Diplomacy is broken

[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.

[Kobal2fr]

*shrug* That's not really a concern of mine. Kids play these games. Kids don't have the patience to sort through trade tallies, or even read unit cards. They want knights and battles ? They can have them instantly, if that's what's fun to them. More... I was about to say "smart", but that's not it : more patient folks like you and me, we can always tweak the way the game works, or step away from the Easy Way, as that's what's fun to us.

And the diplo *does* work if you really know it through and through, can interpret the meaning and mechanisms behind the apparent senselessness etc... Even more so in 1.2 (where allies become frendlier overtime, and requirement for trusted allies have been lowered, and relations are really factored in AI decisions etc...). If interests do not conflict, it's very doable to keep as many as half a dozen nations at your side at all times, and not just "not attacking you" allies either. It's not perfect, and it can certainly be made better, but it's... functionnal. Simple, sure. Unimaginative by definition. But not "broken".

[John_Longarrow]

Didz,

The fact that you can ignore diplomacy isn't related to the problems that we have with diplomacy. Its a seperate item that also should be addressed.


My take is that there is not enough that you can do with diplomacy to make it useful. We've got a couple options and very few chances to use them after the first couple dozen turns.

What we really need is a more robust system that does encourage diplomacy.

[Corka]

I personally think that dead factions pulling down your reputation is utterly moronic. In game terms, you could eradicate a faction hundreds of years ago and it would still be dragging down your reputation. That wouldn't be in the slightest sense realistic.

But the suicidal actions are not just limited to the AI seeing the player as a much bigger threat and attacking, its then REFUSING a ceasefire, or only accepting one if granted a HUGE number of florins or cities. How is refusing a ceasefire after their armies have been crushed and they are down to their last province with a measly 2 units of militia to protect it against my full stack of broken lancers and familia ducale NOT suicidal? Historically in that situation you'd expect the clearly defeated nation being the one to bend over backwards to bring an end to hostilities.

[nameless]

Disagree.

I've never had to pay money or give cities to AI for treaties, that's a hunk load of crap. That's for people who don't have patience or do not know how to "break" the AI.

I've had cases where I've annihilated one of the AI's best armies on the field and immediatetly they sued for peace which I accepted and we've been holding it for at least 50+ turns.

Other cases included where most people I recall stating that you STAY on the defensive and beat the living daylights out of the AI. If you can, expand nice and slowly to cripple the AI but focus on defenses. Eventually the AI will drain its resources and come to the table and sue for peace and will hold it for a period to "reload" it's weapons.

As England, I've fought France and German defensively while expanding slowly and eventually they agreed to a truce (You have to be persistent, every now and then send a diplomat to simply ask for peace.) and have held it ever since. In some cases, when the AI opens another front against another faction they will sue for peace as they will not allow themselves to fight on two open fronts.

At the same time you have to be careful because the AI is programmed to target the top factions in the game so if you expand too quickly and gain power, don't be surprised to see everyone gang up on you (I think CA stated this somewhere).

You also have to accept throughout the game there will be stubborn factions which will stop at nothing to kill you (Myself as Byzantines against Venice).

NOTE: I've done this in Vanilla, Ultimates, Darthmod, and Stainless Steel.

If you know how to work around it, it's no biggy. I've also changed my tactics to ransoming, occupying, and sacking compared to simply executing and extermination unless necessary because your reputation also determines how well the AI responds to diplomacy with you.

In game terms, you could eradicate a faction hundreds of years ago and it would still be dragging down your reputation. That wouldn't be in the slightest sense realistic.

If your on VH then your reputation goes down anyways.

[Kobal2fr]

@Corka : this only happens with shadow factions. Or, if you will, factions that HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE this movie. Errr no, hate you, sorry. Not hate in the "typical American overstatement of mere dislike" meaning of the word. I mean hate as in "the Finns hate Russians", or "North Koreans hate South Koreans", in other words national/cultural antagonisms that run deep, so deep in fact that they exist merely because they exist and have existed for a long long time.

The English hate the French because the French hate the English because the English hate the French. Chips are passed down filial shoulders, grudges become less baggage and more cultural heritage, nay, they become honor, duty, values and other senseless words of your choice. Kinda like old family grudges in small villages.
Suicidal and irrational ? Well, yes, as a matter of fact. Met any rational suicide bombers lately ?

[Corka]

Disagree.

