FAQ updated- 03/04/2006

[The_Doctor]

http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotal...cID=1127.topic

Religion Continued

Q. We’ve heard a lot about the influence of the Pope. Can you describe some of the features of the religious system for non-catholic factions?

A. Both orthodox and muslim religions have priests, and religious buildings that they can use to spread their religion. Muslim factions can also create Jihads.


Q. You’ve spoken about how crusades work and how factions join them but how about Jihads, how do they work?

A. Jihads can be called my Muslim priests with a sufficient religion rating. They can be called against settlements owned by non-Muslim factions that have significant Muslim populations. Once a character decides to go on Jihad, he’ll have a range of low cost religious troops that he can recruit to the cause.


Diplomacy

Q. How has the diplomacy system improved from Rome, and how have you achieved this?

A. The diplomacy system in Medieval 2 has been improved to give the player a lot more information about how the AI player feels both about them, and about the offer on the table.

The diplomacy screen includes an array of new information, including how the other faction feels towards you. When you make an offer, there is an onscreen display how fair the AI considers the offer to be. The AI will be better inclined towards you if you make fair or generous offers, but sometimes you’ll be able to force them to accept unfavourable deals. Finally, after the deal is made, there’s audio and visual feedback about how your diplomatic rival felt about the transaction.


Q. Has the Diplomatic AI improved?

A. Yes, it has a much better memory now. Cheat it, or bully it, and it’ll hold a grudge. Treat it generously, and you’ll find it easier to make deals in future.


Q. Are there new offers and requests we can make? For example can we bribe other factions to rig papal elections?

A. You can bribe or bully other factions to vote for your candidate, or sell your own vote. The new Pope will remember who voted for him, and who against, so how to cast your vote requires some consideration if you’re not sure of winning yourself.


Q. How can a Princess be used for diplomatic means? What can be gained from marrying off a Princess to a rival faction’s General?

A. A royal marriage can be used in one of three ways. She can marry the heir or leader of another faction to cement an alliance, marry one of your own generals to improve his loyalty and make him part of the royal family, or attempt to marry another faction’s general, and bring him over to your side.
Princesses can also conduct diplomacy in the same way that diplomats can.

[NagatsukaShumi]

Again it sounds interesting, we shall see how well the AI remember alliances and such forth though, my major worry and it has been one that has griped me on all TW's is whether or not alliances will not be broken pointlessly like the AI often does, I can't stand signing an alliance only for them to attack me 3 turns later, its stupid and unless I'd offended them in some way or other it has no sense behind it.

Hopefully the factions opinion on you will decide whether they stab you in the back or stay loyal, maybe attacking factions they like etc will lower opinion and make it more likely whilst helping them, keeping up good relations with them etc will keep them loyal.

It is the biggest gripe I've got with TW, I'd rather it was much more like EUII in this respect, basically just sensible and no ridiculous breaking of ties.

[Furious Mental]

I'm glad muslim factions have a different jihad system. Hopefully alliances will not be written on toilet paper like those in RTW.

[anti_strunt]

I'm glad muslim factions have a different jihad system. Hopefully alliances will not be written on toilet paper like those in RTW.

Or STW, or MTW... Let's hope for a working, functional diplomatic system to give MTW2 the awesomest strategic gameplay of any Total War game yet!

[Simmons]

What about orthodox factions?

[Trajanus]

How many orthodox factions are there?

[Gustav II Adolf]

I must say im quite exited about the expanding diplomacy. Though i hope relations can be tracked and reviewed in some degree. I would like to be able to view the reasons why some faction like or dislike me similar to the civ4 system. This would help making reactions more understandable and meaningful. Also, i might not remember if i voted for some pope and be confused about why he keep threatening me. However, for all these new things to work well we cant have an ai suffering from a borderline personality disorder as in previous tw games.



-

[Simmons]

How many orthodox factions are there?

Two as far as I know two Byzantium and Russia

[Servius]

In addition to the concern about worthless agreements made by the AI, I also hope the diplomatic AI just isn't as dumb as it was in MTW. My primary example, when you are huge, they are puny, you two are at war, and for whatever reason you offer truce or alliance. In MTW, the AI would often turn this down, even though to do so was basically suicide.

