Diplomacy is broken

[John_Longarrow]

Aaronontheweb

The term ShadowFaction in the game refers to an "Enemy" faction that you are required to destroy in the short game. As such each faction is a Shadow faction to one or more other factions.

As an example, France is a shadow faction to England because England must eliminate France to win in the short game.

[Kobal2fr]

Thanks, Dio. You're absoluuuutely right.

And the "one boat blockades", as well as some silly sieges with weak armies, are pretty much all started by ONE decision in the AI file.

"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".

Now, don't take this at face value, because obviously it's a low priority decision, and the AI will deal with more pressing matters first... but nevertheless, it's geared to annoy the strongest around if possible and there's nothing else to do/no other war going on. It's not suicide, it's just the only thing they can do to fill the gap between you and them. If they didn't they'd just be waiting to be steamrolled. Commenting out that line should make them stay put when completely overpowered, but since the player is number 1 very easily, it might make every other faction very passive towards you, which is a bad thing.

There's also something new in 1.2, that wasn't there before, in the declaration of variables at the start :

<use_cheat_overrides bool="true"/> // determines if cheat overrides (force peace with ai, force attack with humans) are applied

It's set to true by default. If I understand this correctly, it means the AI will go for the player first thing, or maybe "if there's a choice to be made between two equal priority decisions, go for the player". Or even if the two decisions have completely different priorities, which would explain some raiding silliness. Anyhow, sounds very fishy to me, so I disabled it for now.

[Corka]

We've already established though the allies will not attack your enemies, if they do it has nothing to do with you. So the AI gatherine allies and then attacking you if you're much stronger than them IS suicidal, especially when their allies don't even share borders with you.

I mean at the moment its insane. Why would you declare war on the worlds greatest super power when you are piddling weak and have no chance of victory? There is no grand alliance of nations to unite and wipe them out since the different factions just work independantly. Further, they offer to forgive your transgression and end the war when you're about to be wiped out, but *refuse*?

Personally I think it needs to be restructured a bit. They need to really tweak reputation. In my mind I would think the following should affect reputation:
Declaring war on an ally should obviously drop it significantly, more so if mil rights were granted to you.
Declaring war on someone that is neutral but which is not at war with any of your allies should drop it.
Sticking to a ceasefire should raise it.
Gifting a city back to a faction that used to own it should raise it.
Belonging to alliances should raise it slowly.
Ending alliances or traderights should lower it, except when it is forced due to war on an ally.
Killing rebels / enemies in allied territory when mil rights are granted should raise it.
Doing deals which are generous or higher should raise it slightly, but not including gifting .

I think that relations should not be able to decay past reasonable/so-so. As it stands there are other nations in the world which are just so far away that you cannot have diplomatic relations with them without some serious effort. As it stands you can finally defeat your enemies and meet some new nations that you had never seen before, only to discover that the relations are already very poor and they are itching for war just because of the natural decay in relations.


If reputation worked that way, then it would be good if their decision to go to war with you was dependant on the reputation of both sides. The decision of going to war should be a balancing act- how much stronger is this nation? How much can I trust that they won't attack me? How unscrupulous am I to take advantage of them if their borders are weak?

Also, they shouldn't suicide at your walls if they recognise you as being a much stronger nation. Wouldn't it be smarter for them to garrison up and wait for an incursion that may or may not come? If it doesn't, maybe the political situation will change and the whole world will ally against the super power and you can join in later.

[Kobal2fr]

Errrm... pretty much all of your points already affect reputation just that way. And relations decay to so-so on Medium, only on H/VH do they drop below par with time alone.

As to the bit about allies not attacking your enemies, well...there's also a variable (set to false by default) that forces trusted allies (that is, allies who like you, are not untrustworthy bastards, and you're not a traitorous scum either) to instantly declare war on enemies of their trusted allies, which is fine and dandy... but it causes problems in the long run if no well defined powerblocks emerge FAST.
If there aren't, then there will be a lot of alliances made then broken two turns later and in the end everyone will be at war with everyone save for one or two allied factions. Then everyone will become untrustworthy overtime, and it's all downhill from then on. The way it is right now is more subtle.

