Diplomacy is entirely broken

[Discoman]

I just started a campaign today as the U.S and I ended it in several hours because of how annoying it was getting. I'm not sure what the difficulty was because you're not allowed to pick it, but everyone, no matter what their allegiance was, declared war on me. Five turns in Britain declared war and invaded, and then the Iroquois, and then two turns later the Cherokee. Eventually I manage to recapture Boston and Maine from Britain and secure a peace settlement. I think things are about to turn until Spain, who was 'friendly' with me, declares war and takes Georgia and the Carolinas in one turn.

I ended it in frustration after Boston was taken by the Iroquois, who I couldn't get any peace settlement with. My economy starts off non-existent and it doesn't help that they revamped the economy system in 1.2 , so I was pretty much fated to lose.

[peacemaker]

after reading many of these posts, I can't help but think that "Total War" IS in the title of the game, so I don't have that big of a problem beign at war with so many natinos. In a Spanish campaign, though, by turn 5 I was allied with France, protector of New Spain, and at war with like 20 nations. Most of these were pirates and Native Americans, but still! It's kind of stupid and I really wish that some nations would go for peace when it's clear they're losing.

I think that one of the best solutions for this is to have nations tell you why they might be mad at you, and why they would potentionally declare war on you.

[Beskar]

peacemaker making a quip about its title in my Empire:Total War thread? Shame on you.

[Prodigal]

Regarding the OP, I've now tried 3 games as Prussia on h/h since the patch.

The first I played as a pre-patch game, spamming trade ships, & attacking poland. I gave that up pretty quick as the trade ships got wiped out & everyone declared war on me.

Second game, I stayed very quiet & simply built up home economy & troops in my two regions, by '21 I was allied with Poland against Austria, had not been attacked by courland on the smaller neighbours, Austria was wiped out, Poland & Prussia having pretty much divided it up. Felt like I'd been steamrollering though so started my current game.

Once again stayed quiet but allied with all the small countries to the west, this led to eventually to allying with Austria. Nobody randomly attacked me, I've got stable trade with the local regions & have just declared war on Poland. Currently I am at war with denmark, sweden, poland & courland. I've far more allies & than in a normal game & they're not acting weird, (sweden's an exception but I guess they want denmark).

So what's the point of all the above, well I'm not paying factions off, they're being reasonable & not going lemming, based on this I'm not sure where the problem is in the diplomacy in fact it seems like a great imrpovement.

[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.

[Lemur]

I tried UP again last night on M/M. It certainly seems as though war is forever in this game. Dragged into conflict by my alliance with Britain, I now fin myself unable to get a peace treaty with either Spain or France no matter what I offer them. Irritating.

I'm going to save, and see if offering my entire empire will tempt France into not attacking me for one whole turn.

[Razor1952]

Personally overall can't agree, sure sometimes you wonder about an unexpected DOW, but someone else said its Total war isn't it.?, who said diplomacy had to be logical, for that matter who said women were logical..., look around, trust no-one in this age of global financial crisis, don't even trust those pixellated so-called friends in ETW.

[Yun Dog]

I love hearing the "its called total war"

So get rid of diplomacy completely

ship the game with all factions at war all game with no diplomacy button

see what review score the game gets

see how many units sell

(actually the game would probably play better with the AI not being confused )

I think youll find they pretend the game has diplomacy for a reason

cause endless battles with no context gets old real quick - just look at MP

and to add to my woe, I now have a repeated end of turn CTD - game killer - In my current VH campaign as Prussia

I love the game - it just gets harder and harder to play it

[Durallan]

Okay having calmed down since yesterday and my game getting back to some strange sort of normality, I will change my position slightly, I still believe that diplomacy is broken, because there are obviously somethings happening that just shouldn't, and I don't believe the total war argument, otherwise why would they even bother with a campaign map? just go into quickstart battles and you have all the wars you want.

Having said that Russia seems to be rather illogical. Here is the irony...