I've never had to pay money or give cities to AI for treaties, that's a hunk load of crap. That's for people who don't have patience or do not know how to "break" the AI.

I've had cases where I've annihilated one of the AI's best armies on the field and immediatetly they sued for peace which I accepted and we've been holding it for at least 50+ turns.

I don't know what game you're playing then. I'm using no mods, version 1.2, and I have NEVER had an AI player offer Ceasefire without also demanding something like 200k florins at the same time. Thats once in a full moon, they almost never ask for a ceasefire and utterly turn their noses up at the idea.

I've always found that whenever war is declared , either because they blockade my ports or send in an army to one of my cities, I can do nothing but invade and destroy them. I have played through the long campaign about 5 times now, and I have NEVER managed to end a war diplomatically. I've birbed my enemies in war time to try and just get the relations up, I've tried annihilating all their units except a small garrison, I have tried offering them back their capitals... but every single attempt offering a ceasefire is 'Very Demanding' and it takes gigantic bribes for it to succeed. Even when they are on the brink of getting annihilated, I can't get them to ceasefire let alone vassalage.

[SadCat]

I don't know what game you're playing then. I'm using no mods, version 1.2, and I have NEVER had an AI player offer Ceasefire without also demanding something like 200k florins at the same time. Thats once in a full moon, they almost never ask for a ceasefire and utterly turn their noses up at the idea.

I've always found that whenever war is declared , either because they blockade my ports or send in an army to one of my cities, I can do nothing but invade and destroy them. I have played through the long campaign about 5 times now, and I have NEVER managed to end a war diplomatically. I've birbed my enemies in war time to try and just get the relations up, I've tried annihilating all their units except a small garrison, I have tried offering them back their capitals... but every single attempt offering a ceasefire is 'Very Demanding' and it takes gigantic bribes for it to succeed. Even when they are on the brink of getting annihilated, I can't get them to ceasefire let alone vassalage.

I am with you! I would say Spain in one game offered pease if I gave them 4 cities. Other than that, if I offer any thing it was a no go. I have 1 game with an ally that I have not bribed at lease once. So in all my games I have had two deviations from the norm of " They block port and be at war for the rest of the game." What I want is if we have a falling out there is some way back to pease for a few more years. If you have one city and I want to stop the war do not say you want to kill me. Jest take the pease and live. Yes I would except all the ones who have ever fought me to attack on the same turn some day. SadCat

[Thurak]

You can end wars easy when you have no border with that faction. If, for example, an English army lands in your Leon and they attack you and you destroy them they are very likely to accept a truce and are even willing to pay money! If your reputation is ok.

Ok, so far the easy part. About those nations refusing their last chance to survive: I am with you.

[TheRealSlimBrady]

I find the easiest way to get around the eternal war penalty thing while maintaining diplomatic pretenses is to get a ceasefire with the faction when they're down to one province. Having a Rather Large Army right next to their capital aids with this. Then you assassinate the family. Of course, this takes a bit of effort, but it's one way around it. Or, if you get a ceasefire, you could just leave them. Hell, if they're happy to give you a ceasefire, trade rights and an alliance may be just around the corner.

If they don't give you a ceasefire, it's still a nice, fun, evil, king-beDreading way of finishing off factions you don't share a border with - as Danes, I eliminated HRE in Bologna when my nearest town was Nuremburg - I was blocked in by 2 allies (Milan, France) and a neutral Venice. My playing style, I accept, might not be most people's idea of fun though

But yeah, the one turn blockade/siege is annoying. My preferred retaliation is total destruction of their empire

[madalchemist]

Maybe instead of saying "Diplomacy is broken" we could simply write "Diplomacy doesn't help the game to be more fun or realistic".

However, it's not 100% true, but I think it is the point, more or less.

It is true that after 20-25 turns it adds nothing to the game and I agree that the system created to penalize large factions went a bit far from the initial purpose.

For those who aren't Diplomacymongers (i.e. would want to be able to solve almost all troubles with a smart use of diplomacy), it still becomes an useless features when your global standing sucks 'cause you was playing the way the game told you to (conquering lands and eradicating enemy factions) and all you have to do is to direct (yawning) your armies towards 3 different points in the map, waiting for a chance to eradicate mongols, timurids and maybe go to the new world.

I actually play only short campaigns, where alliances and heroic victories mean something (and you can make trade rights with far nations, and marry your heir to the hottest chick around -hey, no matter the cost, I want the hottest ;)- ).

