Diplomacy Guide

[Wambat]

Version 1.2 now posted, due to enough new insights into the diplomatic system through game-play over the last few months to warrant an update. As always, I am anxious for input from other players to confirm or dispute any part of this guide. Thanks again to all you have assisted with this guide thus far.

[webba84]

Great stuff Wambat, will try to find some time soonish to read through it and provide feedback.

[Wambat]

version 1.2.1, release date 12/20/2016

-Minor grammatical/spelling/format corrections.

-Significant changes to map selling section.

[Wambat]

Updated to version 1.2.2. Minor changes to sections 5 & 6 to clarify language, and further elaborate on AI behavior. Removed the suggestion to threaten to attack if a faction does not accept protectorate status as I no longer feel this advice is supported by sufficient evidence.

[CountMRVHS]

Agreed with that last change - protectorate status seems to be mostly about cash offered and the military situation in the campaign, rather than diplomatic threats.

[Wambat]

Agreed with that last change - protectorate status seems to be mostly about cash offered and the military situation in the campaign, rather than diplomatic threats.

Yes. Unfortunately, I do not get nearly as much feedback as I should like on the subject of Diplomacy, so my findings largely have to progress based on my own, necessarily small, sample size of experience. The various video LPs have contributed some to the development of this guide, but most of the LPers do not devote much energy to diplomacy.

[athanaric]

in the alternative, as some factions do not have the option of map trading, you can propose that the AI faction pay a small amount (100 mirian would do) and leave the player's side of the proposal blank.

I should've consulted this guide earlier, as that part was news to me. Been wondering for ages how to wheedle money out of Hobbits, Elves, and Dwarves when playing Dale/RK/Rohan...

[Beorn]

Thank you for your commitment on this subject, Wambat; I would like to contribute a lot more, but a) I haven't played the mod for a while, and b) My playthroughs doesn't focus as much on diplomacy as other people's around here do and c) The majority of the guide's content is new to me

[webba84]

Just stumbled across this today Wambat, not sure if you've seen it or not?

[Wambat]

Just stumbled across this today Wambat, not sure if you've seen it or not?

I did come across that guide in my own research. Unfortunately, I could not use it, otherwise I would have referenced it. You will see from the date that this guide was made prior to the release of Barbarian Invasion, and BI did make a number of changes to how diplomacy works. For one thing, it seems clear to me now that religion plays a role in diplomacy, and that was introduced by BI.


That guide also makes some claims that are demonstrably false, i.e.: the alliance proposal has no monetary value in a trade. I have often "sold" alliances, which would not be possible if the AI attached no value to them, and I have had to pay to get alliances where I could not acquire them for free. If there are any proposals that the AI does not attach a monetary value to, I cannot think of them.


The claim is also made that the influence rank of an diplomat will effect how much money you can get from a proposal. This has not been my experience, and I would encourage anyone to try to show that it is so. This and other things may have been true in RTW (or may not), but seem definitely discredited in RTW: BI.


Some of the details on what proposals mean would still be relevant but such things are sufficiently self evident that I see no need to reference this guide for them. Most of the rest of the guide is very specific to the original RTW game.


Webba, did you ever play the game "Journey: The Quest Begins"?

[athanaric]

That guide also makes some claims that are demonstrably false, i.e.: the alliance proposal has no monetary value in a trade. I have often "sold" alliances, which would not be possible if the AI attached no value to them, and I have had to pay to get alliances where I could not acquire them for free. If there are any proposals that the AI does not attach a monetary value to, I cannot think of them.

You're right, it solely depends on how hard the AI faction wants an alliance. For example, when they approach you with the alliance proposal, it's usually safe to ask for money in return (just don't be extreme...).

[webba84]

Webba, did you ever play the game "Journey: The Quest Begins"?

I can't say I have, seems to have been just a few years before my time. Looks like a good game though!

[Wambat]

It has a character named Webba. I have been privately pondering the origins of your moniker for some time now, and thought I might have cracked it.


