House rules forced peace

[Quintillius]

We all know that Rome I - Total War's diplomacy feature is crap. Even Roma Surrectum can't change it, only add forced diplomacy.

Enemies will never sign a peace treaty, only when they have one province left or so.
But using forced peace requires a sort of discipline. Using it too early ends in an easy campaign. Using it too late and you'll fight numerous enemies.

What are your house rules when you use forced peace? For example:

25% of cities taken = demand 10,000 denarii (is this ever possible since I always get the message: "... can't make such deal")
50% of cities taken = demand 20,000 denarii
75% of cities taken = demand 30,000 denarii

1 city lost = offer 10,000 denarii
2 cities lost = offer 20,000 denarii

Let me know what you think.

[dvk901]

TBH, the diplomacy in RTW is so bad that I seldom pay much attention to it.....I just dismiss the notifications most of the time. So I don't use any diplomacy that doesn't come with a sword, spear or shield attached to it!

[Quintillius]

Ha! I got the following request:

Please! Don't attack us.

-- Accept or we will attack!



But how do you make peace then? If you don't, you'll face numerous enemies. Every faction you border will attack you in time.

[Agrippa19]

I don't tend to have a set of rules for forced diplomacy, but i always hammer them hard one last time before offering it. It seems to be the only way to stop needless aggression by the AI.

As the Romans I now have Italy, Illyria, Greece and N Africa. The Boii are always good neighbours early on so I keep the peace with them by buying their cities when I have the funds.

With Carthage I let them fight on with Gallaeci (they seem to have a much more even contest in my first and only RS3 campaign) before invading around 590AUC. I attacked with 4 full stacks and hired a tonne of mercenaies along the way (1turn) so I had a pretty intimidating force and by the time I took Siga I force diplomacied it and kept the terms as just trade rights and map info either way so as not to hinder their war with Gallaeci (despite taking their entire homeland) and I'll come back with a spanish conquest later once I've set up some Anatolian colonies. 20-25 turns after force diplomacy and they show no signs of aggression towards me now.

The Dacians (who also seem to be harassing you as stated in your other thread) are not threatening the Illyrian strip but are hitting Pella and Thessalonike hard in Macedon. I have 2 stacks guarding the river passes North of these cities, one guarding the road to Dacian occupied Philippi and another stationed in a fort between my two holdings but this military presence is not deterring the Dacians one bit. They bring 3 stacks every turn threatening and actually attack at least every 2nd turn. Losing battles doesn't turn them off so I recalled Tiberius Africanus with his 10 star military command from Carthage and sent him with a maxed out legion and a supporting general and legion into the Dacian homeland, Serdica and Sarmiz*#* raised them both to the ground, slaughtered everyone and autoresolved 2 or 3 battles which my man one easily emerged victorius with his star rating and returned home. Dacia reoccupied these citiees and I force diplomacied it (simple trade rights, map info) and they haven't attacked now or even threatened in 10 turns. RELIEF.

Gaul in the North were pesky raiders of Massalia, I burned down Gergovia and killed everybody. It rebelled and now resembles a Roman/Gallic influenced city state but force diplomacy with the Gauls after showing them an iron fist, means over 50 turns of peace with them despite them holding Lugdonun just north of Massalia.

And finally the Belgae are the Celtic Northern Masters of my campaign, holding all of Northern Gaul, Brittania, slowly overcoming the Cimbri and they hold the cities just North of the Alps where they trespass every so often. I have tried force diplomacy after annilihating their ill-mannerly hordes but they disregard the peace and show no respect for my terms. I've decided that all out war suits Rome better than this shaky and unreliable peace and am preparing a demolition force to tear their southern holdings apart and retreat again before offering them any more peace.

It just seems to me that a firm hammerblow followed by complete destruction and genocide is the only way force diplomacy ceasefires are maintained. Just the way of the world.

[~Seleukos.I.Nikator~]

For me that's always quite simple... I do not force AI to accept any deal that I wouldn't myself accept if I were in his shoes.

