We NEED a 'Get the hell off my land!' Diplomacy Option!

[OMGLAZERS]

With the introduction of the new AI which is exponentially more aggressive, I think that CA's top priority among the other bugs and such is to add a new diplomacy option in which you inform other countries that their army is on your soil, and they have to immediately leave or declare war, and it's THEIR fault.

How silly is it that the player must get military access permission from countries in order not to piss them off, or the Pope, but they can march their troops right through your country and you cannot do a damn thing about it. And if you do, you are blamed by the Pope!

Also, with naval invasions, you are blamed once again! How can you be expected to stop a naval invasion without this option! You will ALWAYS get blamed for starting a war.

I am also going to copy-pasta this post into the 'Mod Requests/Ideas' section because I think it is the one thing every single member of the TW community would love to see right now.

Thats it from me for today.

[PaulTa]

I completely agree. I am the one who gets the reputation hit for defending my own territory, when XYZ is the one that violated our alliance by invading my territory.

I'd really like to see, if not a new diplomacy option, then a computer that will cancel alliances before invading or something of that sort. That way, it takes the diplomacy hit and I don't.

[Kobal2fr]

There is a way to do this (although of course a diplomatic option would be more handy) : park a military stack in the "red zone" around his troublesome stack (or a fleet next to his fleet). This will send a "I'm watching you, you little git !" message to the AI and will make it reconsider it's invasion plans.

Then it'll either retreat, or declare war, depending on both your overall strengths+production possibilities compared to his, and said stack (a single militia unit will usually entice him to attack outright if you are both equally powerful, while a huge army will send him back wimpering to try and invade someone/somewhere else).

Either way, your reputation is safe.

[mor dan]

i think that is exactly the problem. crossing boundries isn't considered "an invasion". but yes, a "pardon me, but you are tresspassing' option certainly seems in order. i can't tell when i need to beef up a defense or just watch them as they march by.

honestly, i think it is a pathing problem. they take assigned routes, no matter what that might mean. it would explain why if you block a bottleneck path a unit will either choose another action, or just sit there until you move instead taking a different different and longer path.

[Bob the Insane]

Well I saw something interesting in my latest post patch game. As the HRE I made the effort to Ally with the Polish (and a bunch of others). PLaying on H/VH (H campaign) I maintained the alliance for many, many turns with lots of gifts to keep them sweet. While their territory lapped around mine in an L shape they never took the short cut and rarely ever entered my lands and never left a stack there at the end of the turn.

I think that when the AI is on your land it is a direct challange and an agressive act by the AI. You put troops on their land and it annoys them, you should feel the same why when they put troops in your land. The shadowing with a large stack works and I am wondering whether attacking a neutral stack on your land is an agressive act. Many have seen that attacking enemy stacks on your own land when the Pope has started a mission for you to stop fighting that faction does not tigger the failure of that mission and thus (as far as the mission functionality is concerned) it is not an attack as such...

But M2TW is a game of bullies that rarely back down or blink. And once one targets you conflict is almost unstoppable...

[GotGame36]

I couldn't agree more.

I have had 4-5 half stacks of a "neutral" country just sit by my capital for turn after turn.

Again.....what you said about the naval units.....I get attacked from a country....then attack them back and the Pope get's mad at me and not the original attackers. That is messed up.

[RussianWinter]

I wish the armies simply couldnt cross borders unless:

1.) They declare war on you.
2.) You have an alliance/ military access
3.) It is a crusade army (though this obviously creates pains after crusade disbands and has to walk home, thats another rant.)

The porous borders are a huge gameplay complaint of mine, its a joke that an army can just waltz anywhere.

Is this moddable in any way?

[grinningman]

I wish the armies simply couldnt cross borders unless:

1.) They declare war on you.
2.) You have an alliance/ military access
3.) It is a crusade army (though this obviously creates pains after crusade disbands and has to walk home, thats another rant.)

I agree, I think this would be much better than the current system.

The crusade army could just get instantly transported back to your nearest border if the crusade ends and you're in foreign territory.

[derfinsterling]

The porous borders are a huge gameplay complaint of mine, its a joke that an army can just waltz anywhere.

Well, considering how slow news travelled in those days it's not that unlikely that an amry crosses your border and you'd hear about it days or weeks later. Considering this I don't really have a problem with armies being able to cross your borders at will.
But yes, a "Get Lost" option would be great! Especially combined with the "Accept or we will Attack" option.

[mrbrownstain]

So you guys don't like the fact that opponent factions can place their armies in your territories without your permission? You find it unnatural behavior when they plant themselves somewhere and force you into a situation of their design?

