New Diplomacy Strategy

**easytarget** · 11-10-2013, 22:47

If you want to insure the demise of a faction you need do nothing more than form alliances with them to in my experience usher in their future implosion.

Some might call this just a case of observed bias. But all I know is time and again, and I'm now making a specific point of doing this in every campaign, any time I see someone expand like mad, Knossos or Seleucid for example, I form defensive or military alliances and then sit back and watch the fun.

What was was once a crazily expansive faction threatening the world soon turns into a brain dead, starving, aimlessly steaming around fool of an ally, counted on to do nothing whatsoever but shrink what they control and attack zero identified diplomacy targets.

Some might call it a bug, I've gone glass half full, and I'm using it as a strategy.

**Hooahguy** · 11-10-2013, 22:58

I can sort of relate. In my current campaign I saw that the Aedui were heading with a large force towards Massalia. So I figured, "hey, why not set Massalia as a war target, make them feel good about themselves for doing something right!" So after I did they turned around and hung around halfway between their border and Massalia.

Fantastic.

**easytarget** · 11-10-2013, 23:52

haha, yeah, most of my diplomacy falls under the general heading of unintended consequences...

but i'm not really all that bothered by it for some reason, i guess because i just chalk it up to a difficult then to program, and occasionally out of the blue one of my allies actually does help..

more of an issue really is the fact that most of the factions running around in my current campaign (which is my continuing on with the succession campaign i handed off) don't attack me, they steam stacks of units all over the place as if they intend to, and then don't

as a result of a discussion in the main TW forum about which game by CA we thought would stand the test of time and be considered masterpiece (I went with Shogun 2 and thereby unleashed the usual disagreements about which one truly is the best) someone tee'd up the suggestion it was M2, so I'm running a campaign in that one one right now as england, and my point in mentioning it is when another country in that game sends a stack at anything you control, you must take notice, it's almost never an idle threat and they immediately set about attacking you - in fact, everyone in the game are quite hostile

whereas in Rome 2, i often feel like i could just stroll along taking folks out whenever and wherever i like - such was most definitely not the case in Shogun 2, on VH and even H i had clans coming at me from every direction constantly - i just don't get what changed with that part of CA's programming here that causes them to be so passive

**Sp4** · 11-11-2013, 04:43

I started a campaign with Sparta and formed an alliance with Carthage and its allies and the Etruscans against Rome, Syracuse and some Spanish people on the other side of Africa.

Within 10 turns or so, what seemed to have been going fine for a while started falling apart and I spent more time rescuing and helping my allies than actually working with them. In the end, it wasn't so bad cause I managed to take over all their land but it's kind of boring. Shitty campaign AI is shit.

**Hooahguy** · 11-11-2013, 05:38

I think its less of that the CAI is fundamentally broken than it is that the commands get messed up somewhere down the line and things get fuddled. When it does work the CAI does very well for itself, but at least for now it seems to break down/limp along more often than not.

I really hope that with patch 7 coming down the line (hopefully) soon things will get sorted out better.

**Myth** · 11-11-2013, 08:46

I've found that diplomacy is actually useful in Rome II, but not mandatory like for some clans in Shogun II. That being said, I'm glad I'm not forced to suck up to the AI or die to 10 stacks of samurai units on turn 15. My usual diplomacy for Rome II encompases 1 or 2 maximum defensive alliances with a tribe that is in a key position to defend a front I have left on the backbruner to go and conquer more important regions (read: more resources/sea trade there).

For example, whatever that African tribe is that lives in the desert south-west of the city of Carthage always does a fantastic job at guarding me against whatever Nova Carthago and the remnants of Carthage can scrounge up. Recently in my Sparta game I set up a defencive alliance with the Odryssian Kingdom who seem to be able to support 2.5 stacks on just one settlement, but they've been much less helpful than the Africans, since Royal Scythia waltzed right past their shores and took Anthea and the capital city of Thrace from me. I think the Odrissians have outlived their usefulness, as much as I am fond of thracian tribes.

In any event, if you're not of the very few chosen devensive allies, used as plugs to keep a border secure, you're either my immediate target or the target for right after I finish conquering my immediate target. I don't believe in playing nice with the AI and letting it exploit resources better suited for me.

**easytarget** · 11-11-2013, 14:26

I use alliances because I like the idea of them and I want them to work. And while I suppose it is nice they aren't really necessary, at the same time, I'm also a tad disappointed by the lack of consequences ultimately in my actions in Rome 2. It really doesn't much matter what I do in the end, if I just muddle along I can win. If I really focus on politics, or if I ignore it, if I really focus on diplomacy, or I ignore it, build well honed stacks, or just throw'em together, pay attention to agents and generals or ignore them - it's all the same.

In the current Shogun 2 campaign in ROTS I'm playing and in the M2 I've started up I'm immediately pressed, hard. My continued existence is sometimes at stake.

In the end for me at least, I feel no agency in a game about war where there are no consequences of life or death in my decisions/actions.

**Myth** · 11-11-2013, 16:18

Originally Posted by easytarget

I use alliances because I like the idea of them and I want them to work. And while I suppose it is nice they aren't really necessary, at the same time, I'm also a tad disappointed by the lack of consequences ultimately in my actions in Rome 2. It really doesn't much matter what I do in the end, if I just muddle along I can win. If I really focus on politics, or if I ignore it, if I really focus on diplomacy, or I ignore it, build well honed stacks, or just throw'em together, pay attention to agents and generals or ignore them - it's all the same.

In the current Shogun 2 campaign in ROTS I'm playing and in the M2 I've started up I'm immediately pressed, hard. My continued existence is sometimes at stake.