[Didz]

The fact that you can ignore diplomacy isn't related to the problems that we have with diplomacy. Its a seperate item that also should be addressed.

In my opinion if the game includes diplomacy, trade, economic growth, religion, espionage and inter-faction marriage then the primary consideration for such concepts to work is that they have a significance and relevance to the way the game plays and how you win it.

The fact is that thanks to badly focussed design decisions all of the above game concepts are basically irrelevant to the way the game plays.

Sure, you can dabble with them if your bored but basically you don't even need to know they exist to win and therefore they are 'broken' in terms of their role in the game.

My take is that there is not enough that you can do with diplomacy to make it useful. We've got a couple options and very few chances to use them after the first couple dozen turns.

What we really need is a more robust system that does encourage diplomacy.

Agreed entirely, there are much more simplistic strategy games on the market with far more superior systems for all of the concepts listed above. Lords of the Realm for example had a much better system for managing inter-faction relationships. Whilst both Civilisation and Crown of Glory have much more effective diplomatic systems and STW had much better espionage model.

MTW2 has taken TW far too far in the direction of creating a battle-fest and it needs to be clawed back so that we don't lose the concept of it being a strategy game.

[Noir]

ORiginally posted by Didz
Sure, you can dabble with them if your bored but basically you don't even need to know they exist to win and therefore they are 'broken' in terms of their role in the game.

Agreed. The game has as it stands many features other than diplomacy that are basically irrelevant at how it plays (they just exist) - including the battles that suffer greatly from campaign events (the AI forces are seldom in the right place at the right time doing the right thing). The game plays more reasonably only if the player has a certain "goodwill" to play according to the way the AI does things. It should have been the other way around that is the game is designed around the AI capabilities - so the player has options relative to what the AI can achieve or not diplomatically - or otherwise.

In addition many of the options require micromanagement - and not strategic thinking - agent use is a good example.

Arguing on wether diplomacy is "broken" or otherwise is a bit beside the point. The point is that diplomacy in the game is a joke of a feature as it currently stands.

I never wanted TW to become Civilisation - however i think TW failed in even achieving that - the original formula is dilluted to the extent that the game is losing its identity while any add-ons are basicaly completely inadequately implemented in the sense that they don't properly merge and add to the experience.

Many Thanks

Noir

[DVX BELLORVM]

I personally think that dead factions pulling down your reputation is utterly moronic. In game terms, you could eradicate a faction hundreds of years ago and it would still be dragging down your reputation. That wouldn't be in the slightest sense realistic.

But the suicidal actions are not just limited to the AI seeing the player as a much bigger threat and attacking, its then REFUSING a ceasefire, or only accepting one if granted a HUGE number of florins or cities. How is refusing a ceasefire after their armies have been crushed and they are down to their last province with a measly 2 units of militia to protect it against my full stack of broken lancers and familia ducale NOT suicidal? Historically in that situation you'd expect the clearly defeated nation being the one to bend over backwards to bring an end to hostilities.

Those two issues you've mentioned are obviously bugs that should be fixed. Maybe the diplomacy wouldn't be broken then.

[Didz]

I never wanted TW to become Civilisation - however i think TW failed in even achieving that - the original formula is dilluted to the extent that the game is losing its identity while any add-ons are basicaly completely inadequately implemented in the sense that they don't properly merge and add to the experience.

I agree, I don't want a Civilisation clone either, but neither do I want another Command and Conquer clone and at the moment thats the way the TW series seeems to be heading.

[Hellenic_Hoplite]

As Egypt, you have to wipe the Turks to win. They know this. Is that such a big surprise that they don't really trust you ? Don't expect people you need to kill, or who need to kill you to be your bestest friends ever.

thats not necessarrly true, once when I was playing as england I actually had an alliance with france the lasted the entire game I couledent belive it, but as we were all saying yes I do agree the the diplomacy in m2tw sucks, hell once I was trying to get scotland to go to war with me and the absolutly wouldent I evan stuck a fort in their territory garrisoned with ONE unit of peasants and I left york almost completly undefended. it seems like whenever you want a faction to go to war with you they will stay at peace with you the entire game but when you want peace they will start a stupid and pointless war by blocking one of your ports.