I finally got Spain to be my ally and I also bought Hispaniola off them for Courland and the territory just above it (sweet bargain) my income went up by 5000 a turn just getting a new world territory. The Leader of Spain is Carlos the Second, a Mad Raving Lunatic who apparently raves and dribbles at the slightest excitement. Obviously the spainish faction AI is now so deranged it doesn't mind allying with the Prussian Empire.

However Russia's leader who doesn't have any insane traits does seem to be upset with me. I guess Russia must want some territories I own but I would LIKE THE GAME TO TELL ME THAT. No AI faction yet has asked me about the regions they want and what they might want to give me in return. Sometime ago out of the blue i got a faction asking me for some techs in return for some crappy one and 120 gold. Anyway, Russia is definetly a bully, it has declared war on me several times. The first time It broke our ALLIANCE (we had enemies to fight together against and he had an enemy on his north and south borders so why have an enemy on his western border aswell?) and raided my provinces. I Defeated his invading armies (scouts) and sued for peace (A peace treaty and trade agreement and alliance) he agreed. (Venice my other ally got upset at me allying with his enemy) One turn later Russia declares war. I get very angry at this point and take St Petersburg pillage it a little and continue marching the army to Moscow. I take moscow and looking at how nice it is I was thinking of keeping it. I destroyed his religious and science buildings and was prepearing to build my own when i thought I'd wonder if hed accept his territories back for a peace treaty. He did.

I actually get peace for a couple of years. Then he decides to declare war on me once I moved my large army to the west coast to prepare for invasions. I decide to see if I can sue for peace, somehow Russia gave me a counter offer of 12,000 gold and a peace treaty and trade agreement. I accept while telling russia its a nasty evil piece of work lol, but the current peace seems to be holding ( I have a half stack army right next door to the Ukraine in case he decides he doesn't want to be at peace anymore.

Having said that once I built my very nice army, First proper army, Denmark declared war on Hannover out of the blue, I thought perfect, I've always wanted Copenhagen and Iceland so I took those, of course denmark hasn't accepted peace, and I'm not suprised at that considering I took their home, but I don't have to worry about them because theyre at war with sweden.

After that I noticed Great Britain had a new queen, Adelaide the First, that made me giggle (that's my home town) so i figured I would ally with great britain. Two turns later, they declare war on Spain, leading me into a war against them... So much for the alliance! lol

speaking up for the Ai for a moment I was recently impressed by Great Britain invading and wiping out the Barbary States. They took all their cities over an amount of time which impressed me greatly.

Having said that I don't buy the agreement that being at war with another nation if they don't attack you means your at peace or if they attack you its entirely up to you to conquer them, the irony is that the game has a way now of letting you know roughly how you are doing compared to other nations (the Prestige scores) yet apparently the AI cannot compare its score to yours and figure out my military is better than its military is.

Even if the scores are similar, I would like to see the AI's would actually go through and attack me, and if we are separated by sea, then they send a force to attack me ( although that doesn't mean I want a far off nation to declare war and attack me out of the blue just if my current enemy like sweden can't reach me by land then if my navy isn't too powerful then it try and chance a sea invasion)

Another good thing for the AI that i've seen is that my protectorates have never betrayed me and we are getting close to the 100 turn mark, so that's another pleasant suprise, However another problem is that when i ask these minor nations to help me attack a nation like russia, they don't send any armies, even though they have complete military access through my lands.

I would wager that the AI might be working better than v1.0 but there is still much to be improved before it gets anywhere near on a par with games like Civilizations 4 and Galactic Civilizations 2.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Ah yes. Good old "It's called Total War".
Could any of the gentlemen who used that line perhaps explain what they think Total War means? Could you look it up? THANK YOU!
The diplomacy in this game is bogus, and you know it is bogus. Some silly rationalization based on an erroneous understanding of the title will not make it any less bogus.

[A Very Super Market]

Total war simply means the devotion of an entire nation's resources into a war, not a huge fight between everyone. I felt like being annoying, so whatever.