Small nations need to know their place. They should either make peace or become your vasal, because the alternative is extinction.

I also hope Crusades and Jihads that travel through your land do not suck away your troops like they did in MTW. I would often deny them passage because I hated having my armies, and especially my generals, raided by a Crusade. I found excommunication preferable to losing a great general and having to waste turns reforming my units.

[screwtype]

[A princess can] marry one of your own generals to improve his loyalty

Did generals have a loyalty factor in RTW? I don't actually remember one.

If not, this would be a welcome addition to the game, if implemented properly. The loyalty system in MTW had potential but it had so little impact on the gameplay it wasn't worth the bother.

[Incongruous]

I loved the way troops would join a Crusade that passed through their territory. It was highly realistic.

[Martok]

JIHADS ARE IN!! JIHADS ARE IN!! HUZZAH!!


Sorry for my over-exuberance, but I was starting to worry they wouldn't be in the game. And not only do I find out they will be, it looks like they've included Faisal's and my idea (never mind that they probably thought of the idea before we did)! Now I can go liberate my fellow Muslims from the oppressive rule of the infedel! Woot!


[Martok dances naked through the streets]

[Zatoichi]

[A princess can] marry one of your own generals to improve his loyalty

Did generals have a loyalty factor in RTW? I don't actually remember one.

If not, this would be a welcome addition to the game, if implemented properly. The loyalty system in MTW had potential but it had so little impact on the gameplay it wasn't worth the bother.

BI introduced loyalty in family members and generals for the 2 Roman factions - similar to how it was handled in MTW, although there was more potential for your generals to incite civil war in BI than in MTW.

[econ21]

The loyalty system in MTW had potential but it had so little impact on the gameplay it wasn't worth the bother.

It was quite fun dealing with loyalty at the beginning of a HRE campaign - your generals were so mutinous, you had to be careful who you flattered with a governorship and who you gave a stack of troops too. But those considerations tended to get swamped by your king's influence as you conquered.

I was not so keen on BI's loyalty - more victories led to your general's becoming more disloyal, putting a kind of "expiry date" on your generals and encouraging you to fight with your leader and heir.

I think maybe a blend of the two systems would be good. Give incentives throughout the game (not just the beginning) to nurture your generals' loyalty MTW style and allow some (but not all) generals an unobserved predisposition to become to overly ambitious BI style.

[Bob the Insane]

or attempt to marry another faction’s general, and bring him over to your side.

Anyone else think this sounds delicously immoral? ;)

[Furious Mental]

If a faction expands rapidly, smaller factions should ally against it as a form of collective defense.

[Ludens]

I was not so keen on BI's loyalty - more victories led to your general's becoming more disloyal, putting a kind of "expiry date" on your generals and encouraging you to fight with your leader and heir.

I guess that was the point (and a very historical accurate one at that). Still, I haven't played BI so I can't really say if it was implemented correctly. One would expect an influental emperor to be able to keep unruly generals in check (just like in M:TW).

Anyway, this update sounds fantastic. The TW series needs a more expanded strategical game and this sound exactly like I hoped it would be.

[Vlad Tzepes]

Oh, a better diplomacy system would be such a nice reason to buy once again a TW game!

[screwtype]

If a faction expands rapidly, smaller factions should ally against it as a form of collective defense.

I agree. That would be one of the very best ways to create a challenge for the human player. It would also be the obvious and easy way to compensate for the "steamroller" effect which so marred gameplay in RTW.

[hoom]

I was not so keen on BI's loyalty - more victories led to your general's becoming more disloyal, putting a kind of "expiry date" on your generals and encouraging you to fight with your leader and heir.

Sounds great to me :)

Info on how the factions feel towards me will be good though I fear that they will almost all adore me at the start then progress very rapidly & for no good reason to something like "this tiny faction despises your large culture with hysterical genocidal wrath and will die to the last man rather than surrender"