both become allies? so anyway now I'm pretty much at war with everyone in the world, just waiting for the UP and venice to declare war on me so then I have my only friends left my protectorates.

I can take screenshots if you like and show you that most AI nations are at war with practically everyone


and Drumroll... Last turn, Sweden Declared war on the United States!

[ReluctantSamurai]

It's all about taste gentlemen, it's all about taste.

More to the point, I think, is gaming experience. Is it simply hack and slash, or are there other levels to explore. I think it's profitable to quote some of the posts made over at the "other" TW forum, please bear with........(highlites are my own)

[original poster Anda01]

Descriptive definition "Meaningful play in a game emerges from the relationship between player action and system outcome; it is the process by which a player takes action within the designed system of a game and the system responds to the action. The meaning of an action in a game resides in the relationship between action and outcome"

Evaluative definition "Meaningful play is what occurs when the relationships between actions and outcomes in a game are both discernable and integrated into the larger context of the game."

The terms "random" and "stupid" however does not apply at all to a system that is programmed. In fact (referring to Salen and Zimmerman) true randomness can not be achieved within a system based on mathematical rules, so this is solely a matter of perception on the part of the player. This is not just a result of erroneous AI, but just as much a question of how the AI is presented to the player. In other words it's a matter of game design. I imagine that a game designer would want the player to percieve the AI as smart, responsive and rescourceful, and this should in part be done by translating the behavior of the progam in a way that is meaningful to the player.

[Ultrarilo]

Makes it difficult to roleplay. Ideally, if I were writing an AAR, I could say things like "My French empire was attacked by the great Huron tribe in North America, who, despite having been friends with my great nation, were forced into doing so by an alliance with their Iroquois brother who themselves were at war blah blah blah."

Instead, I get "The Hurons, my friends, attacked me for no reason. As did Austria, Poland Lithuania, Russia, Prussia, etc. Then I took their capitals, which were defended by militia and flintlock. I did it over and over and over again and the game eventually ended."

[ChStryker]

I feel that because of my inability to judge the AI factions' motives, all semblance of strategy is removed from the game. For instance, as GB in the Grand Campaign, I find myself constantly at war with the Spanish, Americans, French, and every Indian faction. This is after concluding multiple peace treaties with the French and Spanish (which lasted about 5-10 turns on average).

My interpretation is therefore that the AI decides it has certain objectives that it wants to achieve. Yet since I can't understand them at all I have no choice but to totally destroy both factions or completely remove their ability to wage war.

What I interpret from the above quotes is a lack of richness and depth to the game. If I want to blitz, then I can have fun crushing all underneath my bootheels; but if I want to be sly and sneaky and outmaneuver my opponents by means other than direct military force, I should be able to have fun with that gaming experience, as well.

For the "it is Total War, after all", group....my reply is that there are many pure tactical games much better than the TW series out there: if I want to spend the entire game fighting, I can do so with much more enjoyment elsewhere. I play TW for that blend of strategy, fighting battles, and role-playing that is hard to find in any genre. Since RTW, my enjoyment of the TW series has been rapidly diminishing as the game becomes more one dimensional (IMHO).

As to the dilemma in the OP this poster has an interesting proposition:

[greanmeany]

One thing that I keep thinging is missing is assurances between nations. If the games logic is saying that your a major threat that will attack soon it should ask you out right for assurances that you won't along with an offer of money/region etc or issue a threat telling you to back off. Breaking these assurances or refusing to listen will make you strongly disliked by other factions.

Too simple for CA, I guess

IMHO the best thing that could happen to the TW genre is for a competitor to step in and give CA a run for their money.

[Yun Dog]

Perhaps we need to look at this in another way and think about solutions or how to achieve the diplomacy we want

1) minor nations should not declare war against large nations (they may be drawn into a war as a protectorate)

1a) for any alliance there is an alliance leader based on prestige

2) when alliance leaders make peace so should the protectorates and allies

3) if minor nations want to ally against the major nations - good - but they cannot do this as protectorates - they should be independent and then form coalitions or defense pacts but not aggressively pursue war.

