Favorite Ally

[Budwise]

I always side with Germany and help them take out everyone else and wait for them to attack me after I have an empire of my own. I wish I could stay Allied with them all the time but they always break the alliances and I guess AI is more Free For All than Team Play. I would just love Multiplayer Campaign because I could finish with an empire about 50% of the map, I don't need to own the world. Even if my Ally was an AI faction, I wouldn't mind as long as I don't have to constantly worry about my border. Hell - I would even give/help it get more of its own land.

I dunno, call me a WW2 nut but I always wanted to see the bad guy win IN VIDEO GAMES (not real life, I'm not a Nazi), I guess thats why I love the British enough to get to know the Billmen/Longbow. In fact, my first British campaign to 100% was won without using a single Billmen unit.

[Roark]

I like to ally with Sicily and Italy as soon as possible, purely because of their navies. I don't need them messing with my trade routes.

My staunchest allies have historically been the French. They can be very chummy for some reason.

[Dutch_guy]

Have to agree with you Budwise, in every campaign I ally with the HRE, they have even helped me on certain occaisions - in battles.

And yes, they usually just spontaniously decide to stop the alliance .... which is to bad since I would have let them live. if they kept my eastern border clean ..

As for the french.... I never ally with them, they're usually my first target conquest-wise, especially when playing a Western faction

[mfberg]

I love to ally with the Turks or Byzantines, especially if I am all the way across the map. In VI it is the Welsh I always ally with, so much fun to help them kick the mercians out of their regions.

[AggonyDuck]

Somehow I like allying with the Poles, dunno but they're some of the most reliable allies one can get.

[Grey_Fox]

Meh. Allies for me are just things I use for foreign princesses. I feel no compulsion to make allies of my own, but if they offer I won't refuse.

So I don't have a favourite ally, they are just people to be invaded at a later date.

[Strike For The South]

the polish really good when youre the HRE and trying to take Hungary

[m52nickerson]

As the Polish it is the HRE, but sooner or later they always seem to get wiped out. I don't like the Hungarians, they always attack me at the worst possible time.

[dgfred]

As the Polish it is the HRE, but sooner or later they always seem to get wiped out. I don't like the Hungarians, they always attack me at the worst possible time.

I almost always play HRE and the Hungarians are a pest - they
either sneak attack or keep building up and threatening Austria/Venice.
Poland is a good partner for me in most games and I will not even mention
those treacherous Byzantines .

[DensterNY]

I agree about willing to share the world for a trustworthy ally which is much more realistic in a common sense manner. There would be an uneasy truce perhaps and a bit of intermarriage but overall nations should see the advantage gained in alliances as it makes them stronger. And I mean real alliances not like the phony baloney ones that rulers would make or break with or without reason. I know its a balance between historical accuracy and gameplay but when you're a nearly unstopable threat people would more likely kiss your ass than try and kick it.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The HRE, always a strong flank. If I'm the HRE, then I'd prefer Byzantines, Hungary, or Spain.

[NodachiSam]

I agree about willing to share the world for a trustworthy ally which is much more realistic in a common sense manner. There would be an uneasy truce perhaps and a bit of intermarriage but overall nations should see the advantage gained in alliances as it makes them stronger. And I mean real alliances not like the phony baloney ones that rulers would make or break with or without reason. I know its a balance between historical accuracy and gameplay but when you're a nearly unstopable threat people would more likely kiss your ass than try and kick it.

I agree often I'll own more than half of Europe and small cute factions will regret alliances even though I might've just crushed another faction with 5 or more provinces in all at once the previous year.
Also, if you've had an alliance with a faction for over a hundred years having had mutual enemies and allies and essentially one family is ruling both factions because princesses have gone back and forth so much you had better need one heck of a good reason to attack them.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Currently I really like having the Italians as an ally and the Byzantines as a nuetral border. Without the Byzantines as nuetral my South Eastern border would be menaced along with my far east border consisting of Kiev (only Kiev due to rebel provinces further north, Kiev is threatened by the Mongols) and the Italians are just nice to have, despite having merely two provinces (Genoa and Mila, I helped save Milan for them, and then they expanded into Genoa as I kicked the English in Norther Italy for them). The help limit my border against the French, which was the English before they collapsed due to rebellions and French reemergence. I think I'll keep them around as an amusement.

[Emerald Wolf]

Do you think perhaps it's possible to incude a happiness modifier when breaking an alliance. Perhaps -20% to end and alliance peacfully, like if 2 allies go to war, or -40% to attack an ally. Maybe the threat of continuous rebellion would make the AI keep the alliances more intact.

[DensterNY]

Well, although I've not played Rome since I bought Medieval Total War it seems its been somewhat addressed as my allies there acted more like allies. We fought the same enemies and we didn't amass humongous defensive armies on each other's borders... unfortunately in many, many other aspects Rome does not compare to Medieval's gameplay.

Another instance of stupidity that I encountered with the AI is that I had on all of my borders with Poland extremely powerful and fully stacked defensive armies. However, they are hard-wired to declare war against me and yet their armies are afraid to march against mine so what do they do? They build up a measely ship and attack mine just so that formal war is declared... utterly stupid as they gained absolutely nothing and opened the invitation for me to anhiliate them.

[dgfred]

I have had Poland act very similarly in my HRE games , I wonder
why they do this instead of attacking eastward? It really shortens the life of
their empire .