I'll agree that the options presented are sometimes simplified in the diplomacy aspect, but landing on someone's territory only worsens the relations and does not constitute an act of war and won't lose a mission of non agression from the pope.

So far I'm impressed with the campaign A.I. It's worthwile to work around diplomacy and espionage to get the upper hand. I may get angry and reload once in a while, but that's usually 'cause I made a silly typo style mistake or forgot to move someone and lost advantage.

I just wanted to speak up.

[todorp]

Yes, we need such option, because enemy troops in your province add to devastation and lower the income and the order.

I don't think the AI will honour it :) though

[OMGLAZERS]

I've currently had a stack of Moorish units sitting outside my (Spanish) city of Valencia for about oh, 10-15 turns now.

And mind you, i'm even playing LtC mods, so even with improved AI, it's doing this ****!

(H/VH btw)

THIS is my problem. I have units sitting in front of my forts, unable to attack, unable to leave, can't do a thing, just sitting there. So now I need to beef up massively so they don't attack, but then they just SIT there.. WAITING for me to leave.

It's just very nasty.

[Bob the Insane]

The AI is trying to bully you, or force you to be the bad guy and attack... I am not sure why this is an issue...

If you do not want them there and are not allied to them, then attack, dirive them out and send a message to the rest of the AI factions that you are not to be messed with. If you merely drive them out it is not to hard to get peace going again if you pay some reperations for the military units you have "damaged"...

If you are allied then grant them military acces to your lands and steal their thunder (you can probably get cash or military access to their lands for it and they will no longer cause devistation and you can ignore them).

I geuss I am just dealing eith the game as is and to be honest I would not mind if it changed a little. But I do like it messy, dark and complicated... Proper medieval history that...

[OMGLAZERS]

If you do not want them there and are not allied to them, then attack, dirive them out and send a message to the rest of the AI factions that you are not to be messed with. If you merely drive them out it is not to hard to get peace going again if you pay some reperations for the military units you have "damaged"...

In Catholic factions, this is considered an act of war and the Pope will condemn you for it.

You will start a war, be chastised for it, and have a load of other troubles, when in fact, the Pope is at fault here.

Plus, sometimes, the AI does have pathfinding issues and as allies, you should have a non-military option to let them know you are disatisfied with their troop placement.

I mean, do you think in the real world if someone doesn't like something, they attack them?

They always have a non-military option. And the game should have them too, otherwise, it's just nonstop slugging instead of any real strategy or fun.

Besides, I don't WANT to attack.

[Morindin]

This option has been floating around in civ and such games for a long time now. I don't know if CA has ever played those games, but they could garner some good ideas from them.

Other such options from those games:

1) Boot out agents from your land with military forces (move a military unit on an agent and click the 'boot' out option).
2) Ceasefire for X amount of turns.
3) Non-aggression Pacts and Alliances for X amount of turns.
4) Demand factions cancel treaties and trade rights with other nations, demand they cease hostilities with other nations.
5) Open Borders treaties. Without open borders you CANNOT move into another units borders without declaring war. This is kind of represented in the engine with 'military access' and nations getting angry at you if you park your troops in their land, however I would like an option where-by if you move into my borders with military units, you will have to declare war. I've noticed the AI will sometimes go after rebels in your territory, while this is nice it does mess up relations a little.
6) Once war is declared, all hostile units start in friendly territory. This way you cannot mass 10 stacks next to someones cities and declare war, wiping them out in one turn.
7) Borders that expand into the ocean. You can have some control over who sails blindly into your waters.

Not all of these are possible with the current engine unfortunately, but some have already been implimented by the various mods out there.

Also while we're at it, I don't see why generals shouldn't be able to negotiate diplomacy options, or at the very least Royal family. I don't know why my King, at the head of his army, can't demand a ceasefire and instead has to wait 3 years for a diplomat to come along.

[Shahed]

With the introduction of the new AI which is exponentially more aggressive, I think that CA's top priority among the other bugs and such is to add a new diplomacy option in which you inform other countries that their army is on your soil, and they have to immediately leave or declare war, and it's THEIR fault.

How silly is it that the player must get military access permission from countries in order not to piss them off, or the Pope, but they can march their troops right through your country and you cannot do a damn thing about it. And if you do, you are blamed by the Pope!

Also, with naval invasions, you are blamed once again! How can you be expected to stop a naval invasion without this option! You will ALWAYS get blamed for starting a war.

I am also going to copy-pasta this post into the 'Mod Requests/Ideas' section because I think it is the one thing every single member of the TW community would love to see right now.

Thats it from me for today.

Agreed 100%.

Now go post in the bug/enhancement (or is it bugenhancement?) thread.