4) alliances should be meaningful - yes backstabbing needs to be present but not as frequent as it is (eg. as Prussia, Poland goes to war with Austria. Poland should approach prussia for alliance, Once the Human moves against Austria - Poland needs to calculate a higher opportunity benefit from staying allied with Prussia - picking up poorly defended provinces in the Humans wake - also there are big trade econs benefits - its should not opportunistically backstab -as it does now- because it will lose everything).

5) big penalties for breaking alliance - no nations will sign alliance with you for many turns if ever. This goes for the AI too.
(the two above will hopefully result in large offensive/defensive pacts which is what we want - we want the globe divided up into 3-4 major spheres of power resulting in huge wars) what we dont want is declarations of war with everyone sitting home defending against backstabbing - when your alliance declares war all armies of those nations should move aggresively against their enemies.

6) get rid of target province DOWs (I know people wanted goals or achiements back since MTW - but it really doesnt work well with the non-risk map and yourve goto say the glorious achiements side of the game is pretty weak - basically it results in rigid diplomacy of nation A wants province X and this persists throughout the game). The goals need to be better developed - the first to attain tech X, control of India, control of the Americas, X amount of gold per year in trade, scourge of pirates, control europe (with allies), build the spanish armada (as spain), build your elite unit, convert 10 provinces to your religion etc etc.

7) need a rake info screen where you can see who likes and dislikes you and why.

If you backstab too much you should become a hated pariah who no-one will trade with and everyone defends against and sign alliances against

The large alliance pacts should act as a deterent against the nations declaring war at a whim.

Ok clearly all the above would reduce DOWs so we need some triggers to start wars.

1. declaring war against nations that are not your allies carries no penalty

2. when you choose a side in ally war the correct penalty/reward needs to be applied.

3. Wars of succession - should cause everyone to coose a side

4. monachys dont like republics and are prone to DOW.

5. catholics dont like protestants and are prone to DOW.

6. Indian nations will ally against colonial invasion?

this is food for discussion not a definative list. and its getting a bit wayward so over to you guys....ideas?

[AussieGiant]

you forgot E) act like your best mates - all the time placating him, stroking his ego, anything for peace, behind his back go and find some other nations who also hate the upcoming empire or are scared of them - then after some years of fat peace whilest you and your allies have been training and building up your armies - you stike with the speed of a cobra and the might of the thunder god himself - and your great enemy is no more.


now wouldnt that be cool


you can see the human player now FAT on his throne, comfortable in his delusions of grandure, an emisary from the pathetic nation of Hanover sir - "have you come for your monthly tribute" - No your majesty I have come for your surrender - "BAH HA HA HA - you and what army BOY" - me and the french army sir, and the Bavarian army sir, and the people of Austria, and the Danes"

"Sounds like thunder"

That would be french artillary sir


or F) Side with him and use him as your rabid dog on a leash to dominate other smaller nations, let the Human destroy the army while you sneak in and take the province, growing little by little a province here and there on the tail of the tiger, using your alliance with him to intimidate bigger neighbours and get rich. Until one of them makes you an offer to be rid of your great friend once and for all - hmm tempting

this is the politics of the day, double dealing, making any agreement to ensure you werent swallowed up, then switching sides at the last minute once you were sure of victory - not the beligerant model we have currently

I appreciate your trying to take a glass half full view over the half empty

but honestly mate you need to have some beer in the glass first

*Looks into his pint. Realising it's empty he throws it on the ground in disgust*

[Lucius Verenus]

We can, in fact, look at one nation and see how it handled Aussiegiants scenario.

'GB' at the start of the 18th was in a situation that resembles it quite well.

It was not all that stong, did not have vast resources, it's Army was pitifully small and made up of "Scum of the earth, enlisted for drink" (Wellington) and a navy that was manned by press-ganged sailors and unless actually at war had a large chunk of it 'laid up' rotting and half it's officers on half pay.

Across the channel was a wealthy UP - it had not too many years before actually sailed a fleet up the Thames and bombarded London.

Further south is the fading yet still powerful Spanish and then there was France , always France lol

True GB had some colonies in the Caribbean and N America - but the N American Colonies aren't much help with resources or manpower and are threatened by France's colonies to the North and Spanish Cuba etc - and so demanding at least as a much resources to protect as they bring in.

in the last 50 years they have fought two terrible Civil Wars and the Scottish highlands are simmering as always - ready to attack if the Stuart lands to 'reclaim' the throne.

so I would say the position of GB at the beginning of the 18th is a fair place to look to see what humans would do.

