A comprehensive guide to Medieval 2 Total War Diplomacy

[Chicherin]

People speak of gifting the ally that you will offer assistance. I don't know what they mean.

In my current campaign I've assisted the Byzantine Empire twice already. I don't know if the AI and my rep were given due consideration for it though. I must say I continue to be unaware as to how the AI thinks in the game. I think it's completely random.

For instance, the HRE attacked me first. As a consequence, I conquered some of its regions, and reduced it to about 5 provinces (mostly castles - Bern, Innsbruck, Metz, Bologna and Antwerp, if I remember correctly). Since I sacked some of the cities I took - in fact, all of them - as they were Catholic and the populace had to be subdued (I'm Orthodox - Russia), my rep suffered. However, his didn't for attacking me? When I was a faction that had trade agreements with him?

Now his rep is Reliable and mine is Dubious. WTF?

I helped the Byzantines, as I was saying earlier, by killing off the Turk general and his Jihad forces that had come to conquer Constantinople, and that for some reason my ally the Byzantine, even though he has quite a few full stacks dancing around Nicaea, didn't use one of them to defend himself. So I simply moved my forces in, a 3/4 full stack from Sofia (my border with him) to Constantinople, by boat, and helped him out. But I don't have military access from him. I read somewhere here offering military access, map information and money is good to improve relations, so I do that. I offered military access to the Byz, but he hasn't given me it. This means my relations with him deteriorated when my troops went over his soil, and I had to give him a nice cash bonus to improve relations again (say, 4000 florins or something?) Suffice it to say I took most of the casualties and was the reason the battle was won (against the Turk, mind you).

Now I am at war with the Turk even though I wasn't before that.

Next the Moor came (still with Jihad forces) even though he was in a neutral state with the Byzantines (the sly dog), with a jihad army inside a ship. I crushed the ship and so the fleet melted into the seas. Result: went to war with the Moor even though I was at peace with him before.

At least the Moor came with a diplomat and asked for peace. There I breathed a sigh of relief. If only other factions were considerate like you, Moor. The Turk, on the other hand, has come with a small force to invade Sarkel from me. Not gonna happen.

Try hard as I may to make a ceasefire with the Germans, they won't bulge. I've offered 50000 florins (just to test, obviously I wouldn't give the dogs most of my gold) and they refused!

I made an alliance with the Spaniards that cost me 15000 florins. However, soon they became "Very Untrustworthy" because they attacked Portugal or the Moors who I think one of them was their ally. But I didn't break my alliance with them, since I read somewhere having an alliance increases rep. So I want to keep my current 3 allies. But being in good relations with a faction that has bad rep is bad for your rep?

The Byzantines and the Milanese came to ask for an alliance, I didn't have to do anything for it. The only reason I haven't finished the Germans off is I want to have a safety border between my lands and teh Milanese. This border constitutes of 1 German lands between me and Milan. According to your guide OP, if I maintain "Perfect" relations with Milan, squash the Germans, and have a direct border with them, they won't bother me? Unlikely I say.

Regarding relations in general, I care about them now and am working to make my reputation better too since I found out information about it (I hadn't before I began current campaign, so had already sacked quite a few things and my reputation was already Dubious). However, they're a pain in the ass.

For example, I invaded Nottingham and London from the English. Previously, I had trade rights with them. I cancelled them with my diplomat beforehand (was that stupid? my reputation decreased as soon as I cancelled trade rights, maybe if I hadn't and had just attacked, my rep wouldn't have taken a hit?) The pope called a Crusade to Jerusalem and the english loaded up a ship full of crusade troops and sent them over to Oslo (not really in the direction of the Holy Land, you might think! Exactly - he wanted to invade my northern domains). So I cancelled his ship with one of my fleets. Now my relations deteriorated with two of my allies - Spain and Milan - to Terrible! When I had Outstanding or something (Very Good maybe) relations with both before. Why? Just because I stopped a "crusading force"? It was headed for my turf! The sly dogs.

As you can see, the diplomacy AI is anarchic, to say the least. I just don't think it's as clear-cut as this guide leads one to believe. I have to constantly dish out dough to maintain relations at a good level, as they are continually deteriorating. As I said, playing Rus in teh VH/VH Vanilla Original Medieval II TW (not Kingdoms).