[Prodigal]

Right last post on this as I'm coming out of the closet, there's nothing wrong with the diplomacy. That it doesn't work the way people think it should doesn't make it broken or bugged.

1700-1800 countries made & tore up treaties with each other any time they felt like it. Alliances are what you make in order to get something you want, accepting or declining to join in a war should be done based on what you're trying to get.

Current game is probably the most fun I've had since release, using the diplomacy & its working really well, managing to get my main rivals to both get badly mauled fighting each other while staying more or less neutral & only getting invloved when I see an opportunity. In other words not having ridiculous dow's & have manageable wars. And I am not spamming the alliance to buddy up with any faction that'll have me.

The 18th century was not known as a golden age of diplomacy, everyone was tearing each other up in a global land grab. The main diplomatic tool of the time seemed based on having an army large enough to enforce your right to whatever you wanted. So while playing the game pop on a lice filled powered wig, & only drink beer or wine because water will kill you, it'll change your whole outlook on finesse diplomacy

[crpcarrot]

i second prodigal

i dont think think diplomacy is perfect and i would love to see a civ 4 type diplomacy in game but i havent seen this alleged random DOW in my games . its probably my play style

its absurd for players to expect the IA to respond according to their version of whats logical and call the game broken if it does do exactly that. what would be the point of playing th game if you knew what the AI was going to do anyway???

[Turbosatan]

Right last post on this as I'm coming out of the closet, there's nothing wrong with the diplomacy. That it doesn't work the way people think it should doesn't make it broken or bugged.

Damn straight. The amount of "it doesn't work the way it does in my head/in the actual 18th Century/in films/in Sharpe novels so it must be broken" threads I've seen since this game was released actually scares me. In MTW1, there were hundreds of features not covered by the manual or that did not work in a way that a new person to the game might consider intuitive -- the game had its kinks, its surprises, its limitations. To this day, people post on the MTW forums about how this is indicative of the game's great depth, its subtlety, its replay value. I think CA have aimed for the same thing with ETW, but the bugs at the game's release have soured all goodwill toward the game, skewing people's opinions so that unreasonable expectations are set in players' minds, leading them to post loudly & disappointedly when they find something they do not like or confuses them or works in a way that is different to their opinion of how it should be implemented.

You guys need to stop a minute & try to evaluate the actual game in & of itself, rather than comparing it to some utopian Platonic ideal that exists only in your heads. If you don't like it, fine, post away, but the use of the word "broken" has turned into a code that means the person using it can immediately get take umbrage (somewhere just outside Troy, I believe) & swell themselves up with self-righteousness.

OTOH, & being less charitable, it's like people don't know what the word "broken" means. On the various TW forums, if a player finds something not to their liking, then it must be broken.

For instance: today, the sun wouldn't stop shining, hurting my eyes. Therefore I declare the weather broken & demand God fixes it to my (& only my) satisfaction. Anything less will result in a class action lawsuit.

[al Roumi]

i second prodigal

i dont think think diplomacy is perfect and i would love to see a civ 4 type diplomacy in game but i havent seen this alleged random DOW in my games . its probably my play style

its absurd for players to expect the IA to respond according to their version of whats logical and call the game broken if it does do exactly that. what would be the point of playing th game if you knew what the AI was going to do anyway???

Waow, what factions have you been playing? Have you engaged in any diplomatic relations? Had alliances with any neighbouring factions? Any protectorates? Not seen things like Poland, even though it has no port, declaring war on Malta?

Random isn't perhaps the right term, it's more that the decision making by some factions seems bizarre and inconsistent with what, ultimately, a human player might try to do in the same situation.

Knowing, to a degree of confidence, what the AI is up to or not means that you can actually plan around and with your allies and enemies, and maybe swing some undecided factions your way or another. I find it irritating when I've worked towards an agreement or something, only for it to be ripped up on the basis of nothing that i can understand.

I have no issue with people declaring war on me, it IS what the game is about, but I prefer it when such DoWs come from factions whom I'm not actually "friendly" with.