I remember that game fondly, having spent many a long hour teasing out solutions to its riddles. It has somewhat of a bad rap for a heavy use of the "dead man walking" method, but I think it is a product of its time. Back then it could be considered an asset to increase play time by forcing a player to replay, sometimes from the very beginning, and I have not seen many games before or since that show the same commitment to good prose in story telling. I always wished someone would come up with the concluding chapters to that game.

[webba84]

Ah, destined for disappointment, I'm afraid; Webba comes from a personal experience, quite unrelated to pop culture. I'd give you details but it's almost certainly less interesting than whatever you imagine .

[CountMRVHS]

One aspect of diplomacy that I'd particularly like to crack is the question of how the AI factions choose their allies when forced to decide between them.

For example, you are faction A. You are allied with faction B, and B is allied with C. You go to war with C. Which ally does B choose to keep?

Below are some possible factors involved in the AI's decision-making:

-Aggressor (this is what some of us have been assuming for some time; the AI chooses the attacker when forced to choose an ally)
-Culture/alignment (perhaps the AI favors factions of its own culture/alignment when forced to choose...)
-Military strength (Rhun is a much bigger faction than I am at this point)
-Some other measure of faction strength (perhaps the AI simply evaluates the "Overall" graph in-game)
-Irrational hatred of the human player (we can't rule this out)

To this list, we might add the following:

-Relations between factions (perhaps the AI faction chooses the ally that has been the better friend, i.e. has better relations)


I'll keep an eye on how AI factions seem to make these decisions in my campaigns. When an AI faction is forced to choose between allies, I'll try to make a note of the following (anyone else can feel free to do the same!) :

-which faction was the aggressor
-what cultures/alignments are involved
-military ranking and "overall" ranking of involved factions
-local strength (i.e., whether the AI faction is being "intimidated" by the presence of strong armies nearby)
-allies and at-war enemies of all involved factions (i.e., whether "coalitions" play a role in choosing allies)

It's a lot to track, but it would be great to figure out the metric that the AI uses to pick its allies, and may give us some more insight into RTW diplomacy.

[Wambat]

It might be easiest to tease out information on the faction relations factor via a sub mod. Since you cannot keep track of the changes over time, set up a scenario where you are ready to test an alliance on the first turn. That way you will know pretty accurately the relations value the AI is considering, and you can set different values to test any sensitivity of the AI.

[CountMRVHS]

Ah, that's a good point. You're right: relations are, of course, invisible.

I could also test it by making early alliances, breaking them, and seeing what the AI chooses. That wouldn't cover every scenario, though.


Edit: This is perhaps a good place for a neat trick I learned from one of youtuber InfernoCanuck's let's plays.

He was trading with a faction that he didn't want to trade with anymore. (I can't remember the reasoning; it could be that he no longer shared borders with the faction and thus wasn't making any trade income with them, or that he was allied with a faction that was at war with his trade partner - InfernoCanuck believes that trade agreements can have diplomatic effects, both negative and positive. E.g., he believes that securing trade rights with a faction that you don't actually *trade* with (because they're too far away) has a negative impact on relations, and that trading with an enemy of your ally can hurt relations with your ally.)

So, wanting to cancel trade rights, he opened up diplomacy with the faction and selected the "cancel trade rights" option. Now, you can make this a unilateral decision if you want - same as cancelling an alliance - but he also offered 5,000 in cash, which turned the deal into an actual *proposal* that the AI could, in theory, reject. The AI "accepted" his offer/demand, giving one of the angrily-worded responses, but his thinking was that this was less damaging to relations than just cancelling trade without giving the AI any options.

Of course, there's no way to determine exactly how this impacted relations with the faction(s) in question. But I didn't even know this method was a possibility. This might be a way to cancel an alliance that has outlived its usefulness without taking such a diplomatic hit...

[Wambat]

I remain incredulous concerning InfernoCanuck's views on this matter. I just cannot imagine how he convinced himself of this position. Has anyone here been able to produce supporting evidence for that theory?


I just found this while searching for information on the subject:


http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/archiv...p/t-39677.html


I was not aware of the factor of influence in making bribes possible or not. This is something that should be in the guide, but I want to test it before I do so since this predates BI. If anyone else wants to take the initiative to test and post your results I would be much obliged, but I will do so when I get the chance.