[Emperor Napolean Bonaparte IX]

nice

[Godart]

I know what you mean Chicherin! I also find it not easy to maintain relations and reputation on a good level, even doing everything I know to rais it. My best is ‘Very reliable’.
Even when you read all the guides about this issue...
Not saying the writers haven’t don there best to explain, I’m actually very pleased to have these guides (otherwise I would know very little about MTW). But it stays confusing...
Things like: You wonna help your ally, he goes to war with a faction you have good relations with and have a trade agreement. Is it best to just attack this faction, or send in a diplomat to end trade and then go to war? And how can you declair war? I though you can’t do this with a diplomat. Questions...

On the other hand, you did wrong by attacking this crusader army before they actually attacked you, now you are the aggressor...and about sacking cities...

[Thomas271104]

I don't think some things in your guide are correct.
First of all, making everyone your ally is always a good thing. I did not help any of my allies when they were attacked, yet my reputation is thrustworthy. The same is also true for trade agreements, I made them with everyone, even with enemies of my allies, my reputation only got better.
So my conclusion is that the amount of alliances you have, and the time they last, increases your reputation. (Not the fact that you help them in war)

As England i wanted to attack my ally milan, my reputation was thurstworthy, theirs was mixed, but they were just excommunicated. When I just attacked them my rep fell to Mixed. But when i first sent a diplomat to give up the alliance and the trade rights, my rep just fell to reliable, that's still good eh ?

[DMyles]

Very good work. Learned a quite a few new things by reading your guide.

I would add one of the most important tools in diplomacy which is the "marry princess to faction heir option." Playing as England I marry Rufas to Constince, the french princess, and then Cecila,the english princess, to the Scottish faction heir. This gives a solid foundation for a long term alliance with the French and the Scotts.

[SirRobin]

This sounds like good advice, but I wonder if diplomacy in the game really works the way you described, or if it's wishful thinking on your part. I've seen the AI do so many meaningless things that I wonder if your theories are the result of our common human instinct to find patterns in chaos and interpret connections where really there are none?

I will definitely try out your theories in my next campaign, and I added of course a well deserved point to your reputation here on the boards. Hoping to read more guides and strategies from you.

[Incomitatus]

The rational functioning of the diplomacy AI is easier to see in the smaller Kingdoms campaigns. Play the Crusades, and you can test the OPs assumptions to your heart's content and find them sound.

What I would add is that the AI counts allies for some unknown (to me at least) value when assessing military strength on the diplomacy screen. I've gone from 'weak' to 'strong' with just signing an alliance. The AI also seems to use the strength metric in deciding responses to diplomatic offers, but I believe it does so relatively... so it assesses it's own strength rating, and your strength rating (both modified by alliances) and uses the difference to affect chance to accept. This is why weak powers with lots of allies will act, diplomatically, like superpowers or refuse to ceasefire or vassal.

[[Tar]Naru33]

While princesses usually appear in the regions their fathers serve as commanders, diplomats can be trained easier in cities than in castles. The castles eventually get the option to build a library later in the game and can then train diplomats there.

hmm, you should be specific about the faction you were talking about in those two sentences. Isn't it only poland that can recruit Diplomats from Libraries made in castles, or was it Holy Roman Empire?

[Ishan]

hmm, you should be specific about the faction you were talking about in those two sentences. Isn't it only poland that can recruit Diplomats from Libraries made in castles, or was it Holy Roman Empire?

In Libraries and Academy(higher level) we can train Diplomats and Spies.
They are available only to Denmark, Scotland, Hungary & Poland.

[[Tar]Naru33]

In Libraries and Academy(higher level) we can train Diplomats and Spies.
They are available only to Denmark, Scotland, Hungary & Poland.

Thanks for the clarification. I don't usually play those factions in late campaign since they don't have professional armies of gunpowder troops except Poland, which is Calvary heavy.

[Ishan]

Thanks for the clarification. I don't usually play those factions in late campaign since they don't have professional armies of gunpowder troops except Poland, which is Calvary heavy.

Your Welcome.

[Mercuri]

I have a question about diplomacy with forts. My question is: Is it better to use forts(Purely diplomatic) as border security? So if i load a fort full of chivalric knights will the AI think of it as less hostile than a army of chivalric knights

[newt]

2. TRADE RELATIONS

Be VERY AWARE however that trade treaties in themselves are a sign of friendship that automatically influence your relations with that faction as well as your relations with that faction's potential enemies or friends.

While trade is so beneficial for your yearly income it is also the easiest part of your empire to exploit by hostiles. In this respect, a very frequent mistake is to sign lots of trade treaties and have no navy. This is an invitation to what you may call backstabbers to paralyze your entire nation. So there you are thinking "What did I do to deserve these cunning attacks?" and there is the AI thinking "I am going to try to expand and take this guy over instead of upsetting my other neighbors." which is actually the best thing for him to do in the given circumstances.

