Thoughts on Diplomacy

**lancelot** · 09-26-2006, 16:28

The only thing I want out of diplomacy in MTW2 is the idiot factor removed...

MTW1 had a knack of accepting peace deals from superpower byzantium only for 1 province poland (or whoever) breaking treaty by suicidaly attacking byzantium the very next turn!

Waste of time and completely idiotic, plus no penalties for being a backstabbing little girl!

**Tiberius maximus** · 09-26-2006, 18:01

my only thoughts are that if im trying to negotitate the surrender of england as example and i am vastely superior than i cant see how the could refuse
like in RTW i could surround a faction and have four full stacks positioned around their only city and they wouldnt surrender

which means i want limits to how much diplomacy the ai can refuse exspecialy in hopeless situations

**Polemists** · 09-26-2006, 18:09

One thing I use agents for all the time, tho this wasn't a issue till the maps were redesigned in RTW, was map information. I thrived on it. Simply seeing all the cities was so nice, I guess I could have just downloaded a map from net but I felt more like times this way. When not every inch of land was explored.

Yes they were very good for bribing. Though this time I'm not sure there needed for alliances as much. I mean honestly if a nation stays my ally I'd much rather the reason be political marriage then a little guy with a hat.

Another thing I liked doing with diplomats, was when I was at war with someone going to all the factions who hated that faction and ask how much they'd give to attack said faction. Like a little private war fund, maybe time time I can get my funds from the pope :).

**dcd111** · 09-26-2006, 20:34

Originally Posted by Tiberius maximus

my only thoughts are that if im trying to negotitate the surrender of england as example and i am vastely superior than i cant see how the could refuse
like in RTW i could surround a faction and have four full stacks positioned around their only city and they wouldnt surrender

which means i want limits to how much diplomacy the ai can refuse exspecialy in hopeless situations

Your requirement for the AI's behavior begs the question: Do you want the AI to act with historical realism, or to act something like another human player? If you want the AI to act "realistically", then what you're saying makes sense, a leader might surrender to keep his people (and especially himself) from being slaughtered. But if you turn the tables, would you surrender your last city to a computer-controlled faction's diplomat because the alternative is a hopeless battle? Probably not, I would guess you would tell that diplomat to shove off and you'd prepare for a last stand on the battlefield. Because your goal is to try to win, not to save your people from being slaughtered. The computer factions should behave similarly, as another player trying to win the game at all costs.

- Dan

**Denizar** · 09-26-2006, 23:09

Maybe it should depend on the AI general stats, whether he is more strict and corageous, or thoughtful of his people. What you say Dan does make sense, but many people want to have a realistic experience from Total War.

I totally agree with Tiberius maximus.

**Polemists** · 09-27-2006, 03:28

I'm still on other side of this coin. Countless generals did historically fight countless unwinnable battles. Heck look at the fall of Constaninople.Surrounded, outnumbered by quite a few, besieged, starving, and asked constantly to surrender. Not only did they fight there king charged the battlefield (streets of the city). So yes I could see a last ditch hoo ha of attack.

I think though certain factors should be taken into account. Like while English would never surrender or become protectorate to a Muslim faction, they very well may accept terms of negotiable surrender if they keep there land, and have a bigger military brother.

My problem with protectorate is even when I did get one, it never worked, because they never were my protectorate, they never gave me jack