Diplomacy is NOT broken?

[DVX BELLORVM]

Many times I've read on this forum that the diplomacy in M2TW is broken, and useless, especially on higher levels. Based on my previous campaign, I also shared this opinion.

Contrary to my previous campaigns where I exterminated, sacked, murdered and had reputation somewhere between deceitful and despicable, I'm playing my current HRE campaign on a chivalry side. Hard difficulty level.

As a result, I have a very reliable rep and 4 long term allies, some of them lasting more then 60 turns! I had 2 more allies and trustworthy rep, but on two occasions my allies went to war against each other, making me loose 2 of them, and reputation.

I am at war with 4 factions, 3 of them are my neighbors, but all of those wars are logical consequence of previous events: Milan attacked me early on, which is logical since HRE is their campaign objective. During the war, they made alliances with some of my neighbors (Denmark, Venice, Hungary), which caused my relations with those faction to deteriorate. Hungary attacked me first, and after I destroyed Milan, so did the other two. Maybe the fact that I'm getting very near to achieving my victory conditions enticed them to attack.

With my other neighbors I have reasonable to very good relations, some of them are my long term allies.

I have been attack once by Venice, apparently without reason they besieged Insbruck. they left their capital poorly defended, and I took advantage of it and besieged it. They offered ceasefire, which I refused. Next turn they showed up with the large relief force and attacked me. I withdrew and offered peace, asking Zagreb in return. They accepted. No blood was spilled.

What is the point of all this? Well, one thing I found out during this campaign is that if you play chivalry game, and behave yourself , you can have normal diplomatic relations with other factions, and your allies won't backstab you after 5 turns.
The only thing I do considered broken is the fact that defeated nation sometimes stubbornly refuse peace, even if left with only one settlement, defended by the king and 1 catapult unit

Opinions?

[Ramses II CP]

In my experience only a marriage alliance is safe over the long term on VH. Additionally many of the complaints center on the fact that the AI handles the actual diplomatic contacts foolishly. For example it's completely irrelevant to them whether they invaded you or you invaded them, the decline in relations is handled the same way and requires you to bribe them to renormalize relations. A nation which has been all but wiped out can be down to it's last province and will still happily refuse a ceasefire, even if you've just destroyed their last significant army. Excommunication is completely ignored by the AI, so the benefit of being in the Pope's favor is essentially a war benefit, not a diplomatic benefit.

Obviously it is possible, with some work, to maintain alliances in the game (At least until you get very near the end), that's not the worst problem. The complaint, as I see it, is that the AI's diplomatic responses are wildly out of touch with strategic situation of the world.

[FactionHeir]

Diplomacy works somewhat better if you have a good reputation (it does not decrease if you need to choose btween 2 allies btw). However, at a decent reputation (very reliable and better), the AI handles Diplomacy in a different stupid way: It will accept just about anything you ask them for (as long as you are not allied to one of their enemies or some other factors).

So a major world power attacks me for no good reason and I send a diplomat asking for a cease fire. This is seen as very generous. Since I'm already floating on florins, I ask for settlements. So after I get the cease fire, I also got 4 large settlements from them in exchange. Not really realistic, huh?

Most settlements are valued very lowly by the AI in negotiations. I think the most difficult settlement to get off them is Nicosia (that island near Arabia), which never changes hands for under 30,000 florins, but the rest you can get in a package for a simple ceasefire and/or alliance offer.

Sad but true.

[WhiskeyGhost]

I hate it when i provide military assistance for an ally only for them to go off and send a small unit of peasants against another neutral faction, making himself tons of enemies, even though someones breaking down the door to his home.

(France was allied with me, and was facing an invasion from the south via Spain. I decided to gather one of the border castles back from Spain, and use it to assist my French allies in their plight. With England still harassing them, and with the HRE gearing up to attack, France decides to go attack Denmark, and bring them into the fight. Sure, they took a bordering town, but thats no reason to piss off the danes with all the imminent threats already surrounding you. To put it in context, France only had 5 regions total left, but went and started trouble anyways despite being in a war already.)

edit: Also, i hate having to constantly dish out money to maintain relations, yet they don't, not even among each other. It's like they threw it in as a economy handicap, rather then actually making it more challenging (as in more stubborn with diplomacy. Like not taking a balanced deal as often)

[phonicsmonkey]

When I played my Moors campaign (house rule: no taking non-rebel settlements by force, no declaring war on anybody) I found diplomacy quite reasonable for a long time - so long as I kept my reputation up, no-one attacked me, and as I was allied with almost everyone, peace reigned in europe for many years.