[icek]

At first i say that i have a polish version of m2tw and m2tw 1.1 patched to 1.2 and 1.0 patched to 1.2 is radically different if it come to ai reactions. I like diplomacy in this game now. I play my england campaign, im in lasting 50 turns marriage alliance with danes, they have antwerp i have brugge. when i taked paris and angers france, totally unprepared, begged for ceasefire for 1500 pay for 6 turns. when i attacked mediolanese bolognia defended with 2 big stacks, my other ally -sycyly come with big army and lured out from city the strongest mediolanese force and when it was all over they returned to neapoli :)

[John_Longarrow]

Didz,

I totally agree that other elements of the game need to be more important and the pure "Battle" aspect reduced. I don't think those aspects are relevant to what is broken about diplomacy and how diplomacy needs to be fixed.

M2TW is a very fun game, but it has some major issues. One of the issues is that diplomacy as written doesn't generate results that add to game play. Another issue is how the diplomacy that is included doens't work. I'm just trying to stick to the later. I think there needs to be another thread regarding how to balance the different aspects of the game to give a much better feel to the entire game.

I've a feeling we are much in agreement on what needs to be fixed, I just have a tendancy (from modding another board) to keep things on topic. Call it the anal part in me.

[Didz]

@John

Fair enough....though personally I see the two issues as somewhat inter-related. If diplomacy had options which were capable of producing game changing results then it might get used more, on the other hand the fact that it has no vital role in the game means that for most players the fact that it doesn't isn't even noticed.

The bottom line is that in STW it was possible to win the game using just agents, that is no longer possible, the game has got more complex but the strategic options have actually got much simpler.

Key issues that need to be fixed with diplomacy:
a) A more transparent and easily monitored relationship system.
b) Alliances need to mean something, and be worth having.
c) Trade Rights need to be visibly beneficial.
d) A 'get off my land' option.
e) Major reduction of mission overrides, that cause trivial wars.
f) A clear means of visually representing power blocks forming in the game.
g) Alliances should come with obligations.
h) Request support options need to be added, to allow allies to request money, troops, assistance.
i) Allies should be able to set missions for each other.

[Noir]

Originally posted by Didz
The bottom line is that in STW it was possible to win the game using just agents...

A certain amount of warmaking was necessary in STW in that the player needed to expand his territories and defend them up to the point that he could earn enough in order to finance assassins/bribes.

Many saw the Geishas as "cheesy" or exploits - the same was true for the Shinoby armies that were roaming unguarded AI back-provinces.

In any case though agents did have a certain importance and power and so a role in the game. Didz's point gets across: these were strategic elements - you could base your campaign strategy (stay in and turtle and invest into a Geisha house in order to hit the enemies with assassins) - now they are a sort of a "toy" - you can't really win with them, nor you can base your play upon them.

Ultimately it comes down to domination as a game goal - its very restrictive - and provides for a linear gameplay. A better system would be a broader GA, where one could cash in territories OR money accumulated for game "points". Vassalages could work the same (cash them in fo points). Other obvious point-goals (relative to the medieval period) could be Crusading and spreading the religious word (islam, orthodoxy, catholicism) among others.

The campaign AI was playing better with GA mode in MTW, in the sense that he wasn't all out to get the player - he would consider the situation much more from his point of view. That meant diplomacy too - factions were really concerned with survival (being eradicated meant the points were zeroed and the counter started from the beginning in the event of a reappearance).

The reason i advocate strict homelands and logistics is exactly to "hit" the superempire syndrom that TW suffers IMO. Strict homelands mean that the more land you occupy you are not better off logistically (can produce armies faster) but worse (you have to make more armies with the same resources and so feel the strain). Logistics will further make that visible - they can be very simple ie any stack that is not in "home province" loses men at a certain rate (crusade style) - the further from home provices the higher the rate.

Territories may switch ethnic composition and religion slowly andwith the investment of time and money relative to the player's faction (if you conquer islamic factions and are one yourself would be faster to bring them to your cause). Medieval Auctoriso presented something similar in theearly days of its conception. EB has also done that with the 4 levels of management of newly conquered towns.

The "classic" TW concept is the "more the merier" as long as you can occupy more prvinces you've got little else to worry about - this kind of linear gameplay really kills strategic choices.

Many Thanks

Noir

[John_Longarrow]

It would also be very cool if you could actually take over the lands of a "Destroyed Faction" if you had a general married to one of their princesses. It would definitly give another dimension to the game.

