Vampiresbane's Art of Diplomacy Guide

[FootSoldier]

@kevindrosario - yes, you're right about the scale, i.e. the divisor. However, it does get more difficult as the campaign progresses. I can maintain relations with neutral and allied factions at Good or better notwithstanding the relations drop each turn. It definitely does get more difficult not just because of the relations drop. For example, you can ally with anyone in the opening turns, with relations at So So. After turn 100 an alliance suggestion is seen as Very Demanding by anyone, even those with whom you are Perfect, you have mutual enemies etc.

I think the issue is that not everything is visible in the files exposed for modding. For sure there are script files that CA didn't reveal. They don't reveal all the events that trigger the relations tests. They didn't give the whole game away. So you can change, say, the starting attitude and reduce anitpathy, but other factors not visible will affect this. For example, I think all factions have certain territories scripted for their victory conditions, not only those in the campaign lists.

I have many times had Perfect relations with factions that still attacked me, and maintained Good or better relations throughout a conflict. "There's daggers in men's smiles". The relations scores are not enough to explain attacks or lack of them.

@Vampiresbane
Yes, it's easy for me to suggest to others that they do extra work. No pressure :d

It matters who you're dealing with, and when you do things.

For example, the Pope doesn't like Sicily. Aiding Sicily will lower relations with him, and in ways not visible. I first noticed this in a Polish campaign, and have checked it since on other campaigns. I kept notes about the campaigns for a while, because I was seriously trying to figure out the diplomacy.
- turn 63 Poland was gifting 100 each turn to Sicily, and relations otherwise Perfect with the Pope started dropping
- stopping giving money and they rose
- started giving money again and they dropped

In a Danish campaign the Danes allied with Sicily on turn 48, relations with Pope Perfect
- turn 49: 2 Inquisitors moved towards Danish lands (from Rheims to Danish Antwerp 97% Catholic 1% Heretic, and from Angers to Danish Caen 98% Catholic 2% Pagan. No heretics.)
- turn 50: crusade called, Denmark joins the crusade with general in Antwerp
- turn 50 end turn: inquisitor in Antwerp executes the Danish general leading the crusade

I could go on about the Pope and Sicily, but you get the picture. (He doesn't like Venice either).

Attacking a successful crusade faction lowers relations with Catholics
Attacking crusading states affects relations with catholics. Again, from the Polish campaign (which was short, and Russian and Hungary had to be eliminated):
- turn 72: Hungarian crusade captures Jerusalem (wouldn't you know it, when they were down to Budapest)
- turn 73: Poland takes Budapest (leaving the Hungarians only Jerusalem, where they promptly ally with the Egyptians)
- turn 73: end turn - relations fell with every single catholic faction, including the allies of Poland and the enemies of Hungary. I gained the distinct impression that no one approved of taking the capital of the successful crusade army.

Alliances with crusading states (France) affects relations with Islam.
In my Danish campaign relations with all Muslim factions fell when Denmark allied with France. The same happened in a Spanish campaign.

When I get those diplomatic scrolls at end turn I try to figure out the why when relations drop or rise. I can nearly always pin them to some diplomatic action (including war and attacks, trade agreements, giving money etc.). It's not simply down to the antipathy settings in the factions standing file.

Territories other factions want ...
Those islands (Cagliari and Ajaccio) are weird. Everyone wants them - the Moors, Milan, Spain, Sicily - and the Byzantines, given a chance. Egypt too, tho' these last two very rarely turn up to contest them. The Pope also tries to control them. Though he rarely takes them he'll put armies on them and conduct sieges. Historically all those factions had a claim to them or tried to take them at one time or other.

For the most part I avoid them now. Even if they've been rebel all game taking them is a guaranteed way to get into wars with any of the above factions. In M1TW they started as Milanese (Italian) possessions.

Ships and Rebels
Ships and rebels. Both are big topics. Ships spawn rebels. I might make a separate post about that, because very few seem to have twigged to the importance of them. It was a feature of M1TW, which I played to death. It was easy to see there.

Agents and armies on your territory, too, spawn rebels. In M1TW you could see instant loyalty drops when an enemy or hostile neutral agent entered your territory, a ship appeared off the coast etc. Ships caused loyalty drops for massive distances. You've probably noticed that armies entering your lands without access rights spawn rebels. This includes crusade armies.

CA made it subtle, so the rebels usually spawn on adjacent territories, not the one directly in front of the ship (or the territory a neutral army just walked on).

I'm asserting this because I've tested it so many times I take it for granted, and it was one of many features to carry over from M1TW. If you start watching for this you will see it, and it becomes easy to predict when rebels will appear on your own territories.

Russia, ships, and the Baltic.
It's really noticeable for Russia and the Baltic, and the other Baltic states. This needs to be blocked and closed off or you'll have rebels every other turn. Put a line of ships across the mouth of the Baltic, and don't let anyone in. They try, but give up eventually.