I did experience what FactionHeir is describing, that the AI will sell settlements for peanuts.

I got most of my early provinces that way, and some of my later ones. It became more difficult once I started bumping off entire royal families with my highly-skilled death squad of assassins and my reputation plummetted.

[Jason X]

there are indeed silly mechanics and some truly bizarre behaviours but i agree with the OP that a lot of the original whining was down to ignoring the effects of reputation. as it's one of the few game mechanics that encourages a different play style to blitzing, i do think the diplomacy gets an undeserved, erm, reputation.

[Odin]

FactionHeir is correct in his examples.

I cant prove this, but in my expirence the AI seems to never take into consideration its position within a negotiation. Its all centered around your alliances, your power, and your reputation.

its very simplistic, but can really kill the game play.

[Brutal DLX]

I, too, agree with the OP, diplomacy is not that bad once you've seen through its mechanics. If you rush the map and follow only your own plans of conquest, it's quite reasonable that you will have only few (if any) allies. To get a faction to accept cease-fire or vassalage depends on your reputation, the power of their allies and of course your own power (and by that I mean you must actually display that power, it's not enough that you own a large percentage of the world and have a lot of armies, you must have those armies at their doorstep to add weight to your demands - a single, even elite, stack won't do!).
Of course, maintaining reputation usually requires money gifts, but it's worth it. I find it more of a challenge to play it slow because, after all, you have to acknowledge the fact that the tactical AI is really really bad and thus you will have your way anyhow in the end.
The only thing about diplomacy that truly seems broken to me is the "request for assistance" option. Never worked when I tried it.

[WhiskeyGhost]

The only thing about diplomacy that truly seems broken to me is the "request for assistance" option. Never worked when I tried it.

i've seen it work with the AI, cause they've requested assistance from nearby stationary troops (one's i didn't move that turn and had enough movement to get to where the battle was) and it gave me a pop-up where they asked if i would join in the battle against the person we both have assistance against. The only problem, is that i don't think it works the other way around, since the AI probably spends all of its points moving damned near every turn (or hasn't any troops nearby cept a single peasant or some nonsense), unless its a cobweb infested garrison (which won't move out to help, same goes for your troops, it doesn't seem to count them for obvious reason of your settlement being undefended).

[Brutal DLX]

i've seen it work with the AI, cause they've requested assistance from nearby stationary troops (one's i didn't move that turn and had enough movement to get to where the battle was) and it gave me a pop-up where they asked if i would join in the battle against the person we both have assistance against. The only problem, is that i don't think it works the other way around, since the AI probably spends all of its points moving damned near every turn (or hasn't any troops nearby cept a single peasant or some nonsense), unless its a cobweb infested garrison (which won't move out to help, same goes for your troops, it doesn't seem to count them for obvious reason of your settlement being undefended).

Yep, I've seen what you describe as well, but that's not what i had in mind (did it ever work for you, i.e., when you grant the assistance and allowing your stack to join the battle [let's say it's a fairly decent stack that should give your ally the upper hand even in auto-calc], did your ally ever emerge victorious when their force alone would have surely lost? - I suspect that this is broken too).
I was really talking about the other way around, when you request assistance from your AI ally via the diplomacy screen, did they ever do anything that could be construed as a sort of assistance? - I doubt it, hence I think it's broken.

[MStumm]

Did it ever work for you, i.e., when you grant the assistance and allowing your stack to join the battle [let's say it's a fairly decent stack that should give your ally the upper hand even in auto-calc], did your ally ever emerge victorious when their force alone would have surely lost?

It actually worked for me I think. My ally had a small stack close to a large enemy stack (he was my enemy too). After I moved in within assistance range, the bad guys backed off.

