Diplomacy is broken

[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.