[Quintillius]

But don't forget the Art of War. Show yourself if you're weak and let the other think you're weak when you're at full strength.

@Agrippa
Nice campaign! Really good to see those Dacians defeated. How many stacks did you bring yourself?
And how much silver do you offer in return for a city?

[Agrippa19]

In the Carthaginian conquest I ended up commanding 7 stacks between polybian legions and mercenaries with some real titan Commanders, 10 star Tiberius Africanus emerging with a Triumph through Rome and 2 others gained 5 stars+ in battles fending off counter stacks before becoming client state rulers. I've recalled 2 of the remaining 3 Polybian legions and am still deciding whether to send them East or West. Marian reforms are here though so I may integrate them into the new marian legions.

Gaul was just a one stack strike and retreat.

Dacia was a two stack strike and retreat (on top of countless defensive battles).

I only bring a large number of stacks for conquest, but often I find a one stack strike in a poorly defended but prosperous city before retreating is enough to offer force diplomacy and keep that peace for a while.

For the Boii I gave 30,000 each for Bononia and Patavium. They seemed more than happy to accept and by 610 AUC they still hold 5/6 settlements and are doing a good job holding off the Belgae to West, Cimbri to the North and Dacia to the East and have never attacked me in 74 odd game years of the campaign.

[Grimbold]

But don't forget the Art of War. Show yourself if you're weak and let the other think you're weak when you're at full strength.

@Agrippa
Nice campaign! Really good to see those Dacians defeated. How many stacks did you bring yourself?
And how much silver do you offer in return for a city?

I don't think that actually works in RTW, as the AI's behaviour is sort of influenced by how many stacks you have out, unless itself has more than you do.

[Quintillius]

Very good. How much gold do you pay when buying a city?

[dvk901]

I don't think that actually works in RTW, as the AI's behaviour is sort of influenced by how many stacks you have out, unless itself has more than you do.

Actually, the AI is somewhat limited as far as what it can 'see'. It's hard to say 'definitively' what and how far their vision is, but years of testing by others and by myself have shown that the AI's vision is 'flat'...in otherwords, they are standing on the ground (not overseeing the map as the player does) and can see up to either a hardcoded distance, or up to a point where their vision is obstructed by mountains and forests. This was one reason that map makers had to be careful how the map was constructed terrain-wise, and movement points had to be adjusted to a setting that would prevent the AI from losing sight of its own armies...which would then get 'stuck'.

So, at a certain distance from a faction you border, you could have 20 stacks sitting there waiting and the AI wouldn't know it because it can't see them.

[Alavaria]

Actually, the AI is somewhat limited as far as what it can 'see'. It's hard to say 'definitively' what and how far their vision is, but years of testing by others and by myself have shown that the AI's vision is 'flat'...in otherwords, they are standing on the ground (not overseeing the map as the player does) and can see up to either a hardcoded distance, or up to a point where their vision is obstructed by mountains and forests. This was one reason that map makers had to be careful how the map was constructed terrain-wise, and movement points had to be adjusted to a setting that would prevent the AI from losing sight of its own armies...which would then get 'stuck'.

So, at a certain distance from a faction you border, you could have 20 stacks sitting there waiting and the AI wouldn't know it because it can't see them.

Actually, I think this AI is not unlike the one in Shogun (1) or Medieval (1) with the Risk-style map, it seems to mostly look at regions bordering it, but not past those. Because the sea is a single huge region (some mods might break it into two regions) this causes issues. Eg: Rome won't notice your people massing just across a narrow bit of water... Similarly it can tell if you have a big army on the other side of a single massive region (see: Sarmation regions I guess?) but tends not to respond if you're pretty close but with a small region in between. In fact, it will attack that in-between region as it sees an easy target.