Of course the very next turn an allied captain sieged one of my cities and my former ally signed a ceasefire with my enemy.

[abdecken5]

To get a faction to accept cease-fire or vassalage depends on your reputation, the power of their allies and of course your own power (and by that I mean you must actually display that power, it's not enough that you own a large percentage of the world and have a lot of armies, you must have those armies at their doorstep to add weight to your demands - a single, even elite, stack won't do!).

the problem is that diplomacy is surposed to mean you dont have to defend your boarders from allies to fear them into not attacking you. The idea of diplomacy is that you neogociate before someone sends an armys onto your doorstep. Its a bit late to only open neogociations once your enemy is committed to attack you

[WhiskeyGhost]

Yep, I've seen what you describe as well, but that's not what i had in mind (did it ever work for you, i.e., when you grant the assistance and allowing your stack to join the battle [let's say it's a fairly decent stack that should give your ally the upper hand even in auto-calc], did your ally ever emerge victorious when their force alone would have surely lost? - I suspect that this is broken too).
I was really talking about the other way around, when you request assistance from your AI ally via the diplomacy screen, did they ever do anything that could be construed as a sort of assistance? - I doubt it, hence I think it's broken.

like i said, i think it doesn't work because the AI doesn't leave mobile armies out with movement points left to do it. Also, yes, it did change the odds enough to win the battle w/auto-calc in the same perverse way that auto-calc thinks 4 trebuchets can win against a unit of knights.

[Philbert]

What I think is missing in diplomacy (I think, I never did any research on it) is trade.
The most logical reason for two medieval states to forge and maintain an alliance is the dependance on mutual trade.
If there is vivid trade between my country and another one, we both have interest to keep relations placid so that we can both rake in delicious tax florins.
That is not even to mention strategic goods like wood, rope and linen that are important for the military (that would make it too complex I think).

It would be nice if in the diplomacy screen you would see an indication of the volume of the trade with the other country, and if the AI would also take that into account.

[Daveybaby]

I think the biggest problem with diplomacy is any kind of useful feedback on why the AI likes/dislikes you. As people have said, once you start playing chivalrously things get a lot better - diplomacy is actually one of the less broken aspects of the game IMO.

In any strategy game there will always be a problem with AI behaviour. Do you want the AI to roleplay a medieval king, or do you want it to know it's playing a game and to try to win? You cant have it both ways.

If the AI is roleplaying, it is at a serious disadvantage because its behaviour is constrained in ways that the player isnt. If the AI is playing a game, then peope will complain that it does things that are 'unrealistic' (such as refusing to surrender even if the situation is hopeless - why would you ever surrender if its a game - you'll lose).

Having said all that, i'd settle for an AI which can put together a decent stack of troops once in a while.

[DVX BELLORVM]

I think the biggest problem with diplomacy is any kind of useful feedback on why the AI likes/dislikes you.

My guess would be that the most common reason why the AI hates you is the system of alliances and its mechanics. We are all aware of the fact that the AI, and the player, makes a lot of alliances during the game. Everybody is allied with everybody. Once you are at war with a faction, whatever the reason, the relations between you and your foe's allies begin to drop, eventually causing them to attack you. And the whole process begins once again.

It's a chain reaction that eventually leads to a situation when you are at war with everybody, your reputation is ruined, and diplomacy goes down the drain.

[Viking]

I think alliances forged via marriage are relativley trustable; in my short experience with them anyway. Does executing prisoners lower your reputation? If so, it'd explain mine.

Of course the very next turn an allied captain sieged one of my cities and my former ally signed a ceasefire with my enemy.

[Jason X]

Does executing prisoners lower your reputation? If so, it'd explain mine.

indeed!

[DVX BELLORVM]

Does executing prisoners lower your reputation? If so, it'd explain mine.

yes it does.

What about the ransoms? Does the reputation also drops when the AI refuses to pay, and the prisoners get executed?

[marrow]

No, AFAIK. Releasing prisoners boosts your chivalry, executing them boosts your dread and lowers your rep, and ransom is a neutral option, whether AI accepts or not is irrelevant to your reputation.

