Diplomacy between the Major Factions

We've been hearing a lot about diplomacy, but I still have one important question, which does not seem to get addressed.

What is the practicality of, if say you're playing as Prussia or Austria, leaving the Coalition and allying with France? Or if playing as France and then attempting to coax a Coalition faction over to Napoleon's side?

I'm not asking if those situations are 'possible' because I'm sure they're possible, but are they practicle? That is, will it be so difficult for the player to perform such diplomatic intracies so as not to be worth the investment of gold and time?

Such situations from diplomatic intracieis would really make for some interesting situations and add to replayability.

So, does anyone know?

I bed it would be cool, and make the campaign much easier though it would be hard to get an ally from the coalition as France and I think the same for the other way around.

surely I will try to do this, probably as France and ask Prussia to be my ally, just sounds most strategic .

More likely you'll have to beat them so badly until they beg you to let them join you. Kind of like what happened in history, iirc.

Historically, of course, Russia, Prussia and Austria did ally themselves to Napoleon after Austerlitz and Jena-Auerstadt, and the latter two contributed troops to the war on Russia. Prussia of course dropped that after the retreat from Moscow. Austria remained allied a little longer, since the Habsburgs were by then allied to Napoleon by marriage. It would make sense then that the game would allow you to "better" Napoleon's achievement by a) successfully turning Spain into a puppet state without recourse to war, and b) making an ally of Russia, Austria, and Prussia, and keeping them in the fold by good diplomacy and decisively trouncing Britain (should be possible even without an invasion of the British Isles). What I fear we will see is the usual stupid implacable enmity we had in ETW.

I've missed the TW equivalent of Civilization's "Make Leader Personalities Random". It would be far more amusing if there was code that used perhaps a minute to map out NEW "historical grievances", alliances, trade and so forth. To the point of regions, even.

But no, that'd be far too amusing.

Originally Posted by SCA Tordenskjold

I've missed the TW equivalent of Civilization's "Make Leader Personalities Random". It would be far more amusing if there was code that used perhaps a minute to map out NEW "historical grievances", alliances, trade and so forth. To the point of regions, even.

But no, that'd be far too amusing.

CA would do well to take some campaign tips from Civ.

Civ campaign + TW battles(with good BAI) = pwnage.

Originally Posted by Thoragoros

CA would do well to take some campaign tips from Civ.

Civ campaign + TW battles(with good BAI) = pwnage.

Actually (so sorry Sid), the perfect marriage would be EU gameplay and TW battles.

"Historical grievances" made for a stale game because, alongside ETW's terrible CAI, you were effectively fighting the same factions every game, and you were stuck fighting them for the entire campaign. Diplomacy would be far more interesting if AI attitudes were more random, and wars shorter. This would also be more historically accurate because European powers tend to be incredibly fickle. Read up on any major war and you'll see European powers switching sides left and right. Napoleon allied with every other major power at least sometime during his wars and even with Britain, he signed the Treaty of Amiens (which lasted but one year).

Originally Posted by Stellerex

"Historical grievances" made for a stale game because, alongside ETW's terrible CAI, you were effectively fighting the same factions every game, and you were stuck fighting them for the entire campaign. Diplomacy would be far more interesting if AI attitudes were more random, and wars shorter. This would also be more historically accurate because European powers tend to be incredibly fickle. Read up on any major war and you'll see European powers switching sides left and right. Napoleon allied with every other major power at least sometime during his wars and even with Britain, he signed the Treaty of Amiens (which lasted but one year).

Well I wouldn't call the Treaty of Amiens an alliance treaty between Britain and France. More like a truce. But I agree, the Coalition members hated or mistrusted each other about as much as France and it was only Napoleon's inept diplomatic skill which prevented him from keeping them divided.

I agree relations last way too long in ETW, but I don't think removing historical grievances is the solution. What we need imo is more random events that could warm or topple relations between factions. For example the effect of new faction leaders should be way bigger and they should have preferences to certain factions, like the Russian prince that saved Frederick II's arse. There are also tons of little stuff that could turn friends into foes, like simple land disputes etc.