It also sometimes get caught on a fort (probably due to "sight range") the same way your armies can be told to march somewhere and will just get stuck on an enemy stack VS if you can see it they will pathfind around if possible (or just won't be able to be given the order if stuck). As well as (most likely) AI movement going directly from point-to-point, it mostly looks at armies, forts and settlements (and standing next to settlements) as possible destinations.

[Grimbold]

Actually, the AI is somewhat limited as far as what it can 'see'. It's hard to say 'definitively' what and how far their vision is, but years of testing by others and by myself have shown that the AI's vision is 'flat'...in otherwords, they are standing on the ground (not overseeing the map as the player does) and can see up to either a hardcoded distance, or up to a point where their vision is obstructed by mountains and forests. This was one reason that map makers had to be careful how the map was constructed terrain-wise, and movement points had to be adjusted to a setting that would prevent the AI from losing sight of its own armies...which would then get 'stuck'.

So, at a certain distance from a faction you border, you could have 20 stacks sitting there waiting and the AI wouldn't know it because it can't see them.

I was refering more to when the player has stacks directly in the border with a faction that is trouble or basing such argument on things that people have observed/said over the years, like your border settlements being safer if you increase it's garrison or simply the fact that the A.I will think twice about invading certain regions that borders it if you have armies stationed in them.

Atleast one can be thankful for this A.I not being suicidal all the time. For example, im playing Pontus and with it there's a 99% chance that the player will have to deal with tSE, which i did early on, but now, later in the campaign, the Seleucids haven't bothered me one bit since it's being attacked by both the Ptolomies and Parthia.

[Alavaria]

So I don't use any diplomacy that doesn't come with a sword, spear or shield attached to it!

But how do you make peace then? If you don't, you'll face numerous enemies. Every faction you border will attack you in time.

Mostly what dvk said on the box, plus careful selection of when and where to take settlements. But this does not imply being slow; I still blitz the ones I do want to take.

That and the Roman troops are pretty expensive (and selection rather... sparse) in my view, relative to other factions. I don't just mean my favorite slingers, swordsmen options (and of course spearmen) of other factional rosters feel more appealing to me.

[dvk901]

I was refering more to when the player has stacks directly in the border with a faction that is trouble or basing such argument on things that people have observed/said over the years, like your border settlements being safer if you increase it's garrison or simply the fact that the A.I will think twice about invading certain regions that borders it if you have armies stationed in them.

Atleast one can be thankful for this A.I not being suicidal all the time. For example, im playing Pontus and with it there's a 99% chance that the player will have to deal with tSE, which i did early on, but now, later in the campaign, the Seleucids haven't bothered me one bit since it's being attacked by both the Ptolomies and Parthia.

Actually, the more I've observed and played RTW I have developed a lot of admiration for whomever coded the AI for this game. I know diplomacy sucks, but the battle and strat AI are far superior, in my view, than the new versions of TW.
This is largely based on things like the strat map 'mirroring' the battle map not only in placement, but even direction (east\west\north\south). I recently had a battle with a Gallic army that was standing very close to a settlement (one pixel to the west), and noted that my army was exactly where it should be in relation to the enemy, and I could see the settlement to the east. I really like that 'realism'...something missing in Rome2 and Attila.

Another admirable thing is that, if the movement points are based on a close approximation of the actual distance in miles\kilometers that an army could march in six months, adjusted according to the scale of the map, you have no problems with the AI 'losing' its armies in areas where that shouldn't happen.

And you are absolutely right about stationing a large force in a region that borders an enemy...in that sense, the AI 'mimics' a human, because even the player wouldn't attack a region that has 4-5 stacks in it when there's another region that only has one. That's why I say the diplomacy in RTW comes with a 'weapon' in hand.

[Grimbold]

Overall, if there's anything close to house rules that i apply is to go slower and let other factions develop into proper empires. Then again, the recent versions of RS have cut the work out for me, since it's apparent that the rythm of the campaign has slowed down, that is to say, one doesn't steamroll the AI as easily as one used to. That's in one turn anyway.