And what they did has already been said.

They made alliances with weaker nations , sometimes going to war and sometimes not but the name of the game was to prevent any power getting strong enough to start looking hungrily at GB's overseas posessions, trade routes - or thinking about having another go at crossing that 20 mile moat...

What they DIDN'T do was declare war on half the planet then stick a full stack army in London and wait for someone to attack them !!

[Slaists]

They made alliances with weaker nations , sometimes going to war and sometimes not but the name of the game was to prevent any power getting strong enough to start looking hungrily at GB's overseas posessions, trade routes - or thinking about having another go at crossing that 20 mile moat...

What they DIDN'T do was declare war on half the planet then stick a full stack army in London and wait for someone to attack them !!

Yup, they did not. Actually, at the time the American revolution broke out British world-wide regular troops numbered only around 30K... (not counting sailors and navy). Imagine... ruling a good chunk of the world with only 30K men...

[ZIM!!]

Yup, they did not. Actually, at the time the American revolution broke out British world-wide regular troops numbered only around 30K... (not counting sailors and navy). Imagine... ruling a good chunk of the world with only 30K men...

Didnt they have a lot of locally levied troops and maybe East Inda Company troops to supplement theier forces significantly, I thought they did but wasnt sure

[Didz]

There is a significant difference between the nature of warfare in the Napoleonic period and that which occurred in the period covered by ETW. It would be wrong to try and model anything in ETW on the method of warfare 100 years later, just as it would be wrong to model a WW1 game on the type of warfare conducted in WW2.

[Yun Dog]

This has become the first TW of the series that I actually started rage quitting.
Its a sad day.
The sheer frustration at the many glitches, and foibles of the BAI, the ludiocraty of the CAI, the two hour turns(fighting the mutiples battles every turn), nonsense diplomacy, nonsense AI moves and strategies. Look at my sig, it used to be 80hrs, now that time represents 1 or 2 turns a week. Whats most disturbing is the rapidity of the decent of this game from my most loved to most hated.

I question if CA have a clear vision/goal of what this completed game is, and how it plays, because it appears to be more a reaction to a loud minority on the forums (who dont know what they want at the best of times, in fact many complain about something before having to be told it already exists). I didnt buy kingdums because M2 was such poo. I bought ETW because I read all this guff about the AI this and fixed that, which I see now was all BS, and further it appears the developer has no clear vision of how its own game should play - certainly the AI has no clue how to play the game - there is no game.

It will take a lot to convince me that this company has sufficiently altered its priorities for the next title (this one is shelved). First get an idea for a GAME, then paint on the pretty graphics - not the other way around - this game had promise when I thought the developers just needed time to get it playing as it should - now its clear they have little idea of what the game is let alone how it should play.

sorry for the rant

this game reminds me so much of Imperial Glory - unachieved potential

[Slaists]

Didnt they have a lot of locally levied troops and maybe East Inda Company troops to supplement theier forces significantly, I thought they did but wasnt sure

Sure, there were local levies (and allies), but the fact still remains that their regular army at the breakout of the American revolution was only 30K. By comparison, Marathas could field around 400K troops more than a hundred years earlier.

As to East India Company, I don't remember (I could be wrong) any precedent of their sort of 'private' troops fighting anywhere outside of their direct zone of control (and the neighboring territories).

[ZIM!!]

During the Napoleanic wars practically all of continental Europe became protectorates of France because it was a powerful terrifying land grabbing nation. They all sent armies to assist Napoleon in crushing Russia

Then they all turned on France at the first sign of weakness and allied together to defeat him

So rather than puny rouge nations fighting you. The game should be able to form alliances against you more easily. It would be cool if a diplomatic message said nations X,Y and Z demand that you cease hostilities or maybe surrender province A, If you do not comply it will be war

Then if you go to war all those nations and their economies will be geared towards destroying you. They will make peace with all of their other enemies or put those conflicts on the back burner and also try to pull other nations into the war against or at least stop trading with you which should be easy because of your constant expansionist threat.