Diplomacy is entirely broken

[FactionHeir]

Allies are much less likely to betray your in ETW, but as long as you are not allied, relations play no role in diplomacy and they will declare war on you. So if you start off by allying with everyone (making sure you don't get into historical wars), there will be few who can declare war on you.

[al Roumi]

Allies are much less likely to betray your in ETW, but as long as you are not allied, relations play no role in diplomacy and they will declare war on you. So if you start off by allying with everyone (making sure you don't get into historical wars), there will be few who can declare war on you.

It may be true that allies are less likely to declare war on you than a trade partner is, but what's not clear is why they do when they do. For my part it's the un-predictability of who will betray you which is frustrating.

Defining some conflicts, there is a relation affecting variable (historic grievances, or somesuch -displayed in the diplomacy screen) which is presumably a fudge factor used (along with the pre-existing web of alliances)to nudge AIs into the type of historic conflicts of the age.

It would be great (and might help move this discussion on) to know exactly by what mechansim faction AI's decide to go to war. As you say FactionHeir, indifferent or Friendly nations go to war with apparently little traceable link to diplomatic relations -whic players would assume to drive such decisions.

My gut feeling is that the cause of these inconsistencies is not slack code but conflicts between the overlay of campaign and faction AIs. i.e. when the campaign AI overrules or over influences the faction AI with it's own priorities.

IMHO, such an overlay of 2 decision making systems will always result in bizarre and un-expected events (needless to say there are inumerable examples of this outside of ETW, like what governments say& do...). What, again IMO, players appreciate in strategic games is the capacity to analyse, evaluate and respond to rivals and their priorities -as Owen has described in his posts on CIV4 (in another thread).

Currently, I feel the campaign AI is ruinning that feeling of competing with rivals by inserting the equivalent of sticks in the wheel of considered and strategic game play.

I hereby move for an action to lobotomise ETW's campaign AI, all those in favour say Aye! please

[Fisherking]

Well, I just had some diplomacy that made complete sense and was anything but random.

I knocked out the French. Spain was a happy trade partner, however they sent a diplomatic proposal asking for France in exchange for most of their European holdings plus Cuba and New Mexico, with the little cash they had on hand. I turned it down and I got an immediate DoW from them, showing that they intended on having France one way or another. I still don't know that they have armies to take it but it had a definite intent behind the proposal.

[FactionHeir]

Right, so instead of pestering you every second turn to have you turn over a region, they now declare war outright on you if you refuse the first time?

[Fisherking]

It beats all the nagging you know.



.

[timski]

The game is called "Total War"...

Certainly feels like there has been a shift away from the old tactics, where a short war could be waged over 1 or 2 regions, after which peace was easy to secure. As England, I was more than happy to make peace with Spain after "liberating" Flanders in turn 2, but Spain was just insulted. Tactically neither of us were in a position to continue the war (at least not for several turns), nor did Spain show any signs of responding militarily.

Another patch 1.3 mistake I made was establishing to many alliances with distant minor nations. Within a few turns conflict was breaking out between my allies, forcing me to break alliances, which reduced trust among others. Rapidly almost the whole diplomatic map was red.

Given that the "alliance with an enemy nation" is a big negative (Spain hates me more for that, than being at war and expanding into its territory), and dishonoring/not honoring treaties tends to have a significant worldwide impact, I think allies need to be entered into with considerably more care than I did in the past. Genuinely only ally with nations that you are prepared to go to war for, and avoid allying with nations that border one another.

[timski]

Specific example:

I'm allied with Austria, and have a trade agreement with the Ottomans. The Ottomans declare war on Austria. I join with my ally. In the same turn 3 other wars are declared on other allies/protectorates, and I join my allies in all cases (but I don't break any treaties by declaring war against those). The net result of acting to support 4 allies, but breaking 1 trade agreement, is a -49 diplomatic penalty with most of Europe for "not honoring treaties". Even with Austria, who seem unwilling to understand that I broke a treaty solely in my support of them. Since it is only the start of the 4th turn, the -49 means that all but a handful of nations start to dislike me, and suddenly further diplomacy becomes rather tricky.