Diplomacy is broken

[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.