Sign trade relations with nations that you are likely not to be in conflict with for as long as you can imagine. Also understand that signing trade relations will mean your relations with that faction will start fluctuating now based on both the diplomatic decisions your countries make with others. If you want to keep the money coming in home, make sure you have a diplomat in your most important trade partners factions for quick negotiations. Your diplomats are literally your diplomatic arms. The more they are the farther and faster you reach. Don't sign trade treaties with your friends enemies. This will negatively influence your reputation, and as we will short see your reputation is the core of your diplomatic abilities. Be careful however, as stated previously reputation increases very hard and decreases very easy. You want to keep doing the right thing if you want to be taken seriously. Avoid trading with warmongers or countries with very low reputation. If you want to get this to work you need to accept the hard facts. The increase in reputation will greatly counter the decrease in money. A good strategy to start with is to become trade partners with future allies and nations you do not intend to attack or intervene militarily in under any circumstances. Keep a navy proportional to your trading capability at least in the beginning, when factions tend to act unpredictable.

This is incorrect. Trade only has a minor positive effect on the target faction, it has no effect on anyone else. At all.

[Incomitatus]

This is incorrect. Trade only has a minor positive effect on the target faction, it has no effect on anyone else. At all.

Would you care to provide evidence of that? I have seen my relations decline with my allies immediately upon my signing a trade rights agreement with someone they are at war with. Not much, but enough to drop from Perfect to Very Good, for example. Likewise, I have seen relations improve with an ally when cancelling a trade rights agreement with someone they are at war with. These changes are immediate and do not require an end of turn. I have found it difficult to maintain consistently better than Very Good relations with an ally while maintaining trade rights with an enemy of theirs unless I regularly gift my ally gold. This is even on normal difficulty without the relations penalty adjustments that happen at higher difficulties.

These are things I have observed. You'll forgive me if I don't accept a mere assertion to the contrary.

[newt]

Look in descr_faction_standing.txt. Find me anything that points to bad relations because of trade agreements.

Edit: I've asked for trade rights from my ally's enemy, and lost no standing with my ally.

[Ishan]

Look in descr_faction_standing.txt. Find me anything that points to bad relations because of trade agreements.

Edit: I've asked for trade rights from my ally's enemy, and lost no standing with my ally.

I vouch for this sentence i wasted 10 minutes on it not a few days ago and my conclusion was this.

[YD23]

Moved to Strategies, Guides, Battle Planning.

[Incomitatus]

Look in descr_faction_standing.txt. Find me anything that points to bad relations because of trade agreements.

Edit: I've asked for trade rights from my ally's enemy, and lost no standing with my ally.

Alright, I've looked in the DFS.txt for Kingdoms: The Crusades, as that is what I'm currently playing and where I've most often observed what I've observed. I can not find something specific to trade agreements, which makes me open to the idea that you might be right.

HOWEVER: I still need an explanation for what I see every time I play at KoJ on Crusades. Starting with a solid alliance with Antioch, and only having five starting factions in the game, I pay attention to relations. I tend to give a lot of financial aid to the Turks, since they are underpowered. I even go so far as to purchase territory from Antioch or Byzantium to give to the Turks if they start suffering too badly. I play with a very lean military and strong economy so I can afford to do this.

What I have noticed is that signing trade agreements with the Turks, giving the Turks gold, giving or selling territories to the Turks, or gifting the Turks attacks on rebels all cause my relations with Antioch (and with the Byzantines after I ally with them) to drop. Not much, but enough to make it difficult to keep my relations above Very Good and if I don't keep an eye on it, they can even drop to amiable for Antioch and so-so for the Byzantines.

I never execute prisoners, I never exterminate populations. I rarely sack, usually occupy, and quite frequently release prisoners. In short, I play a chivalrous game and aim for a Trustworthy reputation (I'll let it drop to Very Reliable in a pinch).

In other words, when I act against the interests of my alliances by materially aiding my allies' enemy, my relations with my allies suffer (as they should). Looking through the file, then, I started looking for a catch-all entry. There are entries for not rendering military aid after agreeing to. There are entries for cancelling alliances. There are entries for assassinations, border transgressions, getting caught spying, etc. etc. etc... and then there's this:

Trigger 0059_T_Dishonour
WhenToTest Transgression

Condition TransgressionName = TC_DISHONOUR

FactionStanding target_faction normalise -1.0 10
FactionStanding target_allies normalise -1.0 40

Other Condition TransgressionNames are pretty self-explanatory (and here's an old thread about them). This one is not. If my suspicion is wrong, and you know what this trigger does, please enlighten me. I'm wondering if this trigger tracks actions that dishonour alliances - aiding an ally's enemy, in other words. The target faction for the transgression would be your allies who are at war with the country you are aiding.