I also found this: https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/9315...l-war/49525256

FatmanComplex 7 years ago#9
Well, to maintain good relations, surprisingly you have to use diplomacy. Before simply invading a nation, because you really want their lands as your own, send a diplomat and off something you know they won't accept for the lands, but still somewhat decent. Then, next turn, offer them again, only this time, add in accept or we will attack.


Next turn, declare war. Next turn, attack. You've let them know you wanted war, gave them time to defend themselves, and your relations didn't drop like a stone, as long as they weren't major trading partners with anyone. If so, as long as you're a trading partner, and not blockading ports, you'll notice that other nations don't mind so much.


Expanding rapidly also accounts for nations distrust of you. Occasionally send them small gifts, take your time, attack slowly, and methodically, plan campaigns and give them plenty of time to develop. Inform your enemies an attack will becoming, give them a little time to prepare, and attack them with prior declaration of war, and your relations with other nations, and chances of GETTING a ceasefire will actually increase.

This statement is in regard to Medieval 2, which is supposed to be modeled after the RTW diplomacy engine. Does anyone here have any experience which might support that this would be the case for Rome: BI as well?

[CountMRVHS]

My experience *somewhat* supports that quote.

I'm currently playing the RK, and I'm finding that I need to be the aggressor in my wars with Adunabar and Harad, because they are so content to remain at peace after our ceasefires (even when I charge them 10k for the privilege).

This behavior is expected from Harad since we don't share borders, but I have been surprised at Adunabar's passivity. They are at war with *nobody* other than rebels, and I haven't taken that much territory from them. In our first war, I only took Minas Ithil and Calenhad. In our second war (which I started), I took Fornost. I was hoping they'd start our third war, but instead they proposed an alliance and map info When I countered with demands for cash and forts, they were happy to oblige if I allied with them. I ended up adding a threat of "accept or we will attack" in there, just to ensure they would stop trying to be my buddy. Sure enough, they said my threats weren't worrisome, and in our current war I have taken Cair Andros and am besieging Cirith Duath.

I've been playing a "nice guy" diplomatic game in all other aspects. I have not been asking for money from anyone (apart from ceasefire deals), and have been supporting my allies Rohan and Harondor with gifts of cash each turn. I have ceasefired with everyone who has asked (this is the only area I've been somewhat aggressive, asking for cash).

I've used the downtime this has created to develop my own territories. So it's been an unusually peaceful early game for the RK. It seems as though expanding slowly, getting ceasefires, etc, seems to account for that.

I'm not sure what that poster means by "declaring war", though. In the second quoted paragraph: "Next turn, declare war. Next turn, attack." Surely there's no way to "declare" war apart from threatening an attack (which he has just mentioned) and then attacking?


Regarding InfernoCanuck's trade rights theories, no, I don't have any evidence to support the idea that relations worsen if you have trade rights with a faction you can't physically trade with. It would be difficult to prove one way or another, given RTW's lack of transparency regarding faction relations.

There *is* a bit of (Medieval 2) evidence that might indicate trade rights do have an impact on overall relations, however. Apparently in M2, relations decrease slightly with your ally if you are trading with your ally's enemy. I haven't proven this personally, but other folks have claimed to notice the effect. So it seems that - in M2 - trade rights are seen as a positive thing (as they are in RTW, given how the AI is always eager to secure them), and further, that the AI in that game might track your interactions with other factions and "notice" if you are "aiding" its foes by trade. Of course, not sure if this applies to RTW.

[Wambat]

I was forced to assume that MW2 had a diplomatic mechanic for declaring war without having to physically attack, as no subsequent posts called him out on that detail; I have never played the game.


I think the effect of trade on diplomacy is pretty well documented in MW2, and I don't doubt it is so in that game. Politics, especially religious politics, affecting trade was an historical theme of Medieval Europe; I do not recall it being so in ancient Europe/Mediterranean. For this reason I can see CA, or whoever was at the helm at that time, introducing that factor for the MW2 game engine.