[Didz]

i dont think think diplomacy is perfect and i would love to see a civ 4 type diplomacy in game but i havent seen this alleged random DOW in my games . its probably my play style

I find that really have to believe as usually at least one occurs within the first few turns.

What factions have you played and at what difficult level?
And how many factions are you are war with by say the 10th turn of the game?

I'm currently playing France on Easy Campaign Difficulty just to test if it affects the volume of Random DOW's. It didn't but the 1.3 patch does seem to have results in my game going relatively quiet. I've only had 1 x Random DOW's in the last 10 turns or so, from Austria that couldn't actually reach me so I avoided the event by reloading and replaying the end of turn. Britiain offered me a trade for Kentucky which I refused but it didn't follow through. Britain is bankrupt in my game anyway simply because Prussia stuck a fleet in Greenwich on turn 2 and they never sent an army from London to liberate the port.

The other thing I've noticed with 1.3 is that now the pirates attack the Trade Ports none of the AI factions send any ships there. France actually has all the trade theatres to itself, even though I deliberately restrict myself to using no more than one Trade Post in each theatre, the others just sit empty.

[Durallan]

The 18th century was not known as a golden age of diplomacy, everyone was tearing each other up in a global land grab. The main diplomatic tool of the time seemed based on having an army large enough to enforce your right to whatever you wanted. So while playing the game pop on a lice filled powered wig, & only drink beer or wine because water will kill you, it'll change your whole outlook on finesse diplomacy

Player: Russia we are both enemies with Poland and Sweden, lets ally up against them!

Russia AI : Sure!

*Poland Destoryed*

Russia AI: Player has destroyed poland with massive army. I have no massive army. Break Alliance and Attack Player.

Player: wtf? I thought we were allies!

Russia AI: send 2 small armies to harass Player's Buildings

Player: Dood if you don't sign this peace treaty I'm gunna destroy you.

Russia AI: NEVER! (Unless you give me everything you own.)

*Russia Destroyed*

Are you guys sure you are playing the same game?

while I have the imagination, I'm not going to use it to make up for the computer making lousy decisions. Computers should be putting 2 - 3 stack armies against a player if they really want to win, not the pathetic bunches they do right now.

Again like I said, I do not mind nations or big nations attacking me, if there is a good excuse, IE their ally declared war on me together they think they can beat me, breaking alliances is okay if the AI thinks it can win, but I find it hard to believe russia thought it could win, with it dealing with 2 different wars already, so you can make up whatever you want to think that diplomacy/AI faction reasoning works, but I agree with Didz and the others that it doesn't work as well as it should be working.

Okay Example: In Gal Civ 2 if an AI nation notices that its military is much superior to yours, it will begin to bully you and demand money and if you reject their threats then that can lead to war. THAT MAKES SENSE. Right now breaking an alliance without saying why doesn't make sense and yes while alot of things in life don't make sense, they do come with explanations where the Random DoW's in ETW don't.

[Didz]

I suspect these guys are just blitzing the game anyway, so they're not even trying to use the diplomacy system. Its the only way I can believe a statement that they have never seen a Random DOW. After all if you've already declared war on everyone anyway they can't DOW you. In that respect the Diplomacy system is an irrelevance to them.

I think its only fair to show some evidence of my own game to prove my point. The following image shows the diplomatic status of France at the end of 1720 in my game.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As you can see I've managed to avoid being at war with everyone except the Barbary States and the Pirates. However, this has only been achieved by reloading and replaying the End of Turn everytime I get a Random DOW that does not make sense.

Even using this technique I was still forced to accept war with the Dutch in the opening few turns of the game, simply because they declared war on Spain. Whilst that was no doubt a random event, it did at least make sense and the Dutch did at least invade Flanders. The problem was that they flatly refused to make peace, even after their army had been defeated, and as their fluyts were causing problems to my trade routes I was forced to eliminate them from the game. [e.g. The Rabid Lemming issue still persists]

As you can see I've also managed to complete the French Mission without provoking Britain, mainly because Britain is bankrupt due to its failure to deal with a Prussian Fleet which has been occupying its trade port for over 15 years. This is another long term AI issue that hasn't been addressed in 1.3. As a result Britain is feeble and destitute, which probably means I shall have no trouble achieving my other goals in North America.