[atheotes]

I agree with the point that diplomacy is not broken per se.. but there arent enough options/usefulness to it.
I actively use diplomats in the first few turns to get trade rights and map information from everyone... after that i dont care to use them...
Usually the most i have at anytime is 2-3 and sometime i have none...just recruit one if i need to bribe an ally with whom i have come to share a border...
For the most part as and when possible i use the princesses to take part in irrelevant/miscellaneous diplomacy and maybe to set up bribes/gifts (the boost in charm is the main reason to do this)...

I guess this is what most people do... but the thing is i am a turtler. I never blitz, build up slowly only, no attack first, take excomms seriously (when i play a cath faction), and maintain a good reputation (has to be above mixed).

And i still dont find much use for (active) diplomacy!!!

[Didz]

I've spent most of my current game trying to get the Moorish held Timbuktu to rebel so that I can move in and take it without declaring war on the Moors.

At one point I had a dozen spies in the town and about ten assassins outside. Every building was a smoking ruin and its loyalty dropped regularly to 65%.

- Would it rebel...like hell it would.
- Could I bribe it...nope not interested, the militia spearmen holding it were obviously being overpaid.

In the end the Moors got so annoyed they declared war on me anyway, complete waste of time and money.

[madalchemist]

It is because the AI cheats.

As it cheats about siege weapons that doesn't catch fire, about spawning "men of the hour" without fighting, about crusades not deserting, about keeping public order in cities.

Just to write what you all already got, I hate when the AI cheats and I think it shouldn't be allowed or should be possible to disable (this last sentence being a bit OT).

[Noir]

Originally posted by madalchemist
Just to write what you all already got, I hate when the AI cheats and I think it shouldn't be allowed or should be possible to disable (this last sentence being a bit OT).

I home-mod MTW and to the best of my knowledge the AI is not using campaign cheats in "hard" - however he is capable (if you take the valor giving provinces and the bodyguard upkeep out) to provide a decent challenge. The M2 TW campaign AI would sink lower than low without cheating and still even this way he is far from providing decent challenge in vanilla.

The game has so many little features that the AI in all probability simply uses "optimally" through cheating - they are too many for him to trully "use" in the sense that he would have to make decisions/choices about them - i guess the developers would need tons of testing for game progression and subsequent AI adjusting that they have neither the time nor the intention of doing apparently.

It ends up with everyone "ganging" on the player, with Mongols and Timurids and new worlds to keep the challenge/interest up.

TW maintains a certain true value because of the modding community and its fruits IMO. Vanilla releases increasingly offer interest only in terms of potential (what can be done with the engine).

Many Thanks

Noir

[icek]

I think that to many people here use the word diplomacy to name strange behavior of ai nations. its not diplomacy, its a ai vs human issue. in my england campaign ive been in alliance with sicily since i remember. i never ever killed one sicilian agent in this game. we battled other italian nations and when i defeated venician military might in battle for venice, sicily should wisely attack the other little defended serbian territory to make themselves strong and to stop my conquest into east. but no, sycily decided to make ceasefire with venice and attack me in bolognia defended by man on my picture. it wasnt even a fight , more like chicken hunt.

[Kruniac]

Originally Posted by Sheogorath
BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

Seriously, you registered an account JUST to make THIS post? On a topic which has been adressed REPEATEDLY throughout the course of the forum?
Search moar, n00b.

In regards to diplomacy, I find that the best sort involves lots of men with swords on horses. Or cannons.
I believe the Devil's Dictionary defines 'Cannon' as "An instrument for the rectification of borders," as fine a definition as any I've heard. Consider well the applicatiation of copious amounts of steel and gunpowder to your problem, followed by a handy dose of slaughter and maybe a bit of tourture here and there.
Remember, manical laughter is satisfying, but it leaves you vulnerable to erstwhile heros who manage to slip past your outer guards. ALWAYS carry a pistol crossbow, just in case you need to shoot some sword wielding punk in the head.

And finally, I have this to say:
in b4 lock

Win. rifk

[ramela]

Geez, don't encourage a troll.

[Kruniac]

Geez, don't encourage a troll.

Yeah you're right, I just didnt know if he was a troll or a vet of some kind who was just fed up with the game and posts about the flaws.

The game is terrible, and the only redeeming quality MIGHT be the expansion. I hope the diplomatic AI gets fixed, and if it doesnt, well, I look forward to MTR to fix this game.