National prestige.

[Seneca]

By now I have played two KH campaigns. My first campaign I focused a lot on the military aspect, blitzed my way quickly through Greece and shortly after conquered sicilia and a large chunk of Asia Minor. Most of my city's where primed for war, spewing out thorakitai, epilektoi hoplitai and spartans by this point. My armies where all elite and the coming of the greek phalanx completed it.

However, I gave little thougth to city development, so economy was always short and the largest city was Ambrakia, holding about 14000 souls. Temples etc. was neglected.

In my second campaign i focused largely on the development of my provinses, as of now in 233 bc. I have to huge cities and more are expanding. The military aspect is much more focused around armys of thuerophoroi, classical hoplies etc. and I seldom use elite units. Also I have less forces in the field in general. The economy is booming and the people are extremely happy.

After a while into my second campaign, I started to get the feeling of diplomacy being more complex this time around. I had smaller armys, in general a lesser but more effective economy but larger city's and more advanced buildings.

In general I actually feel that my nation is more respected in my second campaign. My enemies are more prone to give peace and to accept pease-proposals. I simply feel much more respected.

Is this a fact, does large cities and advanced buildings actually give more respect in diplomacy? Or is it just me?

[Raygereio]

I've encountered something similar to that. The (usually somewhat schizo) diplomacy AI does, I think, take in account the overall state of your empire's infrastructure, not your military strength or the amount of victories or defeats you've achieved.

A good example is my current Hayasdan campaign. Military speaking I am nothing compared to the Arche; I have one half stack walking around and small garrisons of archers in each city, the Arche Seleukia has easily 5-10 times this. If the AI was so inclined, he can waltz over me, and I wouldn't have been able to do anything about it.
The Arche is doing great, they've decimated Pontus' military, taken out Pahlava and managed to push the Ptolemies back to egypt (Baktria is still their ally and the Saka are playing around with the Sauromatae). However they've been neglecting their cities and only push unit production.

When my cities were also underdeveloped, the Arche had no qualms with sending armies my way. Now that my investments in mines have been paying off and I have upgraded all of my cities for as much as the cities' level allowed it, they suddenly have been sueing for peace and seem to be to afraid to send armies up the mountains.
The only explanantion I can come up with for this kind of behaviour, is that the AI looked at my infrastructure, deemed it superior to his and thus concluded that I must be a more powerful nation.

Another example would be a Romani campaign; I conquered pretty much all of Hellas and Macedonia had but one city left. This city was fully upgraded, while my little empire was a bit low tech. They refused any form of cease-fire.
I had a small army of assasins torch almost all the buildings the Macedonian city, they suddenly were more then willing to sign a cease-fire.

I have noticed this behaviour in other campaigns as well in both BI.exe and alex.exe (I never paid any attention to it on romeTW.exe, but I assume it's the same)

[Macilrille]

Not so for my Romans, I and AS exchange places as leading in development, but the AI diplomacy is still the same madness. Both Gallic factions are on their heels, yet they have no intension of accepting peace.

[ARCHIPPOS]

not so sure how AI diplomacy really works , people keep saying it's "hardcoded" - whatever that means ??? i would like to hear from someone who actually understands the mechanics of AI ... does it involve triggers of some kind ???

[Raygereio]

people keep saying it's "hardcoded" - whatever that means

Hard coded means that data is inputed directly into the source code of a program, instead of the program obtaining that data from an external source.

For example, units in RomeTW are softcoded; the program checks external files like the EDU for the units' stats, the model files for how the units looks ingame, the EDB for where it can be recruited, etc. All those files can be easily (and legally) be modified.
Other stuff, like the AI, are hard coded; the stuff the program checks for that is inside the .exe and can't be modified (As far as I know, the only thing AI related that is softcoded are the formations that the AI uses. And you can mod that all you want, but give an idiot a stick, or a full hoplite panoply, it is still an idiot and will only hurt himself with it).

The only way to change hardcoded stuff is to obtain the source code of that .exe, change whatever you want and then recompile the program.
Getting the source code can be possible, but the EULA (that long text you usually see when you install a game and skip over) says you're not allowed to do that and SEGA is not going to give modders the code and permission to distribute it as that would be effectively handing out free copies or Rome Total War.

So long story short; hard coded means it's way more difficult and in some cases impossible to mod, but more importantly, you're not allowed to.
Where does that leave us with the diplomacy AI? Well, unless one of the developers posts all the information on the diplomacy mechanics, we can only guess and extrapolate from what we observe.

[Subotan]

Hmm. Interesting concepts. I'll bear that in mind when I start EBII.

SEGA is not going to give modders the code and permission to distribute it as that would be effectively handing out free copies or Rome Total War.

It's not like they make any money off it anymore. Besides, if I wanted a "free" copy of R:TW I know of various places where I could obtain it.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Is this a fact, does large cities and advanced buildings actually give more respect in diplomacy? Or is it just me?

No, but the AI is less likely to be friendly to you if you are big and dangerous. That is a known fact. So if you expanded less, had less armies, or had less battles in your economically-minded campaign, then the AI was less afraid of you, leading to more efficient diplomacy. Although usually, such hunches fall into the category of "just me" as you put it. Unless you are willing to provide empirical evidence based on a great number of instances.

[Seneca]

Well, I don't think I have the patience to write down every diplomatic encounter.

However, yesterday I trained a few stacks, took Ipsos from the weak AS, and Serdike + Sigidunum from the Eleutheroi. After that I sent two stacks to sack all the ptolemaiois coastal cities and grab salamis for my self. Next thing that happens is that Rome and Phalava (the major players in respectively west and east) comes suing for alliances.

No one has deared to attack me for 30 years Except the Ptolemaioi, but I plan to become an aggresive bully in ten years time. Perhaps diplomacy will take a different turn then?

[Tollheit]

So if you expanded less, had less armies, or had less battles in your economically-minded campaign, then the AI was less afraid of you, leading to more efficient diplomacy.

I agree with that, except for "had less armies".

[Seneca]

I stand corrected. After the last post I played a couple of turns, and out of the blue my allies Pontos lays siege on Ipsos, thus betraying me and breaking my alliance with Phalava. From another point of wiew this could quite possibly be because of our bad history before the alliance and the sudden lack of a bufferstate between me and Pontos.