Another solution is to give alliances a time limit, just like military access. This was nicely implemented in Imperial Glory, which represented the changing political climate in Europe nicely. In fact I hope CA would remove the unlimited turns option altogether, because that's the sort of stuff that causes the entire campaign to go stale. I'd prefer the campaign go on evolving and keep us on our toes, as long as we are notified of the changes in diplomacy.

"notified of the changes in diplomacy"

This makes me remember one thing, are we even going to be notified of the Peace Treaties between AI factions? This was one of the weakest points of ETW.

I agree that the relations between factions have to be much more dynamic.

Yeah, there should be more notifications in ETW. They seem to think we should check the relations manually every turn lol.

IMO the entire diplomacy in ETW seems to be geared toward tedium and unnecessarily troublesome. The lack of notifications is one, and what happened to the hints in diplomatic offers? Why are we forced to make offers 452345 times until the AI says yes? Somebody really needs to wake up at CA.

Perhaps notifications can be presented as a "Gazzette", a newspaper at the start of each turn. This newspaper will have information describing the changes in relations, everything from war declarations, peace treaties and trade agreements between other factions. Maybe even region conquest and other political and military events in the campaign. It's a little late now, however.

I liked the mechanics in the board game 'Age of Napoleon' which had a separate diplomacy phase in which the players could play various cards to effect alliances,insurrections,peace deals.The personalities of the period were well represented in the diplomacy stage,Tallyrand,Pitt,Metternich,Alexander etc plus ofc British Gold and although the game could be played in a few hours it gave a good historical impression and no two games played out the same way.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardga...ge-of-napoleon

An old player gave this opinion on the diplomacy which would be an example for CA to attempt but hardly likely.

Played this game a couple times now. I've been board and miniature gaming since 1975. Cut my teeth on Napoleonic miniatures. This is the Napoleonic strategy game I've been looking for for years. I've played GMT's Napoleonic Wars 2nd edition (great game, but lengthy), Napoleon in Europe (Eagle Games), War and Peace (Avalon Hill), Empire in Arms (Avalon Hill) and Age of Napoleon is the one I can play in an evening with 1 other opponent and come away with a great feel for the period. Lot's of interesting choices including specific maneuvers, the corp capabilities are dependent on the quality of the leader both in terms of battle power (Battle Rating), initiative (Movement Rating) and standing (Seniority Rating) which is perfect. The Britannia card doesn't mention it but clearly represents the battle of Trafalgar or similar event where the British manage to come to grips with the French fleets and decisively beat them. Last play it didn't happen till 1812 which prevented major British operations, as it should. Lots of interesting events in which the commanders had to make key decisions with consequences but for which the resolution was not drawn out over several turns. I lost and loved it, which is not generally my nature. The criticism that the diplomacy cards have a large impact in the game is valid, and critical towards giving the game the kind of replay value and turns that the real wars had. Some read history and believe that what occurred was always inevitable and every game must guide things in that direction. When speaking about the verisimilitude of diplomacy between multiple Monarch's and their egotistical foreign ministers in a pre-information age this is ridiculous. The diplomatic swings are what makes the game both realistic and re-playable.

I give this game a high rating and will continue to play.

Seeing as the coalition is confirmed to have mission objectives for the same territories it looks like cannibalism is expected, encouraged, and that alliances with france may be the norm

I was worried that diplomacy wouldn't matter in NTW due to its preference for historical accuracy (I prefer TW games as a time period sandbox). In ETW it might as well have not been included because no matter what I did I either couldn't keep allies/they wouldn't do ANYTHING to help, or I'd get war declared on me. It was as if having allies as just a way to not get attacked for a certain number of turns.

I either couldn't keep allies/they wouldn't do ANYTHING to help, or I'd get war declared on me. It was as if having allies as just a way to not get attacked for a certain number of turns.

Yeah, in ETW they're more like defensive alliances than offensive coalitions. At least in NTW they give us back the "request attack" option, but who knows if they will really attack or just declare war and sit there like in Rome and M2.