Medieval 2: Total War Designer Diary #1 - Introducing the New Diplomatic System

[Basileus]

Sounds good and all but untill i see evrything myself im not getting to excited.

[Mooks]

I think they couldve done a lot better. I heavily doubt they read any of our diplomacy threads.

[Bob the Insane]

Looks nice, but as has perviously been stated, it is not so much setting up deals that is the issue so much as to how the AI factions react to those deals and whether their responses have any connection to their situation.

Sueing for peace and attacking in the same turn, betraying an ally when you are losing battles on other fronts. Stuff like that...

As for the Worsening Relations thing, it sounds like the Transgression warnings we already have in RTW. The question is will we be able to work out what this supposed transgression is this time...

[A.Saturnus]

The designer definitely focusses too much on secundary points. That you'll know when you offended the other as a nice touch but it's pointless if the offended acts in the same random way factions do in ROME. It's not enough to give the player more options, these options have to make an actual differences. In ROME, whatever you do a faction close to you will attack you sooner or later, even if its trade is dependent on you and it is at war with three other factions.
The diplomatic behavior of the AI in ROME is that of a madman. If that doesn't change, diplomatic options are a waste.

[Kralizec]

The designer definitely focusses too much on secundary points. That you'll know when you offended the other as a nice touch but it's pointless if the offended acts in the same random way factions do in ROME. It's not enough to give the player more options, these options have to make an actual differences. In ROME, whatever you do a faction close to you will attack you sooner or later, even if its trade is dependent on you and it is at war with three other factions.
The diplomatic behavior of the AI in ROME is that of a madman. If that doesn't change, diplomatic options are a waste.

Agreed. There's absolutely no connection between how the AI behaves diplomaticly and how it behaves outside diplomacy, and the situation on the campaign map. Factions down to one province wouldn't accept peace even for money, or even demand that you become protectorate. If you were an AI's protectorate, they would often still attack you regardless, ditto if you're paying huge tributes to them. There's absolutely no coherency.

[edyzmedieval]

Not too impressed. I think it's okay.
I'm still buying Medieval TW II.

[Tamur]

Many making the same good point, that feedback is one step but the core AI is what will really make this work. I can imagine it's insanely difficult coding but, with my title being what it is, I have to be hopeful.

That said, all the writing I did for the diplomacy doc on Rome, though it wasn't a waste, should have included a lot of disclaimers. I asked a lot of questions, both on many boards and privately to CA staff, about the weird behaviours (like refusing protectorate even with a cash bonus and after having their empire cut in half) and got no anwers. So I made a lot of guesses.

Perhaps there were no answers because, for Rome, the answers would have been alarming?

At any rate, here's hoping for M2:TW

[Divinus Arma]

I agree with all here: If the diplomacy does not connect with the Campaign AI, then the diplomacy is worthless. And if the campaign AI is poor, then diplomacy is made further worthless.

I regarded RTW diplomacy as a complete failure. I never used it and considered attempts by the AI to engage in diplomacy as an annoyance.

This is promising, but everything hinges on the AI. To play this game, I will have to buy a new computer (since mine just fried). Because of this, I am certainly going to wait for Orgah reviews on AI before I go throw away $1,000.00 on a new computer just to play a TW game. (Since I play nothing else)

At least we can enjoy the orgy of screenies that gamespot provides us.