Because it's a 'normalise' effect, it would only really be very noticeable at the upper end of relations, the effect would lesson as relations dropped, and therefore be easily missed and offset by:

Trigger 0105_Update_Trustworthy_Factions_Major
WhenToTest FactionTurnStart

Condition GlobalStanding > 0.4

FactionStanding exclude_factions { } normalise 1.0 50

Trigger 0106_Update_Trustworthy_Factions_Minor
WhenToTest FactionTurnStart

Condition GlobalStanding > 0.1

FactionStanding exclude_factions { } normalise 1.0 100

AND BY:

Trigger 0083b_Update_Allies
WhenToTest FactionTurnStart

FactionStanding allies normalise 1.0 20

As well as a few other minor normalising adjustments.

I'm not saying this is the solution to the phenomena, but it fits the criteria. The effect would have to be a transgression trigger since it happens in-turn rather than at turn end or start and not through diplomacy directly with the affected faction. It would have to be a normalise type trigger since relations stabilise at the amiable - very good range. It would have to be a broad trigger since it seems to be caused by a class of actions rather than a specific action. The 'dishonour' trigger is ambiguous, and search as I might it seems to be unexplained, at least on TWC - this theory (which is probably unverifiable) would provide an explanation for the trigger as well as explaining how diplomacy seems to function according to my experience.

But it's just a theory, and I'm open to proof that the 'dishonour' trigger refers to something else.

[claudius2007]

Thank you all for your feedback.

I know I have just magically reappeared here after like forever, but I wouldn't want to go over the events in my life that caused an year's absence.

I am just glad that everyone enjoyed this thread and now, that I am back into MTW2 I will be sure to write new guides.

Cheers to all and thank you,

claudius2007

[FootSoldier]

I just found this, and it fits with my campaign experiences and hunches - and with M1TW. Thank you so much Claudius2007. You've given me much food for thought.

Anecdotes don't prove anything, but here's a couple that fit. (Kingdoms Gold vanilla vhd/vhd).

On trade rights - I've twice had alliances cancelled following the signing of trade rights with the enemies of allies. Once as England I was allied to Portugal from the start of the game. England was all powerful, while Portugal pursued its muddy quest for Toledo. England took Zaragozo, and in the turn sequence a Spanish diplomat asked for trade rights. England agreed. In my turn, the English diplomat went to give Portugal its 200 annual sweetener and Portugal cancelled the alliance on the spot. "We will not find glory with you", they said.

The same happened with the Byzantines. I was Venice (yes yes, Byz and Venice can get along - I went west and he went east). I agreed trade rights with the Turks who were at war with the Byz - surprise surprise. My reputation dropped, and relations with the Byz changed from so so to poor. Oh well, I thought. Two turns later I asked for marriage from a pretty Byz princess, having already a marriage alliance, and got the "have decided we will not find glory with you" speech. Alliance in tatters. Oh, and she turned me down :d.

The AI has an opinion, too. In my last Turkish campaign I was allied to the Venetians, who had been reduced to Iraklion by the Milanese, who were the most powerful faction. (Milan had eliminated France and the HRE, and had most of Denmark, Poland, and the Byzantines, and were then chewing up the Hungarians. Biggest AI empire I've seen - they had something like 40 territories.) Turkey had just taken Constantinople from the Hungarians and was in a hot war with them. With the Mongols at Antioch, the Russians and Hungarians alternating in attacking Turkish Kiev,and war with the Egyptians the last thing Turkey wanted was a new war with Milan.

So, a Turkish fleet came down the Adriatic to see a Milanese ship blockading Iraklion. Turkey pretended they didn't see, and withdrew. In the turn sequence a storm in the Adriatic wiped out half of the crew of the Turkish fleet, and Turkey's reputation dropped from Reliable to Mixed. I learned a lesson! (The alliance held though, but with no ships and I think no diplomats left on the mainland how could the Venetians cancel?)

My impression is that CA didn't release everything in the visible files. I think there are lots of hidden triggers for all sorts things going on "under the hood". The files contain what CA are allowing us to mod, they are not the complete story. That goes for the traits, too.

Claudius2007, please start a blog on diplomacy. I want more!