Diplomacy is broken

[diotavelli]

It might be a bit better than in Rome, but I swear diplomacy in Medieval is just plain broken. I am talking about version 1.2 so you know. The AI controlled nations of Europe are moronic. The only way to keep them peaceful is to constantly feed them gold. It doesn't matter that you are the strongest military power in the world, and that they are the weakest.

I decided to give Egypt a go on a long campaign M/M with diplomacy in mind. .......Then Turkey decides to be a moron and blockades one of my ports. WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS? .......I invade, take half their territory, and ask if they want a ceasefire now that its clear they really don't have the advantage. .......Then the pope declares a crusade on Antioch. England, France, Poland, Denmark, and Spain all join. I'm now at war with /all/ of them .......I look at my repuation.... somehow I'm very untrustworthy?? Even though I've been doing everything in my power to be a nice guy? Giving money to nations i'm at war with, always releasing prisoners... yet I'm very untrustworthy. .......Then its the same story- Byzantine refuses for a ceasefire, relations plummet, and I have to take their territory. ......Russia and the Moors both refuse to ally with me for some unknown reason, even though I started feeding them gold and we share the same enemies.

Diplomacy in M2:TW sucks.

There's two issues here, as I see it. The first is seemingly senseless and/or random port blockades by the AI. This is what tripped you up in the first place: the AI doesn't necessarily need to have any ill-intent towards you to blockade one of your ports, so this can happen even when you're playing the good guy. This is what happened here.

The second issue is maintaining a trustworthy reputation whilst being at war. The game is designed to make this very difficult. Essentially, every turn you're at war, your reputation drops. The more your reputation drops, the more inclined other factions will be to avoid allying with you and to think of attacking you. There are two routes around this.

The first is to become good at blitzkrieg and make sure every war you get dragged into finishes very quickly; however, if the faction you're fighting has lots of allies, you'll struggle to maintain a trustworthy relationship (they'll still keep their alliance with a destroyed faction, for some reason). The second is to avoid wars - but as you've shown, that's easier said than done.

Does this mean diplomacy is 'broken'? That depends on what you think a working diplomatic engine should offer. I get the impression that some people would like an engine that allows them to maintain great relationships with everyone when they want to but also allows them to go on the rampage when they feel like it too. I can't see how that can work.

A diplomatic engine that was nice when the player was nice and nasty when he was nasty would be no challenge at all. Imagine it: turns 1-20, be nice to everyone, grab all rebel provinces and build up your economy; turns 21-40, be nasty to factions A and B thereby causing them to attack you, allowing you to maintain good relations with everyone else; turns 41-60, repair relations with badly bruised factions A and B, turn up the heat on C and D so they attack you without your reputation being damaged; and so on. That may be a gross oversimplification but it sounds like what people seem to want.

Historically, alliances between genuine rivals and neighbours in medieval Europe and the Middle East where very, very rare. Most retainers were bound to their liege by loyalty alone (from a legal point of view, anyway). You had to be suspicious of your neighbour because you were in competition with him for the loyalty of powerful vassals and the territory they held. You might work together on a Crusade but this worked better in theory than in practice (cf. Richard oc e no and Philip Augustus and the 3rd Crusade). As for the Muslims - well, you might think they have more in common with each than with the Christians but why? The Egyptians and Turks disputed the Caliphate and the Moors had little to do with the other two. And inter-faith relations? They were shocking for the most part. The game reflects all this.

In medieval Europe, a state of undeclared war existed between close neighbours for much of the time. It was highly unusual and very difficult for neighbouring monarchs to maintain good relations for long periods. Most didn't bother to try, although they'd avoid outright hostilities for the most part too. Hence the state of undeclared war I mentioned earlier. Border raids, cattle rustling, etc. If either side ever wanted to build a case for a 'just war', they normally didn't have to look far.

So, is the diplomatic engine broken? Yes, in so far as you can't tell opposing armies to get off your land and you can't broker ceasefires easily enough; no, in so far as being able to easily manipulate factions to behave as you wished simply on the basis of how you behaved to them would be one-sided, unrealistic and unchallenging.

The real problem, as I see it, is the pesky one boat blockades that tend to start all these things snowballing in the first place. Get rid of them and the whole thing makes much more sense.

[Durallan]

I think it would be fixed by a statement that was added to it like it should say

IF target_faction is ENEMY and SHARE BORDERS = 0 then SET PREFER_NAVAL_INVASION = 1
else SET PREFER_NAVAL_INVASION =0

or whatever I'm not too sure how the prefer naval invasions thing works I'd have to look but it seeem ABSOLUTELY rediculous that the mission generator would generate missions for the AI against nations that you have high standings with, or are allied with! they really should have done something along these lines and that should have curbed the random naval attacks and sieges.

[atheotes]

I agree with what Diotavelli says...
In my last campaign, i played the Scots and managed to maintain alliances with Spain, France and Papal states throughout the campaign and with Russia till they were wiped out by the Mongols. Sicily was also an ally for 100+ turns who then blockaded a port and broke the alliance... Even when i finished the campaign (barely managed to get the 45 cities required) i was at war only with Sicily, Denmark (perenialy excommed), Turks and Egypt.

