Diplomacy and keeping relations up

**Aenlic** · 12-04-2006, 18:53

Playing as the Moors on H/H and using the Regnum Dei 1.7.7 mod, I was able to get an alliance and trade rights from every faction except the Scots. I even allied with the Pope. By the time I got my two diplomats to the Russians and the Turks, I had already gone to war with Portugal and Spain; but all of the other alliances held until the French suddenly remembered how much they admire Roland and blockaded one of my ports.

Even after destroying Spain and Portugal, and going to war with France, I remained allied with every other faction (except the Scots because I hadn't gotten around to putting a diplomat to sea). I'm interested in seeing how long I can maintain all of these alliances while slowly picking off factions one at a time.

**Eques** · 12-04-2006, 20:18

Well, led me see if i understood. To keep any aliance you got PAY tribute for that in every single turn. You got GIVE gifts even if you are stronger... allright.
So this crapy diplamacy is working? Forgive me but its just ridiculous... thats a broken diplmacy made for fanboys.

**Slaists** · 12-04-2006, 20:32

Originally Posted by Eques

Well, led me see if i understood. To keep any aliance you got PAY tribute for that in every single turn. You got GIVE gifts even if you are stronger... allright.
So this crapy diplamacy is working? Forgive me but its just ridiculous... thats a broken diplmacy made for fanboys.

Well, look at United Nations in real life today... Basically all developing nations are ganging up and shouting in one mouth that it is the "duty" of the developed nations to give cash to the developing ones

... Guess, who is stronger in the field of battle... Guess who is paying... Would you say it is ridiculous?

IMHO the game models this situation quite right...

**Eques** · 12-04-2006, 20:40

Yeah sure... if US dont send food to Senegal (for example) Senegal will probably declare war and send lots of MIG17 to bombard Washington. If they dont send some money to help lets say... Trinidade e Tobago, they will probably do the same, of course! Thats an incredible argument.

**Slaists** · 12-04-2006, 20:43

Originally Posted by Eques

Yeah sure... if US dont send food to Senegal (for example) Senegal will probably declare war and send lots of MIG17 to bombard Washington. If they dont send some money to help lets say... Trinidade e Tobago, they will probably do the same, of course! Thats an incredible argument.

I am not talking about direct attacking here. I am talking about relations, which the game models in the range from "abysmal" to "perfect". in the current world, even after sending food to Sudan, the relations between them and the US, for example, stay "so-so" at best.

And even if we talk about direct attack: it's not unprecedented in history (not realistic nowadays though). Look at german tribes wandering into Roman territory. Frequently their forces were quite insufficient to defeat the whole imperial army, but they still managed to "squeeze out" tribute either from Estern or Western Rome...

**Bob the Insane** · 12-04-2006, 20:55

I don't think anyone is declaring the M2TW diplomacy as perfect, simply that it is not as random or as bad as many percive it to be...

Basically the way the AI is program, through choice or fault, it does not deal well with being bullied into something. In a game of diplomatic chicken it never blicks and it does not bluff (as far as we are aware). It never backs down and will fight to the end and all deals have to break even at the very least according to some formula (which may change with difficulty level).

I wonder how aggressive it is programed to be? If an AI faction is hemmed in by other factions it is allied to what logic actually determines whether it should attack and whom it should attack (Weakest? worst relationship? worst reputation? the player?)?

Hopefully the fact that much of this has been expressed externally in text or XML files means we have a chance at finding out once the patch/unpacker comes out...

**andrewt** · 12-04-2006, 21:12

I think the AI diplomacy has worked well for the most part. However, there is a very big exception and that is ceasefires. In the end of my Venice game, I was around 40 provinces and was making tons of money and had lots of soldiers. The English were asking for 40k for a ceasefire. They had the British Isles and maybe a few provinces in Scandinavia or Iberia. Needless to say, I said no thanks to the repeated offers and conquered London instead.

**Morindin** · 12-04-2006, 23:14

Originally Posted by andrewt

I think the AI diplomacy has worked well for the most part. However, there is a very big exception and that is ceasefires. In the end of my Venice game, I was around 40 provinces and was making tons of money and had lots of soldiers. The English were asking for 40k for a ceasefire. They had the British Isles and maybe a few provinces in Scandinavia or Iberia. Needless to say, I said no thanks to the repeated offers and conquered London instead.

Again this is based on their alliance power and not individual power. Check their rating, it is probably 'supreme' due to the alliances they were in, or something along those lines.

**Morindin** · 12-04-2006, 20:35

Yeah I've found the OPs tactics it works a treat as well.

The diplomacy also works far better than Rome. For example, last night Egypt declared war on me. I was the English and in control of Antioc. Then the Pope declared a crusade to Jerusalem - jwhich was controlled by Egypt. Spain, Milan, HRE, France, Sicily all declared war on Egypt.
Next turn Egypt scrambled to get a cease-fire with me, they were totally freaked out.

Also the power of a nation when it comes to negotiating isn't nessesarily based on their sole faction power, but rather the power of their alliance. A weaker faction may actually regard you as weak if they are member of a very powerful alliance (and vise versa).

**maestro** · 12-04-2006, 22:49

Originally Posted by Eques

Well, led me see if i understood. To keep any aliance you got PAY tribute for that in every single turn.

No, you didn't understand. Not one bit. But then it takes a modicum of intelligence to work the M2TW diplomacy.

Put it this way: if you met a guy at a party who you got on with and decided they were a friend then their status with you is friendly. If you then never phone, write, text or talk to them again, that friendly feeling is gonna go away over time, right? Same applies with diplomacy. If you decide this guy and yourself have similar interests or goals and make a pact to work on a project together for the common good of each other then you have some kind of "alliance", but if you then don't ever phone, write, text or talk to them again or share any ideas or anything then that "alliance" is going to faulter.