[Viking]

One learn something new everyday I guess.

[Brutal DLX]

like i said, i think it doesn't work because the AI doesn't leave mobile armies out with movement points left to do it. Also, yes, it did change the odds enough to win the battle w/auto-calc in the same perverse way that auto-calc thinks 4 trebuchets can win against a unit of knights.

Interesting... from my experience, the AI ally lost anyway, even when supported by my troops, which has led me to suspect that this option is actually broken at 2 levels, first in your not getting assistance from your allies (there should at least be some window popping up to inform you that an ally's nearby stack will march in to support you in your upcoming battle, or, the AI gets the same option that you do and always opts for not lending aid) and second the assistance not having any effect on the outcome of the battle (in sea battles it's more obvious, although I've never seen a popup-window in those cases, just "normal" battles where your ally is the agressor and your fleet just happens to be in an adjacent tile). Your theory about the AI not having movement points left sounds plausible, only that IIRC I got that popup window too in situations where my stack didn't have MP left and it still marched to the battle location.

the problem is that diplomacy is surposed to mean you dont have to defend your boarders from allies to fear them into not attacking you. The idea of diplomacy is that you neogociate before someone sends an armys onto your doorstep. Its a bit late to only open neogociations once your enemy is committed to attack you

I don't want to defend the AI programming, but you have to consider that it's quite hard to program the AI to have an idea about the big picture. The way the diplomacy and AI stratmap behaviour are intended to work is that an alliance with good reputation and good relations usually means that you can leave your border settlements relatively lightly garrisoned. But if relations are not so well, the AI will try to take a settlement from you that's defended by just two units or so. It will do that because it estimates the settlement will be an easy picking and it does not think ahead and realise that such a maneuver will not sit lightly with you, moreover, it doesn't take into account the reputation drop it will suffer through backstabbing and lastly, it has a warped picture of your military capabilities since it can only judge your strength by auto-calc ratios which are indeed the root of many bad military decisions by the AI.
So the bottom line is that diplomacy alone is not sufficient to guarantee a lasting alliance, but without paying attention to diplomatic relations, you will have even more unnecessary wars on your hands. In addition to that, larger garrisons really also decrease the chances of an ally besieging your settlements. The only events that you cannot counter or avoid in any ways known to me are random port blockades and the like, which I think happen because the mission generator works for the AI factions too and doesn't take any alliances into account.
I've owned this game since last Xmas and it has taken me more than half a year understanding the diplomacy mechanics and learning how to use them in my favour, so if you're frustrated with the diplomacy (just like I was at the beginning), just keep playing and trying things out, watching the effects. With due experience you can minimise, though not completely eliminate, "stupid" AI diplomacy behaviour in non-blitzing campaigns.

[Grog]

One of my diplomats inspects the progress of my war by proxy on neutral poland:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I'm playing an HRE expansionism game (m/vh 1.2 vanilla), with the aim of creating a pilgrim autobahn to the holy lands and defeat the hordes, subject to max chivalry houserules.

Now Krakow would make my empire look neat, but my houserules prevent me from steaming it (no aggressive military action vs neutral factions), and its a capital so getting it to rebel/buying it is not possible.

However, I previously shored up my eastern front with a marriage allliance to hungary, (haggled sofia as part of the price). Poland then expanded into hungary (took budapest), so I bought budapest from the poles, and have been funding hungarys expansion into polands empire for a good 20 turns.. whilst remaining neutral with the poles

My western border is shored up with an 80 turn marriage alliance with france, again my diplomat snapped up that charming young french princess for my faction heir as he raced to antioch on the first crusade (turn3 after I bought the pope). I keep france busy with pointless wars vs Milan..ahem. I have the danes bought off in the North as long term allies, and keep them busy beating on the english/scots/russians.

So I have no idea whether diplomacy is broken or not, but with a good rep you can have a lot of fun with diplomats

On a sidenote, I find you can get good diplomats by training them at an advanced ordered high income town with a strong council building. ie: this guy above spawned with all those traits from vienna, which by now is a huge city with mayors palace and merchant HQ.