In the end for me at least, I feel no agency in a game about war where there are no consequences of life or death in my decisions/actions.

Army compositons matter greatly when:

1. You're not using an overpowered earaly-game faction
2. You are playing Legendary and thus likely to always be at a numerical disadvantage

But that only matters up until turn 50. From then on, you're too big and if an enemy faction gets your undivided attention they're toast. You can probably AR them to death. But surviving early game as some of the harder factions REALLY means picking your fights and hand picking each unit in your (limited) armies.

**easytarget** · 11-11-2013, 16:33

I wonder what is in store for us with patch 7? The main forum communication from CA makes it sound like a significant update. It would be nice if some of the game play tweaks we've discussed here and in other threads might get just a bit of attention.

I look forward to seeing what's in this one.

**Slaists** · 11-12-2013, 15:59

If you see any AI faction expand like crazy, all you need to do is to sit back and watch (no diplomacy or alliances needed). In due time it will fall because minors will have a numerical advantage in terms of army count per region controlled.

Ironically, larger AI factions are easier for the player to conquer as well. Example: a 6 region AI has 3 stacks that you have to deal with. If those 6 regions were controlled by 6 minor AI's you'd have 18 stacks to deal with...

Back to the OP: I use alliances (also client states and satrapies) to spice up my game. I stick with the allies and that seems to drag me into wars that I otherwise would have avoided.

**Jarmam** · 11-12-2013, 18:15

It goes beyond that. Every faction gets a certain amount of cash per turn for merely existing. Judging by the 1,5-2 stacks that 1-settlement-factions can support with absolutely no infrastructure I assume its the same 2500 that the played faction recieves. On Legendary, 2500/turn for an AI faction mixed with t1 infantry costing 40-50ish/turn in upkeep for the AI means that 4 AI factions with 1 settlement each can field 2 earlygame stacks each solely off of this. A rebellion turned faction in your empire's center can quickly spin out of control if you don't contain it within a few turns.

In other words, a faction's strength increases quite modestly per extra settlement, but the base strength of a faction is massive. Facing Persia controlling the Persian province is much easier than a triclover-alliance of three factions with 1 of the settlements each.

This, to me so far, is also why the Seleucid campaign is by far the most entertaining I've tried. The earlygame isn't about securing a few settlements to base your expansion from - that part is skipped entirely, it is instead about picking a big fight fast, before your entire eastern satrapy-field revolts and then allies amongst eachother in a terrifying 8-block alliance. Meaning the midgame consists of managing trade relations (8000+/turn from trading is not "cute", its absolutely critical, making diplomacy critical), attempting to uphold a stable and containable Mediterranean region while also fending of wave after wave of eastern stacks that magically replenish in a matter of 3 turns. Throw in a poorly managed political field resulting in Antioch throwing 8 stacks at you while this is all going on and you got a recipe for "wait... I need to stop and think really carefully about this". Something that is entirely absent for any other faction I've played beyond 20 settlements.

But I wish that this wasn't relying so heavily on clover-alliances. I should be afraid of the Etruscan League's 15-settlement-territory (they divided Rome between themselves and Carthage... I might have helped with the monetary issue), but instead they're mostly just containing what could have been a volatile tri/quad-alliance block sharing those settlements with triple the strength from the exact same strategic resources.

**Hooahguy** · 11-12-2013, 18:38

What I think would work better is to make the army system to basically allow one army for every three provinces you hold, while keeping the base number at 3. So the large factions can still create a larger number of armies while it enables the smaller one-province factions to not be as much of a pushover than they would be with just one.

**Slaists** · 11-12-2013, 19:11

Originally Posted by Jarmam

It goes beyond that. Every faction gets a certain amount of cash per turn for merely existing. Judging by the 1,5-2 stacks that 1-settlement-factions can support with absolutely no infrastructure I assume its the same 2500 that the played faction recieves. On Legendary, 2500/turn for an AI faction mixed with t1 infantry costing 40-50ish/turn in upkeep for the AI means that 4 AI factions with 1 settlement each can field 2 earlygame stacks each solely off of this. A rebellion turned faction in your empire's center can quickly spin out of control if you don't contain it within a few turns.

In other words, a faction's strength increases quite modestly per extra settlement, but the base strength of a faction is massive. Facing Persia controlling the Persian province is much easier than a triclover-alliance of three factions with 1 of the settlements each.

This, to me so far, is also why the Seleucid campaign is by far the most entertaining I've tried. The earlygame isn't about securing a few settlements to base your expansion from - that part is skipped entirely, it is instead about picking a big fight fast, before your entire eastern satrapy-field revolts and then allies amongst eachother in a terrifying 8-block alliance. Meaning the midgame consists of managing trade relations (8000+/turn from trading is not "cute", its absolutely critical, making diplomacy critical), attempting to uphold a stable and containable Mediterranean region while also fending of wave after wave of eastern stacks that magically replenish in a matter of 3 turns. Throw in a poorly managed political field resulting in Antioch throwing 8 stacks at you while this is all going on and you got a recipe for "wait... I need to stop and think really carefully about this". Something that is entirely absent for any other faction I've played beyond 20 settlements.

But I wish that this wasn't relying so heavily on clover-alliances. I should be afraid of the Etruscan League's 15-settlement-territory (they divided Rome between themselves and Carthage... I might have helped with the monetary issue), but instead they're mostly just containing what could have been a volatile tri/quad-alliance block sharing those settlements with triple the strength from the exact same strategic resources.

Yup, I absolutely agree about Seleucids there. It's the most entertaining faction by far at least early to mid-game. One would think CA designed Rome to be a faction like that, alas...