Diplomacy is broken

[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!

[Kobal2fr]

The problem is not that it sucks - it's a robust and "realistic" system, if a bit rustic. But you have to know lots about it and its quirks to be able to start working with it instead of banging your head in disbelief. And if the hundred "diplomacy is shite !" posts have told me anything, is that the system is neither intuitive, nor well documented enough, not by a long shot.

The problem with it is that there's a few "good ways" to use it, and lots of ways you can burn yourself. CA probably assumed people would naturally gravitate towards the "good ways", but it's not what happens because those aren't, well, that obvious to the average .orger it seems.

But this seems to be a growing, general problem with the TW franchise : the more they grow in complexity, the less we seem to be told about. The M2:TW manual is a sick, sad joke, the advisors say 2 lines on topics that could fill 10 pages without even starting to get to their finer points, and unless you start rumaging in dry, poorly commented bits of plaintext most of the game's mechanics are 100% occult. You have to sorta figure...kinda assume...experience that...guesstimate etc... without any idea what the actual mechanisms are or even what most of the data you're provided with means, nor what affects it, nor what it affects either.

There'd be a LOT less digruntled players out there if the documentation was up to par. Heck, the simple fact that it took the community (and that's the modding community we're talking about mind, the kind of sick folks who spend 3/4th of their "gaming time" browsing code and going "wee ! new variable !" and "what if I do...THIS ?" all the time ) no less than FOUR MONTHS to figure out that shields decreased defense instead of increasing it is quite telling, in and of itself...

And sure, the .org does help a lot in this regard, but not every player comes here and besides, there's only so much stuff we players can figure out/test by ourselves in the dark...

I'm not asking for the Civilization 1 paperback manual here, but come'on, how expensive would a frickin' .pdf have been ? And don't talk to me 'bout no $20strategy guide either. There Be-eth Evilness.

[Didz]

@kobal2fr: I'm curious how you can claim that diplomacy is a robust and realistic system when clearly it doesn't work. But even if it did the issue is irrelevant if the game design allows players a much more simple and straight forward expliot that avoids any need to use it and guarantee's an easy victory.