Strength and functionality of AI Alliances

[gubbs]

Just a few questions ..

Assuming I ally with an AI faction and another faction either has already or subsequently declares war on me, will my ally declare war on them?

One thing I have noticed from playing DLV for a while is that alliances don't seem to actually have any direct bearing on the game. It just means they are less likely to make war upon you in the short term.

Does your scripting have active military aid embedded, or at the very least allies entering conflicts against your enemies? I havent seen this in the game ..

All I have seen is the usual, if you are attacked or attack an enemy force whilst in proximity to an allied force they will enter the battle on your side IF they are already at war with that faction.

Also, contingencies such as faction size, wealth, military strength have effect on their commitment to supporting allies? e.g. seeking alliances with larger factions is preferable, but likely to be expensive or unattainable if they are expansionistic or you have poor international reputation ..

I presume there are issues such as loosing piety if you fail to support a Catholic ally against an excommunicated or denominational faction?

Most of all though, I just wanted to see more active military aid from allies.
Is it in there currently? Perhaps I just haven't triggered it?

[GrandViZ]

Basically it is in, but your ally will only help you, if your relations are good enough and if your ally has the military means to help.

[Snakesword]

So if you tell them to attack a faction in negotiations then they will do it if they have the military power and good relations with you. Any other factors that affect?

[GrandViZ]

Don't ask factions, that already are involved in a war with more than one faction.

Note, that this will change with the next update.

[gubbs]

Alliances would be better served in game terms if you had to choose to actively support your allies or not. Like the good old space 4x games: Don't make alliances/promises you can't keep as it makes your rep suffer massively etc etc.

Allies need to come to your aid or break their alliance with you. Simple as.

Otherwise, what is the point?

I would also like to see allies requesting miltary support against other factions as you mentioned above, far more often. Likewise, there is no reason why an ally can't cry off supporting you or ask for payments to cover the cost of deploying their forces etc.

Good relations with an ally should almost never lead to a backstab. Historically, nations with common culture or mixed royal lineages etc rarely (as in full on - again in game terms a skirmish, a battle sack a city and call it time, negotiate a peace etc. IN TW its always a struggle to the end. Dull.) went to war. Hannibal after Cannae didn't march on Rome because he sincerely believed the Romans would concede defeat and negotiate peace. D'oh. But it was the way war was waged - it was too expensive to flog people into annihilation. In the middle ages, intercene wars spring up when dynastic changes occured - in game terms this would be cool. A new monarch with low influence, or bad boy traits or an ambitious regent should have profound effects on diplomatic situations. Gold, assasination or war being the only options .. What about factions offering tribute/bribes to break alliances and side with them in a conflict etc? There is huge room for expansion of the diplomatic aspect of the game I think 90% of TW players are bursting to see.

As it is, you can basically expect nothing from an ally except inevitable backstab. Makes it pointless and boring as a game feature, which begs the question: If we are all into making this more relatistic and immersive, why hasn't anyone done a proper complex rework of the diplomacy? Inclination or just technical barriers?

As I play this game more and more it becomes duller and more futile. There is nothing to it but endless conquest through conflict, even with loads new unit types etc its still the same. Played it with one faction, played it with them all. Diplomacy is the depth that keeps you coming back time and again and its just never been finished in theTW series. I read a press release from CA recently, paraphrasing a bit but it basically went: 'We know what fans of the TW series want, and its more war! More units, bigger battles, better special effects.. ' Well, frankly, its not. As evidenced by all the mods that aim to make what is effectively a RTS battle game into something more compelling long-term. Yet they never seem to acknowledge this is what people want - presumably it isn't? Who knows.

[Darviathar]

Alliances would be better served in game terms if you had to choose to actively support your allies or not. Like the good old space 4x games: Don't make alliances/promises you can't keep as it makes your rep suffer massively etc etc.

Allies need to come to your aid or break their alliance with you. Simple as.

Otherwise, what is the point?

I would also like to see allies requesting miltary support against other factions as you mentioned above, far more often. Likewise, there is no reason why an ally can't cry off supporting you or ask for payments to cover the cost of deploying their forces etc.

Good relations with an ally should almost never lead to a backstab. Historically, nations with common culture or mixed royal lineages etc rarely (as in full on - again in game terms a skirmish, a battle sack a city and call it time, negotiate a peace etc. IN TW its always a struggle to the end. Dull.) went to war. Hannibal after Cannae didn't march on Rome because he sincerely believed the Romans would concede defeat and negotiate peace. D'oh. But it was the way war was waged - it was too expensive to flog people into annihilation. In the middle ages, intercene wars spring up when dynastic changes occured - in game terms this would be cool. A new monarch with low influence, or bad boy traits or an ambitious regent should have profound effects on diplomatic situations. Gold, assasination or war being the only options .. What about factions offering tribute/bribes to break alliances and side with them in a conflict etc? There is huge room for expansion of the diplomatic aspect of the game I think 90% of TW players are bursting to see.

As it is, you can basically expect nothing from an ally except inevitable backstab. Makes it pointless and boring as a game feature, which begs the question: If we are all into making this more relatistic and immersive, why hasn't anyone done a proper complex rework of the diplomacy? Inclination or just technical barriers?

As I play this game more and more it becomes duller and more futile. There is nothing to it but endless conquest through conflict, even with loads new unit types etc its still the same. Played it with one faction, played it with them all. Diplomacy is the depth that keeps you coming back time and again and its just never been finished in theTW series. I read a press release from CA recently, paraphrasing a bit but it basically went: 'We know what fans of the TW series want, and its more war! More units, bigger battles, better special effects.. ' Well, frankly, its not. As evidenced by all the mods that aim to make what is effectively a RTS battle game into something more compelling long-term. Yet they never seem to acknowledge this is what people want - presumably it isn't? Who knows.

