Diplomacy is entirely broken (The other side of the coin)

[Slaists]

I know when I first got the game, some of what the AI did seemed very subtle and astute. There is a lot of depth to what went into its development.

The trouble began when some called it too passive. Then they cranked up the aggression and the diplomacy when into the toilet.

There are good things in there if we could get passed the way it was dumbed down...

Unfortunately some people think they NEED to be at war with the whole world at once. For me it just takes away from the experience.

Maybe they just need a 5th level of difficulty for those who want that sort of thing.

Come on... the vanilla campaign AI WAS passive. I played the whole game from start to finish twice in vanilla and in both games the AI just sat around and did absolutely nothing neither in the colonial theaters nor in India. Even after DOW on another faction, the AI would just sit around for decades and do just that: nothing. North American Indians and Marathas were the two notable exceptions.

I am not saying the current solution is the optimal, but at least there is something happening on the map...

[Fisherking]

Come on... the vanilla campaign AI WAS passive. I played the whole game from start to finish twice in vanilla and in both games the AI just sat around and did absolutely nothing neither in the colonial theaters nor in India. Even after DOW on another faction, the AI would just sit around for decades and do just that: nothing. North American Indians and Marathas were the two notable exceptions.

I am not saying the current solution is the optimal, but at least there is something happening on the map...

And I didn't find it passive!

I got DoWs from factions but usually with some basic reason to go to war, and when they did they also had armies to fight them. They didn't sit home waiting to be attacked after making a DoW.

At the same time you had people crying about the minors taking out major powers and being too aggressive.

The campaigns were different, each one. You might get several DoWs quick or you might be left alone for 20 years.


And as to TOTAL WAR...


There seems to be a broad misunderstanding of what Total War means.

It leads some to think that you are at war with the world. That is just not so.

The most concise definition I have found comes from Wikipedia, believe it our not. And I looked at a bunch!

Total war: is a conflict of unlimited scope in which a belligerent engages in a mobilization of all available resources at their disposal, whether human, industrial, agricultural, military, natural, technological, or otherwise, in order to entirely destroy or render beyond use of their rival's capacity to continue resistance. The practice of total war has been in use for centuries, but it was only in the middle to late 19th century that total war was identified by scholars as a separate class of warfare. In a total war, there is less (or no) differentiation between combatants and non-combatants (civilians) than in other conflicts, as nearly every person from a particular country (or opposing area), civilians and soldiers alike, can be considered to be part of the belligerent effort.

As you can see it is a way of waging war and not with whom you are at war.

It was never about being totally engulfed in wars, but instead about the national commitment to war and the way it is fought.

The series gives you command of the resources to wage total war and that is what it is all about.

[nafod]

Come on... the vanilla campaign AI WAS passive. I played the whole game from start to finish twice in vanilla and in both games the AI just sat around and did absolutely nothing neither in the colonial theaters nor in India. Even after DOW on another faction, the AI would just sit around for decades and do just that: nothing. North American Indians and Marathas were the two notable exceptions.

I am not saying the current solution is the optimal, but at least there is something happening on the map...

Slaists I agree the vanilla AI was passive, but it did have a sense of diplomacy. What he have now is an AI that declares war extremely often, is more resistant to diplomacy, and yet still fails to present any decent strategical or tactical challenge. As more wars simply put do not make the game more difficult, it merely reduces trade revenue to a point where that part of the game becomes largely irrelevant.

I too am a player who doesn't see the need to declare war on anyone, as it seems 2-3 nations must always be at war with me, and as soon as one is knocked out, another neighbour tries their hand at taking me out.

Honestly I'd prefer the diplomacy of the vanilla AI with a beefed up 1.03 AI that actually fights in a coherent manner.

[AussieGiant]

It's all about taste gentlemen, it's all about taste.

One man's monkey brains are another man's hot chocolate fudge Sunday.

You can argue this until the end of time. And I think we have.

[Sheogorath]

If we're talking 18th century terms here, the smaller nation would almost invariably sue for peace, accept some form of protectorate status and move on.

With wars between larger states, things never went to the stage of one state being annihilated. Usually they fought until one side threw in the towel, some land and money changed hands and that was that. Next war enemies would be fighting on the same side.

While I don't argue that ETW should replicate 18th century politics and warfare perfectly, after all, some people just want to take over the world, there's something to be said for accepting peace when a state clearly not interested in taking over the world, but rather just looking to trade and maybe snag a few extra colonies, has performed the international equivalent of kicking your door down with a SWAT team, pinning your national leader to the ground and shoving a peace treaty in front of him.

I'll give you a hint. In that sort of situation, it's best not to respond with, "Sir, diplomatic niceties are the only thing saving you from a horse-whipping!"

That sort of talk gets you bayoneted.

[AussieGiant]

I'll give you a hint. In that sort of situation, it's best not to respond with, "Sir, diplomatic niceties are the only thing saving you from a horse-whipping!"

That sort of talk gets you bayoneted.

That's some funny stuff right there. I laughed out loud at that one.

[Didz]

Another Dumb diplomacy example from this evenings ETW session of my French Campaign.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Here you see the Italian States (Feeble/Destitute/Indifferent), just prior to being ordered by the player hate routine to commit faction suicide by declaring war on France.

What happens at the end of turn is that they declare war and then march their entire army from Milan to attack Turin (the red line), completely ignoring the fact that France actually has a much larger army in Genoa which can nip across the bridge (yellow line) and knock them out of the game.

Not only that but the Italian States are already at war with Spain who are chewing their way up the Italian peninsula, and they have absolutely no allies.

Artificial Intelligence, where?

[Sheogorath]

That's some funny stuff right there. I laughed out loud at that one.

I do wish you could respond the the computers little quotes. The first time it threw that up on the screen to a VERY generous offer for peace, I REALLY wanted to say "No, sir, that would be the bayonets."

They really need an 'execute diplomat' button.