Alliances.

[Qilue]

Are there any penalities for suddenly invading a faction whom your currently allied to. Many times, I've looked enviously at a foreign provence thinking how nice it would look as part of my domain, yet it belonged to an ally.

In my current game, I'm playing the French and I've conquered half of the Iberian penninsula with the Almohads having taken the other half (although they seem to be having problems with rebels in Portugal ). The problem is that I want the rest along with half of North Africa, but I'm allied to them.

[MonkeyMan]

i think so. If you invade an ally then everyone knows just what an alliance means to you. Whereas if you break a siege for an ally, other factions may well think that allying with you is worth something.

expansion can easily be achieve in the game by using the sea to get to rebel provinces. Just sit back and wait for civil wars, excommunications and the like and you won't have to annoy anyone for a long time.

[Azrael]

Hey Qilue,

You can go after anything you want if you think you can take it.

The only thing to consider is that warring against another Catholic faction if liable to get you excommunicated by the Pope.

Conveniently, the Alhomeds should be no problem.

Why not launch a Crusade against one of their provinces.

March it through a couple of your Catholic Allies Provinces and you will pinch some of their best troops..

Azrael

[Qilue]

I have done the thing where you lift the seige in an ally's provence, but usually because I'm either bored and looking for a fight or I need that particular faction to be in control of that province.

I've played SMAC and Civ3 so much that it's now ingrained to the extent that I'm constantly looking for ways to get out of an alliance and not agreeing to one with a faction currently in control of my future territories.

[Michiel de Ruyter]

I usually try to stay allied with everybody to build up my troops, and conquer/bribe a few rebel provinces (Sweden anyone). Then I usually go after one small country or after an excommunicated empire....

Build up again, and then smash one of the bigger countries, avoiding excommunication... improve the provinces, and then you have a real good powerbase.... And you usually have a king with a high enough influence rating to get any alliance you wants... It is very diificult to find wives for my sons though...

[Dr_No]

I think i remember reading somewhere that your influence suffers if you break an alliance- though i've never tested it, and might have even dreamed it.

I usualy get around it by bundling tons of spies (and priests bishops) o stoke up a couple of rebellions and then mop.....

always thought it'd be cool to get vices and virtues for you king based on his relationships with other factions eg trustworthy, backstabber, babe magnet (for multiple marraige proposals)- thoughts?

[Brother Derfel]

I have certainly broken many an alliance without noticing any real negative effects of this.

I usually wait until my alies have engasged in combat with another faction and one their provinces on my borders are drained of troops I invade and ally with their new enemies (gotta love foreign diplomacy)

I have not noticed influence go down because of this, if anything it goes up for the number of new provinces you take.

As long as your nation ids strong enough i think it is not worth worrying about, but if you are just starting up it is best to keep your allies close and potential enemies closer

Thanks

[tarkins]

I also notice Monkey said, when you attackan ally, most of the player who were allied to you and to your *new* ennemi will stay ally with this ennemi

[housecarl]

Sometimes an ally can be worthless; early in the game building up resources I never attacked an ally and lifted the siege on the Egyptians to keep them gratefully allied, only to have them attack me about 5 turns later. It would enhance the game if the diplomacy were improved and expanded, I like the militaristic aspects greatly but feel the campaign side could do with some positive diplomatic input, as at the moment, an ally can attack at any time and you have no benefits from alliances or any real penalties from attacking an ally.

[LadyAnn]

Diplomacy? What diplomacy?

I think displomacy would improve if a 3-state diplomacy becomes a 6-state diplamacy:

3 original states are:
1. AT WAR
2. NEUTRAL
3. ALLIANCE

The new 6 states are:
1. AT WAR
2. NEUTRAL w/o TRADE PRIVILEGE
3. NEUTRAL WITH TRADE PRIVILEGE
4. NON-AGRESSION
5. MUTUAL-DEFENSE
6. FULL-ALLIANCE

A state of diplomacy is like s sliding scale. You can be in one or the other. Neutral implies NOT at war. Non-Agression implies neutral with trade privilege, etc.

I am not defining yet the difference between 2 and 3, but there should be some advantage for having trading privilege in some condition, while not in other. Will revisit this later.

In Non-Agression, an army move into the other's province would constitute a violation of the accord, make it an act of war automatically. In mutual-defense, a country is at war with a third country if his mutual-defense ally get attacked. Mutual-defense allow an army to come to the other province for aid (at another place) without claiming the province nor having automatic declaration of war. Full alliance would kicks in when a faction attacks the third faction, the second faction automatically declare war to that third faction.

This would make pimping off daughters more worthwhile .

Annie

[housecarl]

This sounds like a useful addition. It would also be interesting to be able to assist an ally especially when against a common foe. I seem to remember in Alpha Centauri being able to assign units to allies, which improved the strength of the alliance and offloaded the upkeep of the unit to another fraction. It would also be useful to be able to successfully negotiate a ceasefire, with units/florins/land. It’s a pity the ground rules for diplomacy weren’t a little clearer, for example if you attack an ally no-one will trust you for 20 years, or is it forever?

[housecarl]

That is odd when I type an appostrophe I get ’

[Dark Angel]

I like the extra states of diplomacy. Would it also be possible to help along diplomacy with bribes. ie bribe the pope to avoid ex-communication or request money from other states to allow trade rights or for you not to attack them (danegold).

Still love the game.

Best wishes

[SmokWawelski]

Very good idea about the enhanced diplomacy, I would love to see that implemented in MTW. I think though, that it would require too much coding to show up in a patch. Maybe in an expansion pack.
We should bring it to the attention of people from CA, maybe they will consider it :confused: