Accepted use of Force Diplomacy

**Total Roach** · July 16, 2009, 12:31 AM

I just wanted to check that my use of this wasn't cheating. IGCS now have no border within a few hundred miles of my Macedon Empire. I sent a diplomat to ask for a ceasefire but got the "we have nothing to offer in return" (or something like that speech) so I used force diplomacy as it just didn't make any sense for them not to accept, neither of us are likely to be doing any more pitched battles for a few decades.

**DimeBagHo** · July 16, 2009, 01:00 AM

Seems reasonable to me. The IGCS, Independent Gauls, and Eastern Kingdoms, are supposed to represent a bunch of different mini-factions, so I think it's reasonable to use force diplomacy to make peace with these factions once you have defeated the part that you were at war with. So, for example, if you defeat Epirus, there's no reason to remain at war with the Bosporan Kingdom, Massalia, Cyrenaica, and so on.

I also think there's nothing wrong with forcing peace with a faction when they are in no position to attack you anyway. Like when they send one ship to blockade a port, but have no hope of sending an army to actually threaten your territory.

**silentsam74** · July 16, 2009, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by DimeBagHo

Seems reasonable to me. The IGCS, Independent Gauls, and Eastern Kingdoms, are supposed to represent a bunch of different mini-factions, so I think it's reasonable to use force diplomacy to make peace with these factions once you have defeated the part that you were at war with. So, for example, if you defeat Epirus, there's no reason to remain at war with the Bosporan Kingdom, Massalia, Cyrenaica, and so on.

Since we're already on the subject, is there any thought to renaming some of those factions. Maybe its just me, but I dont like the parenthesis. I thought to tidy it up a bit, you could change Gauls (independent) into Independent Celtic Kingdoms. Since for the game purpose they are one faction but represent several different groups including the Celts of Brittania. The Greek Cities (independent) could be renamed to Independent Greek Kingdoms again basically describing it for what it is. Also the Roman (rebels) could be renamed for one of the groups that lived in that area of Italy.

This appears to have been the period when the Bruttian nation had reached its highest pitch of power and prosperity; it was not long before they had to contend with a more formidable adversary, and as early as 282 BCE we find them uniting their arms with those of the Lucanians and Samnites against the growing power of Rome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruttii

Bruttii works for me since they were among the first to turn rebel once more and join Hannibal.

**Sextus Molestus** · July 17, 2009, 03:49 PM

I agree with Dime since it was the Independent Greeks, but if it were a "real" faction, I would say this could be considered unacceptable (for me to do, but not for you, to each his own, I mean no offense.) After all, if a faction was somehow split in two like the Independent Greeks, after one side of the faction was taken by your faction, they wouldn't just throw down their weapons, saying, "Oh, you crazy kids, you got our brothers, but not us, let's hug and have some beer!" I don't know, I guess what I'm saying is that for a unified faction, hatred would run deep enough to persist even if your faction was far away, unless you did some conventional diplomacy to rectify your political relations.

**Total Roach** · July 17, 2009, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by Sextus Molestus

I agree with Dime since it was the Independent Greeks, but if it were a "real" faction, I would say this could be considered unacceptable (for me to do, but not for you, to each his own, I mean no offense.) After all, if a faction was somehow split in two like the Independent Greeks, after one side of the faction was taken by your faction, they wouldn't just throw down their weapons, saying, "Oh, you crazy kids, you got our brothers, but not us, let's hug and have some beer!" I don't know, I guess what I'm saying is that for a unified faction, hatred would run deep enough to persist even if your faction was far away, unless you did some conventional diplomacy to rectify your political relations.

Okay, I follow the logic. So say there was no actual armed conflict between the 2 factions for say a generation, maybe 10 years. During that time numerous diplomatic gifts had been made such as map info and Denari (nothing else is there?) Would that then been a consideration for a ceasefire or would you go further? So far I have only used the script the once as described in my 1st post and in the interests of keeping the game as real as possible (

) any more thoughts on how others view the rules of force diplomacy are welcome.

**Sextus Molestus** · July 17, 2009, 10:58 PM

I never really thought of the situation you just described, simply because I would assume (albeit possibly incorrectly) that diplomatic gifts would be made after or specifically for a ceasefire, rather than before one. I don't know, personally before trying to make amends with extravagant gifts I would at least make sure I would also get the ceasefire.

So in that situation, I would say, yes, force diplomacy is certainly accepted given that the gifts are adequate, but it would be my own personal strategy to give the gifts in exchange for the ceasefire, or even force diplomacy the ceasefire and in the following turns, if it is not immediately broken, give the gifts. This way you're not fueling their war machine before you even call the conflict off, lol.

I must say, as a side note, I admire your willpower, and in no way am "scolding" you or whatever for your usage of force diplomacy. I've used the script much more than once in my campaigns, and believe you are certainly entitled to your usage of it. Just saying this so I don't sound like I think poorly of it (or you, for that matter; I'm still awestruck by that GCS campaign you completed).

**Total Roach** · July 17, 2009, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by Sextus Molestus

I never really thought of the situation you just described, simply because I would assume (albeit possibly incorrectly) that diplomatic gifts would be made after or specifically for a ceasefire, rather than before one. I don't know, personally before trying to make amends with extravagant gifts I would at least make sure I would also get the ceasefire.

So in that situation, I would say, yes, force diplomacy is certainly accepted given that the gifts are adequate, but it would be my own personal strategy to give the gifts in exchange for the ceasefire, or even force diplomacy the ceasefire and in the following turns, if it is not immediately broken, give the gifts. This way you're not fueling their war machine before you even call the conflict off, lol.

I must say, as a side note, I admire your willpower, and in no way am "scolding" you or whatever for your usage of force diplomacy. I've used the script much more than once in my campaigns, and believe you are certainly entitled to your usage of it. Just saying this so I don't sound like I think poorly of it (or you, for that matter; I'm still awestruck by that GCS campaign you completed).

I was thinking small gifts of no more than 500 Denari every other turn maybe and map info following that later. This would be providing of course my faction was in a secure position in the 1st place to embark on this course of diplomacy.

As for the rest, don't worry about it constructive criticism is always welcome as is the knowledge of how other players do their campaigns, I don't after have to follow that advice, but I might be missing something if I failed to ask for it.

And thanks for the compliment too