So, overall this has turned out to be a very easy campaign, but I have still had four Random DOW's so far even on Easy Difficulty. The idea that Patch 1.3 has cured this problem is not borne out by my experiences at all.

[crpcarrot]

i'm sorry didz but jsut becasuse we dont agree with your doent mean we dont know how to play the game.

i play on hard on H/H

i dont blitz and i never have from the time i started playing STW. i usually play to carve out a small empire and just roleplay the rest of the game or until i get bored and start another campaign.

i ahve had allies and i do have protectorates whome i support financially and militarily against my enemies.

as far as i can remember i havent been at war with more than 5-6 factions at a time. in my current campaign i dont think i ever had more than 4 enemies ata time and when i make reasonable offers for peace the AI has accepted it.

i have avoided posting about this because i expected exactly the reply i got. and whatever you may think about how me or others who agree that it is not perfect but certainly not broken, play, we are still entitled to our opinion and we would appreciate the same respect we give you when you post a half page rant be given to us. please dont make this forum another .com.

if the bugs were as bad as the end year bug in RTW then i would consider it broken. if you call this game broken i'ts a wonder you mangaed to ever play any previous TW titles.

"Random isn't perhaps the right term, it's more that the decision making by some factions seems bizarre and inconsistent with what, ultimately, a human player might try to do in the same situation."

if you expecting human reactions from an AI we are still a few years away from that mate. you will have to accept a level of .. well non human behaviour from any game.

and you are right random is probably the wrong word. i probably see plenty of what you would term random DOW but to be honest as long as its not to do with my faction i dont really pay much atrtnention unless its affecting my trade. and i certainly dont consider a minor faction declaring war on me randon or broken. sure i'm bigger than he is and he has no chance of defeating me totally. but if he has nowhere else to expand to and my bodering provinces are lightly guarded, why not?? its certaibly what some oppotunistic humans would do. maybe it was trying to grab the provice and sell ti back to me? or sell ti to someone else. point is i dont know and just cos i dont know i dont assume its broken.

edit please excuse my bad typing. somehow everytime i use a keyboard i beocme very dyslexic.

[Didz]

i'm sorry didz but jsut becasuse we dont agree with your doent mean we dont know how to play the game.

I never said you don't know how to play the game. What I said was the only way I think that you might be able to avoid having any 'Random DOW' is if you were blitzing the map and thus there were no factions available at peace with you for the 'screw the play routine' to use to declare war on you. I was actually responding to your own comment that we must be playing the game differently.

None of the other reasons you have mentioned would have any effect on the 'Random DOW' event because its completely random and doesn't take anything from the diplomacy system into account. The only thing that might shut it up is if when it triggers it perceives that the player is already at war with the miniumum number of factions it has been programmed to accept and so it can see no need to create further strife for the player. Some players have noted that deliberately declaring war or remote AI factions can placate the 'player hate routine'.

However, as has been noted repeatedly Allies, Friends even protectorates can and do declare war at random on the players faction, if the Random DOW routine decree's it.

"Random isn't perhaps the right term, it's more that the decision making by some factions seems bizarre and inconsistent with what, ultimately, a human player might try to do in the same situation."

I disagree, Random is the only word for it, as the events have no logical explanation, and more to the point if you reload from the 'Autosave' and run the End of Turn again they rarely re-appear. Proving beyond doubt that their appearance had nothing to do with the diplomatic or strategic situation but was simple a random event triggerred by an unlucky roll of the 'player hate routine'.

if you expecting human reactions from an AI we are still a few years away from that mate. you will have to accept a level of .. well non human behaviour from any game.