[WhiskeyGhost]

A good way to get your old allies off your back is that when they decide to siege/march troops into your lands, do the same, and they will almost immediately retreat their forces.......in fact, i've broken long powerful sieges simply by placing a decent sized (yet inferior) army near one of their towns without actually attacking it. Also, they seem to be a little more receptive to a ceasefire if you actually pose a threat on their cities (as apposed to being on the defensive in your towns)

[HoreTore]

The OP simply hasn't figured it out yet. When you figure out what does what, then it's a lot easier and makes a lot of sense.

Also, the problem isn't so much the diplomacy, it's the campaign AI, ie. when they declare war they don't send enough troops(though they do send a lot more if you bump their money). Remember, the AI shouldn't just attack because they hate you, it's logical that they backstab and attack a close friend on the simple grounds that they want more land/cash. The problem though, is that they don't attack properly.

[John_Longarrow]

Personally, I wish that alliances would reflect what they were really used for during the time period; attacking someone. In reality alliances were not about defense but were about attacking a mutual threat or enemy.

The French and the Scots allied not because they liked each other or to ensure peace between themselves. They allied against the English. Nothing in there was a "To help each other" concept outside of getting rid of the English threat.

I do wish that there was more of that in the game. It would still seem "Broken" to anyone in the lead as no one would want to be the "Ally" of the largest power around. Sure, they would want to stay friendly to avoid having you destroy them, but they would not ally with you against someone else.

[Didz]

There's two issues here, as I see it. The first is seemingly senseless and/or random port blockades by the AI. This is what tripped you up in the first place: the AI doesn't necessarily need to have any ill-intent towards you to blockade one of your ports, so this can happen even when you're playing the good guy. This is what happened here.

As I've already said, I'm pretty much convinced that this is a consequence of the mission system, not a diplomatic or strategic AI initiative.

We all get these missions either from the Pope or the council to blockade port X for one turn and earn a reward. My theory is that the computer controlled factions get them too and that when they do they are forced in some way to comply with them thus triggering rather silly wars with their neighbours.

The reason I beleive this is the case is quite simply that if you ignore these blckades they are frequently just lifted and the enemy fleet just sails off. But even before then if you send a diplomat to your new enemy and offer a 'ceasefire' they are frequently only too happy to accept, and will actually lift a blockade immediately. To me this suggests that the intention was never to start a war merely to grab the reward.

"If they have more than 3 times as many men as us on their frontlines, and their total strength is more than twice ours, and their economy is much better, and they're our strongest neighbour, then raid and want_allies_against_him".

In many ways this makes a lot of sense.

I was trying to think how I would deal with that situation if I was in control of the weaker faction. The problem seems to be that the strategic AI isn't up to the task of forming and commanding an effective raid and the diplomatic system doesn't provide much benefit from forming alliances.

So, whilst the theory is sound the practice is poor.

[diotavelli]

As I've already said, I'm pretty much convinced that this is a consequence of the mission system, not a diplomatic or strategic AI initiative.

Apologies - I thought my post made it clear that I considered the blockading of ports to be a separate issue to the diplomatic engine: the engine may not be broken (depending on your POV) but the random blockades are the real problem.

We all get these missions either from the Pope or the council to blockade port X for one turn and earn a reward. My theory is that the computer controlled factions get them too and that when they do they are forced in some way to comply with them thus triggering rather silly wars with their neighbours.

I agree.

The reason I beleive this is the case is quite simply that if you ignore these blckades they are frequently just lifted and the enemy fleet just sails off. But even before then if you send a diplomat to your new enemy and offer a 'ceasefire' they are frequently only too happy to accept, and will actually lift a blockade immediately. To me this suggests that the intention was never to start a war merely to grab the reward.

And this is where the blockades-as-rewardable-missions function is clearly broken, regardless of them being senseless in terms of the specific strategic situation when undertaken. The Pope, Council of Nobles or whoever request a blockade and offer a reward. The faction goes for it and claims 500-2500 florins (typically).

They have also started a war and, unless someone requests a ceasefire, their reputation will suffer as a result. Hence so many factions slide into "untrustworthy" status. At this point, no one will ally with them and they are likely to be attacked, so their reputation won't improve and will almost certainly worsen. Thereafter, they will attack anyone and everyone because they won't benefit otherwise.

The faction should balance the merits of 500-2500 florins right now with long-term hatred by all other factions and near-constant warfare; it doesn't. This means it is not looking after its own long-term interests. At least some of the time, it should do.

I don't think that random port blockades should be eradicated: when I first saw them I thought they were intended to represent unofficial privateering actions by hot-headed commanders - the sort of thing that did happen in this period. They need to be toned down and reduced in number, however. And factions should be readier to make redress for them and less inclined to let these actions lead inevitably to all-out war.

[Didz]

The faction should balance the merits of 500-2500 florins right now with long-term hatred by all other factions and near-constant warfare; it doesn't. This means it is not looking after its own long-term interests. At least some of the time, it should do.