Originally Posted by Eques

You got GIVE gifts even if you are stronger... allright.

It's simple people-politics, it ain't rocket science. You don't have to pay some kind of tribute every turn to maintain an alliance - that would be broken diplomacy - yo ucompletely misunderstood my post, or failed to read it properly. it's a case of looking after your allies, not paying for their friendship. if they're broke then give them some money - it's called being friends. If they're struggling with a war, or lose a settlement then help them by attacking their enemies or even retake their settlement then gift it back to your allies. it's called being friends.

Originally Posted by Eques

So this crapy diplamacy is working? Forgive me but its just ridiculous... thats a broken diplmacy made for fanboys.

If you want a game to have diplomacy whereby you can simply "make an alliance", to which the AI has to keep forever and then go round conquering the world and expect your allies to idly sit back and watch, knowing full well that their time will come then you're playing the wrong game. That would be broken diplomacy.

If you're struggling with the diplomacy then say so - there's plenty of peopple who can, and will help you but coming out with comments like "its just ridiculous... thats a broken diplmacy made for fanboys" makes you sound like a spoilt kid who doesn't want to play any more cause he didn't understand the rules first time. might I remind you that the game does, indeed, have a 16+ certificate.

**Willknott** · 12-04-2006, 23:23

I agree that diplomacy in the game is very intelligent and intricate. The first campaign I played, I was busy getting used to the game and paid little or no attention to the relationship rating. Now I keep all my allied relationships at 'perfect' having learned to use that little gift box button next to the 'make offer' one. The AI mirrors what you would expect in real life. You have to support your allies in peace as well as war. Negotiating an 'attack faction' gift with an ally against one of their enemies does wonders for a relationship rating as it would in real life.

You have to get past the pride thing of apparent submission that is implied by thinking 'pay tribute'. It's just semantics. Think of it as yourself being a benefactor providing assistance to your allies. I'm not sure, but it would be logical for that to improve chivalry in the long run. Paying attention to the faction ranking graph and keeping your enemies generally the same as those of your allies, it is also apparent that providing allies with assistance is not against your own best interests as your group of enemies (declared or not) tend to decrease in ranking over time while your allies and yourself increase.

It is also well noted that a status of 'perfect' in relationship does not absolutely guarantee no hostilities. The famous quote,"walk softly and carry a big stick" comes to mind in discouraging hostile actions. I've had the French at a 'perfect' relationship status blockade one of my ports in an act of war. Despite this act of war, our relationship rating was still listed as 'outstanding'.

**kublikhan3** · 12-05-2006, 09:03

Originally Posted by maestro

No, you didn't understand. Not one bit. But then it takes a modicum of intelligence to work the M2TW diplomacy.

Put it this way: if you met a guy at a party who you got on with and decided they were a friend then their status with you is friendly. If you then never phone, write, text or talk to them again, that friendly feeling is gonna go away over time, right? Same applies with diplomacy. If you decide this guy and yourself have similar interests or goals and make a pact to work on a project together for the common good of each other then you have some kind of "alliance", but if you then don't ever phone, write, text or talk to them again or share any ideas or anything then that "alliance" is going to faulter.

It's simple people-politics, it ain't rocket science. You don't have to pay some kind of tribute every turn to maintain an alliance - that would be broken diplomacy - yo ucompletely misunderstood my post, or failed to read it properly. it's a case of looking after your allies, not paying for their friendship. if they're broke then give them some money - it's called being friends. If they're struggling with a war, or lose a settlement then help them by attacking their enemies or even retake their settlement then gift it back to your allies. it's called being friends.

If you want a game to have diplomacy whereby you can simply "make an alliance", to which the AI has to keep forever and then go round conquering the world and expect your allies to idly sit back and watch, knowing full well that their time will come then you're playing the wrong game. That would be broken diplomacy.

If you're struggling with the diplomacy then say so - there's plenty of peopple who can, and will help you but coming out with comments like "its just ridiculous... thats a broken diplmacy made for fanboys" makes you sound like a spoilt kid who doesn't want to play any more cause he didn't understand the rules first time. might I remind you that the game does, indeed, have a 16+ certificate.

I agree with eques. Having to send "gifts" or as you prefer to call it "being friends by giving them some money when they are broke" sounds alot more like tribute to me. How come I am the one who must always be the one giving a gift? This "maintaining you friendship" is all one sided effort on the player and is complete BS. I give them gifts while they try to bribe my cities?
I have played many games where the diplomacy is a more give and take affair, castles 2, moo2, etc. Since I refuse to pay tribute to my "allies", this is what I get instead:
1. All relations deteriotate to abysmal, even my allies and factions im not bording.
2. My ally(byzantine) is sieging constantinople. I send an army through his teritory to help him because he is outnumbered. Before I even get there, relations deteriotate to abysmal(they were already there, but hey if helping my ally take a huge city deteriotates relations that is just par for the course in this game)
3. I have a huge armies marauding though enemy territory. He is getting some major pain from me. So he makes a generous offer, I only have to pay him 40,000 gold for peace. Gee, let me think about that. Continue to sack your pathetic cities for 10k a piece, or pay your weakling faction 40k so u can raise an army against me. Decisions, decisions....
4. In another game I am Spain. France declares war on me. I attack the invading armies and pope threatens to excommunicate me. WTF? Am I supposed to just get rolled over by france here?

Just because you learned to manipulate this highly one-sided diplomacy system to your advantage doesn't mean this is a balanced diplomacy system.