Diplomacy

[damnmap]

The way I understand it sacking cities reduces the AI's trust, and then they refuse to agree on even the most basic act... trade rights. Is there a way of changing this?

[Kara Kolyo]

Yep all depends on your reputation, which you can see in the diplomacy panel. Acts of cruelty like sacking cities, killing prisoners and fighting many wars at the same time, give you bad rep. To change this don't sack towns, release prisoners and try to not have more than one front at the time.

[ERE_Friend]

The whole point of total war games is war, and yet the diplomacy coerces you in every way to be a pansy. Not to troll here and be obnoxious, but I don't really see the point of the strict diplomacy. Releasing prisoners at the very least makes no sense at all. There should be an option to spare their lives but they shouldn't be given back to the enemy to fight another day.

[Kara Kolyo]

Well i prefer the BC diplomacy over vanilla - here you can have meaningful aliances that last and not getting backstabed by every neighbor. Plus you need to release prisoners only when you have bad rep and want to improve it. If you have good rep you can ransom prisoners - when the ai has no money the prisoners get killed and you are not to blame...

[AntonM]

Is there a way of making reputation decrease a bit more lenient? Im playing as Roman Empire and my reputation is despicable yet i haven't done anything bad, i attacked the Turks my natural enemy and reduced them to the last city, i sack some towns and always ransom prisoners i don't use any assassins and haven't broken any alliances yet my reputation is so bad that i cant even get a trade rights not from anyone!

[Spider1110]

here's a list of everything affecting reputation. the quick guide i can give is: always keep at least one alliance, only sack if you aren't able to keep order otherwise and always release prisoners. this should keep you up.

[damnmap]

I think trade rights should be exempt... it is mutually benificial after all.

[Vaynakh]

So check this out; Playing as Kingdom of Georgia on vh/vh Im attacked by the Seljuks when I have very trustworthy reputation. After a breif crusade against the ayyubids the armenians dont like me on their land so they attack before I ask them for an alliance. I get a peace with the ayyubids later down the line (but only as a technicallity after they vassalize the KoJ) Later on, Rome invades me. Im holding my own, then then the Kwarezm Shah attacks out of left field when I take Seljuk coastal land in the Caspian. Later on, the Kypchaks invade. Oh..then the Turkish sultanate decides its time to jump on the bus.

What is odd, is that I have despicable reputation because I am at war for so long, but the others being in a massive 6 member alliance against me are all very trustworthy despite the fact that they invaded me and that my whole involvement is purely of a defensive nature.

Im wondering if campaign difficulty or the AI on vh.vh is supposed to be blatantly anti player? or just challenging.. Is hard difficulty supposed to give a more 'rational' ai behavior? Idk. Im still holding my own and actually expanding against the seljuks and kypchaks.

-Just thought I'd share. It's interesting to see how this all plays out. Oh, It's only 1206 btw. Ive been at war for something around 15-25 years.

[Spider1110]

What is odd, is that I have despicable reputation because I am at war for so long, but the others being in a massive 6 member alliance against me are all very trustworthy despite the fact that they invaded me and that my whole involvement is purely of a defensive nature.

being at war lowers your reputation every turn and being in an alliance increases it every turn. that's why i said earlier to always be in an alliance. even if it's just someone from around the globe (e.g. solanki rajputs in your case). i'm not 100 % sure but it think those two cumulative with each other but not with themselves, meanig being both at war and in an alliance gets you posotive since the amount gained from the alliance is higher. but being at war with multiple factions increase the reputation loss.

[damnmap]

Many factions demand an instantaneous expansion... usually the cities/towns have to be exterminated otherwise they would need huge garrisons to maintain the peace. This however ruins diplomacy I would be happy if trade rights were somehow free of this system... or the mission to gain trade rights gives them to you no matter how y the ai feels about you

[San]

I've tried out Georgians again after reading the thread "Money" on this forum... And right now it's pretty easy (VH/VH difficulty). Basically, you should never sack rebel cities even if you think you need to because of your economy... It'll be fine eventually and public order shouldn't be an issue in early game - your capital is usually rather close and you should be able to spare some crappy units with <200 upkeep as garrison. Remember to keep the tax rate low (this also helps early development of the cities).
I always try to ally with everyone I share borders with and it usually works. I've even managed to ally with the Seljuks as Georgians ("Terrible" relations). They may even refuse trade rights at first but as soon as they send a diplomat themselves to request them you should be able to ally with them as well. I've never had an ally backstab me so this should secure your borders and you can expand wherever you like.

[damnmap]

Georgia is easy though only because the seljuks are so apathetic. I can usually overwhelm the abbasids and omanis with ease... thankfully the great seljuks let me be. What you say about diplomacy does not ring true for me, when the ai sends diplomats they interact with my settlements though very rarely open the actual diplomacy menu. Getting trade rights is a rarity let alone an actual alliance

[wudang_clown]

Well, every player is blatanly more clever than even best designed AI, so, yes, the diplomacy for player is intended to be harder than diplomacy for AI.