[Budwise]

They build up a measely ship and attack mine just so that formal war is declared... utterly stupid as they gained absolutely nothing and opened the invitation for me to anhiliate them.

First, what else did you expect from the Polish? Anyways, I get really annoyed and althought the offending country is absolutely no match, WHATSOEVER, I press a full on attack with whatever I have free. I take everything but one province, shashing and burning everything but the fort (If I want to build later, its a pain to get the castle back.) and let them keep their capital with nothing and let them suffer finantially. I will then finish them off later by Nickel and Diming, sending in like horse archers to decimate and withdraw.

I know the CPU can't get pissed off but if I did this against a human player, I TELL YOU THAT THEY WILL NEVER STAB ME IN THE BACK AGAIN.

[Ludens]

However, they are hard-wired to declare war against me and yet their armies are afraid to march against mine so what do they do? They build up a measely ship and attack mine just so that formal war is declared... utterly stupid as they gained absolutely nothing and opened the invitation for me to anhiliate them.

Single ships work as a magnet for the A.I.: they just can't resist attacking them, even when war would be an extremily bad idea.

I am wondering if CA decided to use agent A.I. for the boats. You see, I think that, in terms of program-code, ships are just a kind of agent, like spies and assasins, that is limited to sea zones. The A.I. has no problem sending agents after a human player, even when he is neutral or even allied. Since agent attacks, even when they fail, do not mean a declaration of war, this is a sensible strategy.

If my theory is correct, then it would explain why the A.I. is so eager to attack single ships: it sees only the high chance of succes (since the A.I. usually has an edge in sea battles) and does not realize it will cause a war.

Do you think this is a viable hypothesis?

[dgfred]

Possible that you are on to something. I've yet to figure out
why they would do such a thing when their land forces are weak or in bad
position.

[EatYerGreens]

If my theory is correct, then it would explain why the A.I. is so eager to attack single ships: it sees only the high chance of succes (since the A.I. usually has an edge in sea battles) and does not realize it will cause a war.

Do you think this is a viable hypothesis?

Yes, sounds fine to me.

Many's the time where my sole thought, in launching an assassination mission at a soft target - like an Emissary, which may indeed belong to an ally but who's looking - is that it'll add a valour star to my assassin, which I'm going to need if he's to have the slightest chance of picking off a genuine threat, such as an enemy general. Very rarely is it because I don't want the AI to know what buildings I've built in a core province they are unable to see into with their watchtowers. Even rarer still is the desire to stop them forming alliances with other AI (there are so many Ems on each side as to make this hard to prevent, in any case).

So, the AI ships have a similar motivation behind them - gaining command stars for their admiral and assuring success in any future battles.

You're right about ships being agents of a kind. They can be used to do reconnaisance on far-off provinces, though ISTR that you can check province stats, buildings in place and the size of the army stack, though right-clicking the army doesn't give full unit detail. At least I think that last bit is correct.

(I have previously put forward an argument whereby bishop/priest and Princesses are preoccupied with certain duties and similarly restricted in what level of detail they can provide, perhaps a little more for 'nosey' Emissaries and giving the player motivation to use the covert agents but that's another story).

In one Byz campaign, my trade income was ticking along at a modest level and other factions tolerated the presence of my ships. Just ONE turn after sticking a single extra ship into the Baltic, adding about 3 or 4 extra ports onto my trade portfilio, the Sicilians chose that moment to attack a ship, declaring war and blockading vitually all of my trade income, as their ships were in just about every sea zone that mine were.

That's just to illustrate the point that, sometimes, the AI isn't so dumb. Even when it's watch towers do not overlook your provinces and it's agents aren't in town, their ships off your coasts CAN detect the sudden jumps in revenue which the stepwise expansion of your trade links can cause. When it doesn't share a land border with you, with which to start the war, the sea battles are the only method it has to hinder your progress. Hence the expression 'Total War'.

[Ludens]

In one Byz campaign, my trade income was ticking along at a modest level and other factions tolerated the presence of my ships. Just ONE turn after sticking a single extra ship into the Baltic, adding about 3 or 4 extra ports onto my trade portfilio, the Sicilians chose that moment to attack a ship, declaring war and blockading vitually all of my trade income, as their ships were in just about every sea zone that mine were.

That's just to illustrate the point that, sometimes, the AI isn't so dumb. Even when it's watch towers do not overlook your provinces and it's agents aren't in town, their ships off your coasts CAN detect the sudden jumps in revenue which the stepwise expansion of your trade links can cause. When it doesn't share a land border with you, with which to start the war, the sea battles are the only method it has to hinder your progress. Hence the expression 'Total War'.

That might be an explanation to. We do know that the A.I. is programmed to be a nuisance even to the point of suicide, and disrupting or preventing sea trade is at best a major nuisance. Also, this kind of naval aggresion doesn't start until your trade networks reaches foreign coast, which seems to support your idea.

On the other hand, the delayed naval aggresion can also be caused by coastal defense routines of the naval A.I. (perhaps assassins that are not on foreign missions work like this?). Also, suicidal programming doesn't kick in until you reach the 60% mark, so either argument works both ways.

[EatYerGreens]

Dang. I said 'Baltic' and I meant 'Black Sea'. Doh!

If you pictured me having a fleet right around the map, then I apologise for giving a false impression. Like I said, my fleet was still small and connecting to three extra ports made a sudden boost in my income.

Actually, I think that must have been an Almo campaign, hence Black Sea being at the furthest end of my ship chain.