As to the raids being suicidal for them, well, I'm not 100% sure. If they raid you, and you get really pissed off and mobilize to attack them, someone may seize the opportunity and attack you from another angle now that your forces are tied somewhere. Especially if there's an alliance going on. I haven't yet tested a campaign with the raiding behavior commented off the file, so I don't know for certain what's a better idea FOR THE AI to do.
Oh, I know for the player it would be swell, only having factions he wants to be at war with him, and everybody else cowering inside their puny lands and letting him rampage and grow as he whims... but that's not good diplo nor good AI, is it ?

"garrison up and wait for the possible incursion" is no path to glory. The best you can hope for with such a strategy is "not lose". And "not lose" is not the same as "win", not by a long shot. Think about it from the AI's point of view : it buckles up, grits it's teeth and waits. It can't take other regions because he's *already* at a disadvantage against you, and can't free any of his troops. He needs those to buy some time for other factions and allies to attack you should you attack him.
Case A : you do attack him, and he might as well have attacked you first and done some economic damage to you with a few expendable units before you were fully ready.
Case B : you don't attack him, and invade someone else instead. Now you're even richer and even more powerful, and the situation's the same for him, only worse than it was before.

So it's either "do something and risk losing" or "lose". Not so irrational a choice now, is it ? That, plus if you're going to lose anyway, might as well ruin the leading player's game while you're at it. Keeps the game interesting.

[Askthepizzaguy]

<snip> ~sapi

Note to administrator:

Please do not lock an entire thread because of one bad apple. The rest of us can ignore him.

Thanks, and sincere respect.

[sapi]

Note to administrator:

Please do not lock an entire thread because of one bad apple. The rest of us can ignore him.

Thanks, and sincere respect.

We will not close a thread because of that; I'm very happy to see the maturity of the majority of this community.

There's nothing wrong with such discussions as long as they remain civil.

[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.

[madalchemist]

"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".

Now, don't take this at face value, because obviously it's a low priority decision, and the AI will deal with more pressing matters first... but nevertheless, it's geared to annoy the strongest around if possible and there's nothing else to do/no other war going on.

Of course if you have a neighbour 3 times more powerful you'll want to divide et impera on him and try to make the world go against him (even if he's not your direct neighbour).

It's not suicide, it's just the only thing they can do to fill the gap between you and them. If they didn't they'd just be waiting to be steamrolled. Commenting out that line should make them stay put when completely overpowered, but since the player is number 1 very easily, it might make every other faction very passive towards you, which is a bad thing.

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".

That would maybe prevent the small faction to be steamrolled, at a cost of being more passive towards the Player's Empire, but that is what would be logical.

Of course you can say too much logic ruins the game (or make it end prematurely), but that's what the Glorious Achievements were for in MTW: the chance to "win" without having to conquer the entire world as the only option.

Btw faction were more passive with Glorious Achievements, but nonetheless they battled with assassins, inquisitors, religion conversion; more passive only in military sense.

[Didz]

The best policy is to attack the enemies strategy. The next best is to disrupt his alliances by diplomacy. The next is to attack the enemy's army in the field. And the worst policy is to attack cities.
SunTzu

Attack enemy cities, destroy their armies, forget diplomacy, strategy?
MTW2

[gardibolt]

But if the smaller AI factions didn't gang up on you, it'd be far too easy for you to divide and conquer, picking them off one by one while the others twiddle their thumbs. Granted, it's not all that hard as it is, but they are separate factions rather than a hive mind at the same time. It's a complex set of relationships and I don't think it's obvious that CA has chosen the worst way to handle it.

The mission blockade screwing things up is an interesting conjecture; you may be on to something with that.

[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 &#224; 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 ).

[HoreTore]

I'm with those who accuse it of being irrealistic: if your neighbour is thrice your size, army and economy, how in the Nine Hells would you have it as an enemy instead of having it as a trusted ally (or liege lord)?

There's no way in real world you'd attack him. And this policy is what in history all the nations did.

Uhm... History is full of examples of smaller powers attacking their much bigger neighbors. A few examples:

- Scotland attacking England
- Portugal attacking Spain
- Turks attacking byzantines at manzikert
- Various italian states attacking the HRE

Just because a kingdoms neighbor was more powerful than you didn't mean that they forged alliance, or that the small power even wanted an alliance/peace.