True, and I think this is a good measure of the poor quality of the strategic AI. Because, quite clearly if the strategic AI is willing to accept these missions for the short-term benefit they represent but not take into account the long term impact they will have on its factions future, then it seems equally likely that this is exactly how it deals with every other opportunity it is offerred during the game.

So, its reasonable to assume that, at best, what the AI is doing is reacting to short term tactical opportunities rather than thinking strategically and, at worse, what is happening is that it is simply being driven by a series of reactive triggers and not actually employing any artificial intelligence at all.

[Corka]

I meant thats basically /all/ that should affect reputation. None of this business where being at war with dead factions constantly pulling it down.
I wasn't complaining about the diplomacy because I find everyone out to get me /too hard/. The world is easily conquerable regardless. But surely I should be able to play the diplomat if I want? It shouldn't render all my neighbours into being completely docile, but I think that it SHOULD be possible to have another nation as an actual ally, and if I really make the effort. But right now an alliance is really just lip service and you don't gain much from it.

I think batting down the hatches would be a far more effective strategy for the AI. As it stands even your allies will occasionally decide to launch their armies against you for what seems no real reason other than to be a bit of a pain to the player. But you kill their armies in the field or at your walls, and then you can happily take over due to their now depleted garrison.

If all the towns and castles i was bordering with were fortified with large garrisons, I'd think twice about attacking. Particularly if we aren't already at war and it would give me a reputation hit.


I just assumed the relations naturally went down to very poor. Otherwise I have no idea how I could have upset someone on the other side of the world who I had no diplomatic relations with in the first place. I find that if I don't try to curry favour, every nation holds me in poor/very poor regard.

[Kobal2fr]

I just assumed the relations naturally went down to very poor. Otherwise I have no idea how I could have upset someone on the other side of the world who I had no diplomatic relations with in the first place. I find that if I don't try to curry favour, every nation holds me in poor/very poor regard.

That's because you're number 1. Everyone progressively hates the first, second and third best factions, and everyone progressively loves the last 5. Pretty normal in my book. No one likes the US, but the Caiman Islands are groovy .

That depends from how deep is the gap to fill (sometimes, it's hopeless); in my games, I try to imagine what I'd do if I was a 2-provinces-left faction bordering with an empire with 30.

The first priority is not to make him smaller, the first priority is "survive; make the things the way he'll never attack us until we have rebuilt a decent kigdom by foraging on other factions, no matter if you have to become his vassal, no matter what you pay; we must be on his side or remain neutral, or it's game over".

Yes, but that's what I said : if you're going to lose anyway, might as well try and take the leader down a peg to give others a better chance.
This often happens in board games too btw. During the last few turns, underdog players often try to ruin other players' positions or do silly stuff out of spite/bitterness/fun/to keep things suspensefull to the end, which is why I often play to be second during most of the game. And often win in the end because of it.

But I was wrong before : I rechecked and raids are launched when a faction is outproduced BUT has immediate and local military superiority, otherwise it's invade_none. So they'll raid when they have the opportunity to do so in the short run, otherwise they won't.
Thing is, I don't know how "frontline strength" is calculated at sea... Maybe keeping a strong navy could prevent the blockades ? Maybe what we see as one big sea is divided in zones extending from province coasts à la territorial waters ? I've got nothing.

I don't think that random port blockades should be eradicated: when I first saw them I thought they were intended to represent unofficial privateering actions by hot-headed commanders - the sort of thing that did happen in this period. They need to be toned down and reduced in number, however. And factions should be readier to make redress for them and less inclined to let these actions lead inevitably to all-out war.

Agreed wholeheartedly, but I can't think of a way to do it - as a modder, I can modify and tweak in what circumstances the AI will prepare_invasion, invade_immediate, invade_opportunistic, raid etc..., but not *what* they do when told to do so. The meaning of those different behaviours is hardcoded AFAIK. Nor can I tell AIs how better to react to "not really a real war at all" - it's all War or Peace to them (Tolstoy had it wrong I guess ).

[John_Longarrow]

Corka,

In the wish list thread I've got an idea that may solve many of the problems with the AI over exerting itself. When you attack someone they should be able to call out the malitia. That means they should be able to pull up a lot of pesants / town malitia / spear malitia to fight off the attack with the understanding that these units will auto-disband after the fight. This is similar to what really happened during the time period.

Hopefully this would make the standing armies the "Offensive" force with malitia being used for defence, and only when needed.

[atheotes]

Corka,

In the wish list thread I've got an idea that may solve many of the problems with the AI over exerting itself. When you attack someone they should be able to call out the malitia. That means they should be able to pull up a lot of pesants / town malitia / spear malitia to fight off the attack with the understanding that these units will auto-disband after the fight. This is similar to what really happened during the time period.

Hopefully this would make the standing armies the "Offensive" force with malitia being used for defence, and only when needed.

But that would mean fighting more crap militia
The player will just run through them with better units... sure it can bring the numbers to bear upon the campaign and slow it down... but would it make it more challenging or a chore ?