A Question of Diplomacy

[bamff]

While I can appreciate that the programmers had to do something to maintain the challenge for players, I just don't get the whole "refusal to ally" thing...

Surely a smaller power would look over the border at a massive army of a powerful neighbour and say "Hey, let's have an alliance, we'd much rather be your friends than your next targets."?

Granted a lot of human players may take advantage of the AI's friendliness by launching an attack immediately after agreeing to be allies....but again maybe this could be tackled by the programme slapping "untrustworthy" or "treacherous" traits on the offending player. Maybe there would be some other way to restrict attacks on allies?

I have no idea how this would work, just throwing it out there for discussion purposes. From my own corner of the sandbox, I would like to see the AI approaching the diplomacy thing a little differently.

Any thoughts?

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Sometimes I get frustrated in the same way. Like right now, I'm playing a RTR campaign (mod) as Macedon and I have no problem with having many enemies and fighting on many fronts, but I'm basically fighting the whole world. It's still going well for me as I'm taking settlement after settlement, but I still would like some friends to come to my aid or something. The worst thing is when I'm fighting Rome and Carthage comes to their aid

You know it could be that while allies you absolutely cannot attack. You have to "cancel alliance" before doing any hostile movements at least one turn in advance. I think it would be a bit more fair.

[bamff]

I also wouldn't mind seeing allies at least offer to come to the aid of attacked allied provinces, or alternately threaten an attacker with sanctions (sort of like the Pope does if a Catholic faction attacks another).

Perhaps the strength of an allies reaction could be linked to the time of the alliance - ie the longer standing the alliance, the "heavier" the response. For example, Italy attacks Sicily, who in turn has Almohads (10 years) and HRE (2 years) as allies. Next turn emissary from Almohads advises that they declare war on Italy straight away. HRE emissary advises that if all troops do not withdraw within 2 years....yada yada.... stay away for 10 years, then they will declare war on Italy....

That would add another dimension - because suddenly you have to be mindful of the possibility of finding yourself at war with several factions on a number of fronts

It also would replace that silly (seemingly random) series of alliance cancellations that happens every time another faction attacks/player attacks another faction. Say Italy has England (10 years) and Spain (3 years) as allies. England would also declare war on the enemy nations immediately, Spain would issue a warning.

Another thought as an intermediary step....at present you have enemy, neutral, and ally as the 3 possible statuses of other factions....wouldn't it be good if "neutral" could be split into say "neutral but happy to trade with you" and "neutral but imposing trade sanctions" in which case trade was restricted (say halved)...

Like I said, just thinking out loud....

[bamff]

actually I really do like that suggestion of Alexanderofmacedon that no player CAN attack an ally, and that the alliance must be cancelled prior to launching an attack....

[SomeNick]

Yeah I agree too. It makes sense that if a country that is allied suddenly attacks there would be some sort of prior warning, especially in the arena of trade prior to attack.

The diplomacy system needs an overhaul. Not only do players occasionaly make an alliance and break it the next trun but the AI does it all the time.

I reckon if the Diplomat has high influence then a list of recommendations should be put forth in regard to what the player would like to achieve in a certain path of diplomacy. Then he'd have a better rough idea as to what to do. If you think about it that would be how it works anyway. A diplomat in some distant land would have his priorities already set out but would need to relay messages back and forth to his home kingdom/empire in order to know what he can do and not do in new situations arising from diplomatic relations.

[Avicenna]

The more you break agreements, the less likely it is that countries will ally to you. Also, a small country might think that the large one wouldn't concentrate all its efforts on it, so will risk to take some lands while the large country gets rid of the major threats around it.

[Bombasticus Maximus]

actually I really do like that suggestion of Alexanderofmacedon that no player CAN attack an ally, and that the alliance must be cancelled prior to launching an attack....

Maybe when you do ask to cancel the allience you have to have a reason like: I want your land or something?

[bamff]

So we all seem to be thinking along similar lines here...but is it an area that can be modded, or is this destined to remain on the wishlist for a while?

[roman pleb]

Perhaps the strength of an allies reaction could be linked to the time of the alliance - ie the longer standing the alliance, the "heavier" the response. For example, Italy attacks Sicily, who in turn has Almohads (10 years) and HRE (2 years) as allies. Next turn emissary from Almohads advises that they declare war on Italy straight away. HRE emissary advises that if all troops do not withdraw within 2 years....yada yada.... stay away for 10 years, then they will declare war on Italy....

This would be an awesome idea, as i can never get my ally to help me when a nation declares war on me. There should also be a way to order your ally to help you at certain provinces on the map, so you could both fight the enemy with your combined strength if they are too strong for just one of you. My allies rarely help me in battle, and when they do, it is a battle that i don't need their help in anyway!

[Avicenna]

You could still use them to save yourself a few men while weakening the ally. They're almost guaranteed to backstab anyway, seeing as it's RTW.