[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 ?

[madalchemist]

Uhm... History is full of examples of smaller powers attacking their much bigger neighbors. A few examples:

- Scotland attacking England
- Portugal attacking Spain
- Turks attacking byzantines at manzikert
- Various italian states attacking the HRE

Just because a kingdoms neighbor was more powerful than you didn't mean that they forged alliance, or that the small power even wanted an alliance/peace.

Historically, all the examples you've made do not enter in the "thrice your army" statement.

Scotland became part of England hundreds of years after the first wars, while Portugal, Turks and those italian states still exist under one united nation (when Italy was created, all those small states still existed).

Those examples show how the smaller states had the chance to not being destroyed even by waging war.

[Corka]

If the real world was ruled over by the Medieval Total War logic, then Mexico would invade Texas on the off chance that they might be able to take Houston for a short while before they get stomped on. They would do this because of those damn americans suffering from tall poppy syndrome and perceive such a large neighbour as a threat. Plus they've got an ever decreasing reputation because they defeated Nazi Germany 60 years ago.

[diotavelli]

if your neighbour is thrice your size, army and economy, how in the Nine Hells would you have it as an enemy instead of having it as a trusted ally (or liege lord)? There's no way in real world you'd attack him. And this policy is what in history all the nations did.

HoreTore is correct. History is full of examples of countries attacking opponents three times their strength by every measure. That applies with Scotland v. England or Wales v. England, to pick two easy examples.

Historically, all the examples you've made do not enter in the "thrice your army" statement.

Scotland became part of England hundreds of years after the first wars, while Portugal, Turks and those italian states still exist under one united nation (when Italy was created, all those small states still existed).

Those examples show how the smaller states had the chance to not being destroyed even by waging war.

Scotland became part of Britain, not England. The Italian states had not all maintained their independence: of those who attacked the HRE, very few were independent by the time Italy was created. You're from Bologna: you must know that Austria (the direct inheritor of much of the HRE) ruled large chunks of the North, for example. Like Scotland, they fought and ultimately lost.

If the real world was ruled over by the Medieval Total War logic, then Mexico would invade Texas on the off chance that they might be able to take Houston for a short while before they get stomped on. They would do this because of those damn americans suffering from tall poppy syndrome and perceive such a large neighbour as a threat. Plus they've got an ever decreasing reputation because they defeated Nazi Germany 60 years ago.

I'm not sure what the problem is here. Your OP stated that diplomacy sucked in M2TW because you were attacked by an ally and then your reputation became untrustworthy when you ended up at war with loads of factions following a crusade against you. The fact is that you were playing as the Turks, who did have an appalling reputation in medieval Christian Europe and therefore the game was accurate to real life. You didn't complain originally that the situation was unrealistic but that it sucked because you were unable to maintain an alliance and your reputation.

Now we're being told that it is the lack of realism that is the issue because weak factions wouldn't attack stronger ones (despite the fact that this is woefully inaccurate).

As I see it, CA had to create an AI that made the game as rich an experience as possible. If all AI factions had instantly forgotten about an ally the second you destroyed it, they'd be told that that was daft and unrealistic. If Milan and Sicily are best buddies, Sicily should be narked if you wipe out Milan. Of course, they should get over it but it would take time. The game should reflect this better but it's good that it reflects it at all.

Similarly the difficulty of maintaining an alliance. You want to be friendly with the Byzantines. Why? Because you hold their borders sacrosanct, have no interest in acquiring their territories and would never fight them under any circumstances? No, of course not. You only want an alliance because you don't want to fight and conquer them for the moment. Later on, you may have no interest in an alliance and you'll take their cities without a second thought.

So why should the AI stick to your alliance? It's a marriage of convenience and they should have as much right to break it as you. Should they only break it at a time and in a fashion logical or convenient to you? No, of course not. That would make the game unchallenging.

It would also be unrealistic. Did medieval rulers always behave logically or sensibly? Was it wise of Richard oc e no to go on Crusade when he knew his brother would try to grab the throne? No, but he did it anyway. Was it wise of the French to attack the English longbows at Agincourt after what happened at Crecy and Poitiers? No, but they did it anyway.