Nope! I just expect CA to produce a strategy game that approximately equates to the standards produced by other designers. As things stand it is impossible to play this game strategically, because the diplomacy system is either not being used, or is broken.

[Lemur]

I've been having less of a problem with random DOWs and more of a problem with countries who roleplay the Black Knight from Holy Grail. When their armies are destroyed, the lands seized and your boot is on their neck, they might want to think about accepting peace.

It's the state of perma-war that irritates me. Previous to this patch the nations weren't so bulldoggish.

[Husar]

Right last post on this as I'm coming out of the closet, there's nothing wrong with the diplomacy. That it doesn't work the way people think it should doesn't make it broken or bugged.

1700-1800 countries made & tore up treaties with each other any time they felt like it. Alliances are what you make in order to get something you want, accepting or declining to join in a war should be done based on what you're trying to get.

It would be valid if the AI actually would make alliances and peace, but all they ever do is declare war and then keep that status until either faction is eliminated.
I must say my spanish campaign is now in 1757 and while the random declarations of war have stopped, which makes m somewhat happy, there has not been a single peace treaty signed in the entire campaign, except if initiated by myself!

All we expect is that the AI factions behave somewhat reasonable, that they don't go to berserk mode like the third reich and try to take on everybody at once and completely exhaust eachother until the player steamrolls them, something like that, I just invaded three turkish provinces and they didn't send a single of their full stacks to prevent me from doing that, maybe that was because they're at war with Austria, several italian states, Marathas etc. or maybe' they're just stupid.
So I took the fourth province, Baghdad, before the huge marathas empire could, turkey besieged it with a full stack later on but Marathas wanted the province from me, plus 5900 gold in return for giving me unlimited military access (pretty useless considering Marathas is the only faction in that direction), I declined, they declared war. Now that's not bad, having demands before declaring war, but there are still quite a few holes, I will probably have to conquer all of India now to get "peace" with them, what I'd find more useful is to beat them in a few battles, maybe take a province or two and then negotiate a peace treaty once they lost their major armies and found out they cannot stop me easily anymore. Instead, the current AI seems to fight until you take their last province which is just rediculous, self-destructive berserk behaviour and not what you expect from a so-called "strategy game" since berserk mode is not really a strategy.

[Husar]

edit: just tried and offered peace to Marathas before we even fought a single battle and they accepted, relations are friendly now. Could this be tied to how the relations are like in previous titles?
Iff so, I guess this needs a change, a crushed opponent will hardly be friendly towards you, yet it makes sense for them to accept a peace deal.

actual edit: guess that was the quote button...

[Cheetah]

Diplomacy is DEFINETLY/Entirely broken. First I thought Didz might have just been very annoyed because something really upset him, but no, playing a campaign again, diplomacy is definetly broken.

Started a Prussian campaign (M/M), Got Bavaria, Hannover Wurttemburg Wesphalia Georgia and Savoy to become my protectorates. I realised I wasn't going to get anywhere in europe so I decided I would send an army to the new world. 27 years later that still hasn't happened.

...[snip]...

There is no logical reason that it should have declared war on me considering I just beat 2 major nations to their knees, We were allies for a few years and had been trading partners for much longer
and both had Sweden AND Poland as enemies.

There are several nations in my game that are war with all of europe for no apparent reason. I really was hoping this patch might change things, but diplomacy is still hopeless.

Okay Russia is a similar sized country to me and to some people maybe they think russia thought it was a good time to pick on me, Then CA can at least get Russia to either send me a letter of demands before it declares war or give some sort of pathetic excuse in a news bulletin telling me why theyve declared war before the DoW panel comes up.

I agree with your last point, it would be nice to get some official reasoning why the war broke out (which may or may not be the same as the real reason). However, don't you think that it is bit hasty to conclude based on one DoW which seemed to be irrational to you, that diplomacy is entirely broken?

By the way IMO you just captured one of the eastern polish provinces (Vilnius?) which might be amongst the Russian victory conditions. Also, would not you be afraid of a "friend" who keeps conquering its neighbours?