Investigation of Betrayal

[Diurpaneus]

Why do the allies betray ?

placeholder

[Drusus Magnus]

Yes, why DO they betray you? CA?...

[Garvanko]

Yeah, I'd like to know that one too.

[Viking]

Ludus Magna?

[Severous]

Greed. Because they think they can beat you in battle and gain your lands.?

Unless unseen diplomacy has other factions paying one faction to attack another ?

[Avicenna]

Wanting your weakly defended land..

Kind of hoping for a BI investigation of betrayal. Why do they sometimes not happen at all, and when they do happen happen in multiple places at once?

[Mithras]

It tends to be opertunistic in nature They'll attack you when they perceive weakness such as a soft border or you're already engaged in a major war. The AI doesnt seem to be able to ascess from a bigger picture such as in BI when my ascendant western Roman empire was attacked by Berber allies. Considering the potency of my faction at the time this was suicide but the AI didnt pick up on it, Becouse I'd cut back on troops in carthage to save cash.

Overall remember that the AI will be looking for chances to grab land but won't realise if its making a long term error for short term gains.

[Ciaran]

Overall remember that the AI will be looking for chances to grab land but won't realise if its making a long term error for short term gains.

Yes, well, now that´s not exactly a mistake only the AI makes, is it ?

I know in MTW the AI tended to backstab you if the neighboring province was weakly defended, maybe that´s the case in RTW, too. Though I don´t know what is counted as a province defense, only the garrisons stationed in a city or all troops withing the borders of the province. In MTW it were all the troops within the province, but I´m not sure aout Rome.

[Grumfoss]

I had a large almost full stack ERE army sitting in Salona ( BI of course) When a stack of WRE troops walked passed weaker targets and attacked. I have no idea why. Could it be hard coded if you are the ERE and you take Salona then the WRE will attack you? I don't know. I have heard this happening to other players as well.

[Avicenna]

I'm not sure, but I think Salona might just be one of the target provinces of the WRE. Otherwise, maybe they don't want to have to deal with a full stack coming on their.. rear end while besieging another settlement?

[Grumfoss]

The Hordes had been through Salona, kicking out the WRE rebels. The province was then a Rebel province for a number of years before I nicked....oh I mean Liberated it for the Glory of Rome

[gardibolt]

I'm pretty sure it is little more than opportunism. A well-defended boundary along an ally in my experience will keep the alliance alive for a good long time---in my Julii game, I was allies with Pontus for over 100 years, at which point I had conquered everything BUT Pontus. I had three 3/4 stacks standing near the roads between my lands and the Pontic lands and never had a bit of trouble with them.

Selling map information to an ally can be deadly; once they see exactly how strong (or more to the point, how weak) neighboring territories are, they seem to immediately betray you.

[Patricius]

The ai seems to betray the moment the possibility of an easy victory appears. I have ceasefires and possibly alliances that lasted less than a turn. The ai would seek peace and two moves of its units later, it lays siege on a city. I treat ceasefires and alliances with sides that have parts of my territory as objectives as uneventful warfare, a cold war. Dealing with the ERE as the WRE is an instance of this.

[gardibolt]

Even so, those can be useful in the short term. Run immediately to them for trade rights, demanding nothing in return, once there's a ceasefire. Most of the time, they will accept that, and if they're getting a benefit from it, they're less likely to attack. It's some handy additional cash for a turn or two, at no cost to you.

[limitedwhole]

Building forts definately helps. I left SAlona, Thermon, and Appolonia completely undefended and MAcedon didn't betray me for a long time, I betrayed them. Even one unit in a fort is a deterent because they know that they will have to spent at least two turns sieging the fort before they can move onto the town, by which point you could produce a garrison so they would have to spend at least two more turns sieging tha town, by which point you could have reinforcements their. Not that I would want to send reinforcements back to my center, but the possibility is enough to deter. Thats why stationing armies in the field is usually allot better than garrisoning. They can both reach the city if need be to reinforce at the siege, but can also have a longer range by being posted at range limit away from a city. Ships obviously increase your range dramatically, which is why control of teh sea is so important. Think how far you can move an army in 4 turns by ship. Now thats a deterrent. Also sheer size and power helps. Yes they might pick up a territory, but they also might lose their entire nation.

[Zalmoxis]

It is because the AI is poorly built, in my opinion. The factions should be able to come to terms that are mutually beneficial, but the AI will always try to ask for more, and as a consequence be burried by the player's armies. It's sad.