I'm amazed people complain so much about the AI behaving irrationally. Firstly, most behaviour has a strong element of irrationality. Secondly, if the AI only did what was rational, the game would be a bore. It would only attack you when it was sure the odds were in its favour; you would quickly learn to ensure the odds were never in its favour; therefore, you'd never get attacked. It would be impossible for you to expand without losing your reputation and we'd be back to square one.

Is the game fun? Does it provide a challenge (if you don't blitz? )? Is each campaign you play different from the last? I think so. Tweaking is needed but I don't think it is fair to say the diplomacy sucks or that it's unrealistic.

[Thurak]

but I don't think it is fair to say the diplomacy sucks or that it's unrealistic.

After I thought a long time that diplomacy sucks I know tend to agree. But only because there were tons of helpful information here in the forums. And I am proud to announce that I read the manual , but unfortunately still found myself very helpless in the game when I tried to be diplomatic...

You have to put some effort in diplomacy and you have to know that you stay at war with anhilated nations - so you can't ally with their allies ever again. That&#180; s so f****** important to know. And your realtions suffer for every nation you are at war with, so think twice before taking out a nation.
The next very important point is that your leader needs to be as chivalrous as possible as that has a great influrence on realtions.
The third important point is that you have to pay money to your allies in order to keep realitons best. That looks, at first, like some wasted money, but if you own Vienna, for example, you have much greater income if you are able to trade with Budapest and Zagreb. You can easily pay some cash to the nation(s) who own those. Same for Stockholm: The ports of Stettin and Thorn are very important for your trade income.
Another nice diplomatic feature: If a nation without a border with you attacks you from sea and you defeat them they will pay for a truce. Make four turn payments and be thankful for the cash

[Bob the Insane]

I think the majority here (sticking my neck out a little) would be happy enough with the AI if it just avoided the worst excesses of "irrational" behaviour rather than cutting the randomness out all together and to be honest 1.2 seems to have mostly acheived this (other than the apparantly random blockades).

To be honest I have not played a non-Catholic faction since 1.2 came out so I am probabaly getting a biased view of games workings. Having said that it does seem to work nicely enough and in my present English game which has reached turn 160 only one fact has been destroyed (the Danes at the hands of the Scots and the Mongols oddly enough). I have experinced wars, prolonged peace, been betrayed (once) and had two alliances last most of the game (the one with scotland has lasted 158 turns). The Turks, Egyptians and Moors are still in the game, maybe because the Mongols turned up on the Northern Stepps.

I will endevour to play as a Musilm and Orthodox faction to get the full range of experience...

[madalchemist]

HoreTore is correct. History is full of examples of countries attacking opponents three times their strength by every measure. That applies with Scotland v. England or Wales v. England, to pick two easy examples.

Scotland became part of Britain, not England. The Italian states had not all maintained their independence: of those who attacked the HRE, very few were independent by the time Italy was created. You're from Bologna: you must know that Austria (the direct inheritor of much of the HRE) ruled large chunks of the North, for example. Like Scotland, they fought and ultimately lost.

I agree that history is full of examples like those you just wrote.

But the catch is that: Scotland fell after 5 centuries or more (iirc around 1700), while the Italian small states who waged war to HRE (which became Austria, as you righfully wrote) did not lose their sovereignity (sp?).

Austria kept for centuries the "Lombardo-Veneto" (as it was called the northern part of Italy you told about) while bordering Venice for centuries -Venice fell to Austria when it was attacked around 1800-, but the Duchy of Milan and the Duchy of Savoia were literally formed by lands became indipendent from the HRE (thanks to HRE's too spread organization), and so did the Granduchy of Tuscany, the Duchy of Modena and all others.

All of these little states survived until the creation of Italy in 1861, without the HRE or Austria to take them back (to survive, some became vassals, like the Duchy of Milan to Spain and iirc Savoia to France).

So I think I proved my point: these states didn't survive the war with HRE (thrice their lands) because of the fact little ones always have chances against a big one, but because of the low arrangement of the HRE in that times which made organizing a full war hard for it; if the HRE was at that times able to retaliate, I who am from Bologna might speak German now.