You're exactly right; its ANYTHING but more war. I have no problem with the graphics or special effects in this game. I want more realism. I want to know why my brand new computer can NEVER handle reinforcements, regardless of what level I play at. The problems with this series are really NOT on the battlefield. They are in the campaign map arena. The AI is terrible, and can rarely ever mount a serious challenge, even on very hard level. I get tired of having to play almost literally to lose, in order to keep the computer in the game and keep things interesting. How hard can it be to code things like "stop building armies using town militia by turn 75, because they are worthless"? How hard can it be to code the mongols to be at TOTAL WAR with everyone at all times, and attack at every opportunity? Things simply don't work like they should in this game.

[gubbs]

By chance I installed MT2w again tonight and for the first time took a few moments to vote on some of the polls they have wired into their feedback server ...

Oddly one of the polls was: Do you want to see a better campaign game, or more variety of conflicts (again paraphrasing).

They also ask if anyone would be into a realtime campaign game. Interesting. So more of a Europa Universalis affair with 3d battles? SIGN ME UP!

I think everyone at C.A. knows the campaign game is just window dressing to the battle engine. Which is fair enough, they don't pretend its an amazing 4x title.

I once suggested to a mate he try RTW with the Europe Barbarorum mod but he said (being a long term 4x gamer) 'I don't play that shallow stuff, its boring by turn 5 - as soon as you know the AI isn't implemented'. He was also quick to point out that the lack of a proper mod toolkit and the fact so much is hard coded and unalterable/moddable put him off trying to do things for himself. I recently bought Oblivion out of the bargain bin and after messing with Oscura's Overhaul and discovering OBSE (Oblivion Script Extension) and the Construction Kit released by Bethesda direct which basically makes almost anything possible, even complex arrays, I figured games need to be more modular and moddable to hold appeal. With the development cycles and rush to market and inevitable short shelf life of a title, extensibility is key to long term franchise health. The here today gone to the XBox360 sort of stuff is a neccessary evil alas. The TW concept needs to create more user incorporating titles and specifically, to re-iterate, extensible if its not just going to become another 'played one, played them all' kind of thing.

Meh.

For me personally its the diplomacy, the other bugs and issues I can live with, but the lack of a diplomatic AI that adds REAL depth to the campaign game e.g. not every player wants to conquer the known world, fight on 10 fronts etc. its getting limited play time. Europe Barbarorum has be hooked ..

Anyway, yeah, to be fair its an RTS not a 4x. And they don't pretend otherwise. I just hope they release a game with more depth and appeal and less whizz bang bollocks nobody but kids with rich daddies can enjoy anyway or at least make it more modular and accesible/extendible for the scripters.

Myabe I's gettin old init.

[muffinhead]

i could not agree more with what is being discussed. While i am still a noob (to some extent) to DLV and the game in general, i completely agree that the lack of fun, dynamic gameplay lies in the diplomacy and the campaign AI in general. If you look at reviews online, everything like graphics, gameplay, etc. are 9 and up. Then when you get down to AI, its like 7 or under (7 is the highest ive ever seen). Personally, i think the battles are amazing. Tweaking how the AI fights on very hard so that they can beat me when i have 2 town militia units and 2 peasant archer units in a palisaded city against 800+ units, would be nice but it is still a blast. You are right, CA should not worry about special effects and graphics, it is great, unbelievable to say the least. However, in CA defense, i disagree with coding the AI to act accordingly to be an easy task. I think that it is rather difficult to react to the players every move, and stay in these "lasting power blocks". But then again, that is coming from a person who only knows how to modify unit stats. I think that you should be able to request aid, and they should request aid much, much more often. So, overall, i 99% agree with you gubbs, i think that what you are saying is great, and should be focused on more than battle game play elements.

[gubbs]

http://www.europauniversalis3.com/in...id=6&Itemid=28

Jobs a good un.

Actually I hear they are making a new Crusader Kings edition ..

Can't wait.

[Darviathar]

http://www.europauniversalis3.com/in...id=6&Itemid=28

Jobs a good un.

Actually I hear they are making a new Crusader Kings edition ..

Can't wait.

I simply do not understand why they keep rehashing the Europa Universalis timeline. I wish they would start with a Roman-era game using the same basic engine, with emphasis on historical figures and events, and then work forward from there. Say 272 BC. One thing I liked most about that series was the ability to import Crusader Kings into EU 2. I'd like to see more companies use this feature. The idea of governing the Roman Empire basically from start to finish is very appealing to me. I tried an obscure game called Great Invasions, that covers 350-1066, but the engine and interface is so bad that I gave up on it after several attempts to play over the last few months. There is no "return to start menu" option once you start a game. To start over, you have to reload the entire program. That is simply inexcusable, and never have I been more baffled and frustrated with a game after nearly 30 years of gaming.

Above all though, games need to be HARDER. If the difficulty level reads "VERY HARD" you should not have to use house rules to gimp yourself on the hopes that the computer will somehow manage to make things interesting.

[estopa2006]

So far in the past 400 turns i (spain) has had a strong alliance with the italian factions but the english french etc wont ally with me even when i have a very_good standing with them, even if they are not at war with one of my alllies or vice versa. is there a limit of alliances in your mod? how do i remove it.. i need the english strength to take the egyptian states and paying for their military assistance doesnt work at all.

thanks..

[GrandViZ]

Getting an alliance is difficult, if you or the target faction (for the alliance) are at a stage of war. Try to make your alliances during peacetime or increase the amount of gold for your offer.

[estopa2006]

ok, thanks