Later on the centuries, the HRE sacked Rome. Passing through half what's now Italy without being attacked; after 3 days of sacking, they returned over the Alps again without attacking nor being attacked. That because they had treaties with northern Italian small states, and at that point conquer them all would have been too expensive or difficult (Italian towns grew in the meantime).

About Scotland, it was conquered, but not in times of a MTW2 game; not in 15 turns!

The fact Scotland resisted invasion for so long shows how they had an army not so 1/3 of the English's. Or were all the English generals incompetent for centuries?

[diotavelli]

So I think I proved my point: these states didn't survive the war with HRE (thrice their lands) because of the fact little ones always have chances against a big one, but because of the low arrangement of the HRE in that times which made organizing a full war hard for it; if the HRE was at that times able to retaliate, I who am from Bologna might speak German now.

No, I think you're wrong. The HRE frequently conquered northern Italian cities. IIRC, Milan was destroyed on at least one occasion. It is not the case that all these little states survived because they weren't beaten but that they survived because, having been beaten, they still had a sufficient sense of independence to reassert themselves when they had the opportunity. On the other hand, on some occasions, the little states did successfully stand up to the HRE (e.g., the creation of Alessandria).

About Scotland, it was conquered, but not in times of a MTW2 game; not in 15 turns!

Yes, but you ignore my other example: Wales. Llewellyn ap Gruffydd struck for independence in the reign of Henry III but Gwynedd was conquered early in the reign of Edward I. In game terms, this is around 15 turns.

The fact Scotland resisted invasion for so long shows how they had an army not so 1/3 of the English's. Or were all the English generals incompetent for centuries?

Scotland didn't successfully resist throughout the "5 centuries or more" you mention earlier. There were frequently English garrisons in Scottish castles in this period. Berwick-Upon-Tweed was lost. The Scottish recognised more than one English king as their overlord.

The fact that Scotland wasn't completely subjugated by the English is not because their military strength was greater than 1/3 but because they were fighting on one front and England wasn't. England had to contend with France, troubles in Ireland, Crusades, internal revolts and civil wars and so on. None of this deflects from the fact that English power was far, far greater than that of Scotland.

And a lot of English generals were incompetent - much to the satisfaction of my ancestors, who remained proudly Irish throughout.

All of which is beside the point of the game. In MTW, factions could respawn to reflect that, whilst the military forces could be defeated, nationalist sentiment was far harder to destroy. M2TW doesn't have this feature, so factions can be eliminated comprehensively.

So there we go: M2TW is accurate in allowing England to conquer Scotland in 15 turns; it is inaccurate in not allowing the Scots to reclaim their independence when they'd spent enough time living in bogs watching spiders.

[madalchemist]

So there we go: M2TW is accurate in allowing England to conquer Scotland in 15 turns; it is inaccurate in not allowing the Scots to reclaim their independence when they'd spent enough time living in bogs watching spiders.

So you say that because MTW2 doesn't allow respawn of conquered nations like MTW, it is logical for the AI to make little factions attack players'empires while knowing they'll be eradicated within 15 turns?

That well may be, but I'd prefer a system where the AI behaves logically instead of saying "Hey, since the fact that when the game tells me I'm done for I cease to exist, I'll just lauch myself and my people in a suicide attack and hope next patch/expansions will give me more options".

So much for historical accuracy.

I still think the game would be more fun without the AI to make decisions breaking the fourth wall.

[diotavelli]

So you say that because MTW2 doesn't allow respawn of conquered nations like MTW, it is logical for the AI to make little factions attack players'empires while knowing they'll be eradicated within 15 turns?

No, I didn't say that at all. I said that complete historical accuracy would require smaller factions to be defeated and then to re-emerge. I said that it is not wrong for M2TW to allow smaller factions to attack the player because that wouldn't be historically inaccurate and because it is legitimate for the AI to behave irrationally.

Also, where's the guarantee that the faction will "be eradicated within 15 turns"? That depends on the faction, the player and the circumstances of the campaign. Making a case from the worst scenario doesn't prove anything in more general terms.

That well may be, but I'd prefer a system where the AI behaves logically instead of saying "Hey, since the fact that when the game tells me I'm done for I cease to exist, I'll just lauch myself and my people in a suicide attack and hope next patch/expansions will give me more options".

Logical behaviour for the AI would therefore be to never attack the player. The first faction to attack would know it would get the player's full attention and would therefore likely be eliminated; therefore, it would never be logical for any faction to be the first to attack, so none ever would.

The only way around this would be for the AI to 'fix' alliances with a view to attacking the player simultaneously. Now that wouldn't be historically accurate and could distort the game absurdly.

So much for historical accuracy.

I still think the game would be more fun without the AI to make decisions breaking the fourth wall.

The AI's behaviour is only historically inaccurate if its decisions are always suicidal. The player has a choice whether or not to eliminate a smaller faction that attacks it. Often s/he will but it is not inevitable. Therefore, the AI's decision to attack is not inevitably suicidal.

And what's the alternative? Once the player gets to 20 provinces, make all factions with less than 10 provinces throw in the towel? They won't beat the player so, by your rules, they shouldn't attack him - so what should they do?

[madalchemist]

First of all, the average player is capable of destroying a faction within 15 turns.

A logical behaviour for the AI would be to attack those you'll conquer -i.e. a 2-3 provinces minor faction-; if you start a war with a huge empire, you are the one who starts it but maybe you won't be the one to end it. I insist, it's completely logical for the AI not to start suicidal wars and try to expand its list of allies and feed upon the weaker. Of course when you face a player with 20 provinces and you have 2, either you are Alexander the Great or you'll lose.

And you say the decision to attack the player isn't totally suicidal because HE CAN SPARE YOU?? We are moving from historically inaccurate to plain insanity.

The alternative to make everyone throw the towels when the player has 20 provinces? I repeat: Glorious Achievements.

By the way, when you play and reach the "point-of-no-return" where no one can defeat you -even if all your neighbours attacks you simultaneously-, is the game still fun? That's why they put Mongols and Timurids so powerful in late game: to make some sort of challenge remain.

I'm not a newbie player in TW, but like many, many others I can finish a long campaign on VH/VH before the discovery of gunpowder; then I quit and restart because of boredom.

[Noir]

Originally posted by madalchemist
The alternative to make everyone throw the towels when the player has 20 provinces? I repeat: Glorious Achievements.

That was a good one - but the domination campaign could be turned into a much better game if homelands and logistics were introduced - i doubt the developers are interested though (mods only). The game has very few strategic elements of importance standing and it is played best "at will" ie pick your personal rules and play - in order not to get bored nowdays - there's hardly any challenge and the extremely short time that you can complete it as well as the multitude of ways speak for themselves.

Its becoming increasingly a role playing game with all the character baggage that is carries - strategy has less and less to do with it other than a basic almost primitive level.

Originally posted by madalchemist
By the way, when you play and reach the "point-of-no-return" where no one can defeat you -even if all your neighbours attacks you simultaneously-, is the game still fun? That's why they put Mongols and Timurids so powerful in late game: to make some sort of challenge remain.

Agreed. A good way would be to keep the game at the initial stage of struggle for the entire duration (no superempires) design wise but in different levels for every faction. Artificial "challenges" like that of the Mongols and the Timurids are just plain boring.

Many Thanks

Noir

[Didz]

The game ought to be designed to discourage blitzing as an expliot and to progressively penalize larger factions. The used to be far more effective in the earlier TW games but somewhere along the line the designers seem to have wandered off track.

In addition to removing the blitz expliot, it would also help is agents wrree given a much more effective role in the game so that both players and the AI factions have the option of using non-military routes to victory.

[Marius Dynamite]

I don't think diplomacy is broken I think it just kinda sucks. You have to hire the right people to design things like TW diplomacy and I dont think CA have hired those people.

It's just not well done, and it annoys me a lot because some designers pour their heart and soul into things and wouldn't dare let any aspect suck that much. Admittedly its a difficult thing to do but once its done, its done and they can keep it the same for every TW game they make, with only slight improvements here and there.

I'm doing my best to like Medieval 2: Total War but right now things like diplomacy make me cancel a campaign and play a different game. I won't buy Kingdoms and will only play M2 when Broken Crescent mod is out because I am a supporter of hard workers and Modders work damn hard for free and do a better job than people who get paid!