Enemy fleets in the North Sea will spawn rebels as far as Bulgar
It gets worse, especially for Russia. Once Russia has the Baltic states they need to control the North Sea, or rebels will spawn as far away as Bulgar when the ships of any enemy or neutral faction are in it. As soon as Russia reaches the North Sea England will fight them for control. Russia should ally with Scotland if it can. Of course, as England you need to control the North Sea for the same reason.

Try bringing a fleet through the Straits of Gibraltar, the English Channel, the Sea of Mamara (by Constantinople) and observe the effects. Generally it will not be easy - you will get blocked. Again, in M1TW the seas had regions on the map, so the effects were easy to see. Putting a fleet in the Straits of Gibraltar was like setting off a bomb.

Similarly, factions use fleets to show disapproval. Upset Milan and their ships appear off your coast. They'll even send them to the Baltic. As Russia, upset Venice, and their fleets will come around to the Black Sea and appear off Kiev. Rebels will spawn in Ryazan. All those fleets swirling about are doing something.

In short, you need to protect and control your own waters, and you need to respect or understand the effect of putting ships in the water's of others. Treat the seas as regions, and ships as armies, and use them the same way i.e. are you ready to walk your army across your neighbour's land? Remember, these are warships, not trade fleets, and the sea is not a free and empty place. No one likes a fleet of warships off their coast, even allies.

Egypt vassals Milan and HRE
I've been tinkering with this, doing replays. Ok, there is a third factor - the overwhelming local superiority in numbers.

Egypt had 4 stacks in Venice, bordering both Vienna and Milan. Both were easily taken at that point. When I moved the stacks out into ships (the Mongols had arrived in Yerevan, so I decided to ship them over) the offer of vassalage became "Very Demanding".

[FootSoldier]

Vassals
I've been thinking again about how Milan (5 territories) and the HRE (3 territories) accepted a straight offer of becoming vassals. Let me say straight away that I can't do this at will. I find it extremely difficult to get vassals in general.

The best moment to ask for vassalage is when the enemy faction asks for a ceasefire, I believe.

In this case Milan asked for a ceasefire, and Egypt countered with offer of vassalage, which was accepted. I have noted this on a number of occasions previously. Poland is good to ask when they go for ceasefire - they seem to readily accept being vassals.

To recap the Egypt, Milan and HRE example, the combination of factors was:
- Reputation (Egypt is trustworthy)
- Outnumbering the faction locally (4 to 1)
- Bankruptcy on the part of Milan and the HRE
- Authority of the king (10)
- Relations (Not sure about this. Relations were good, but fell to poor when the local battles occurred. They were not abysmal)
- Limited territorial acquisition from the target factions (1 territory taken from Milan, 1 territory taken from the HRE)

In previous campaigns, bankrupt enemy factions that are hopelessly outnumbered by a trustworthy player faction have still refused to become vassals. The only method that has worked for me there is to reduce the target faction to one, and then repeatedly siege it. So, I'm now elevating the authority of the king as a factor, though this is obviously unproven.

Diplomacy - hurdles of giving money and actively helping
Generally on diplomacy, kevindrosario is right about the divisor, and the way relations normalise depending on the degree of difficulty in the campaign. On vh/vh I find most relations are abysmal for most of the game, and I target allies, the Pope, and key neutrals to keep relations at Good or better.

I am convinced, however, that the stage of the campaign is also a major factor. Diplomacy is easy at the start, and gets harder and harder as the campaign progresses.

I also think that the success of the player is a factor. It seems to get harder once you become number 1.

The biggest hurdle for me to overcome (and players generally, I think) was being prepared to spend enough money on diplomacy.

The second biggest hurdle for me (and again, players generally, I think) is actively helping your allies. When I first started playing I didn't give my allies anything, and would often race them to get to rebel territories they were interested in. First I realized that this destroyed alliances. Then I started noticing that my allies were helping me.

Allies help the player

I have seen my allies helping me, noticeably in blocking agents and troops of my enemies.

Early in this Egypt campaign I was allied to the Byz (when it looked like they were going under. Constantinople was sieged by the Hungarians, and Nicaea was sieged by the Turks). Egypt became enemy to both Hungarians and Turks.
- the Byz consistently used ships to block Hungarian troops crossing from Constantinople to Nicaea on their way to attack Egyptian Smyrna
- the Byz also blocked a Polish crusade ship attempting to get through the straits (see screenshots)
- the Byz diplomat at Turkish Caesarea first moved from Turkish Caesarea to Egyptian Adana and bow and wave his arms on T49. He was previousy at Caesarea for 15 turns without moving, (screenshot of him there on T39) I believe he was "warning" Egypt of the approaching crusade.
- Note: Egypt accepted ceasefire from Poland for 1500 Gp after the crusade was launched. Poland is neutral until the crusade army attacks/is attacked.

I've given another example from another campaign where Turkey's ally Hungary also blocked crusades at the same point - using 2 ships. I posted this on the crusade thread, but thought it would give a good example here, too.

Once you start looking at how allies help you will start to see lots of examples. When his diplomat approaches he may be trying to tell you something about what your enemies are doing. I've formed the impression that allied enemies do this - you bringing an army by the ally of an enemy, and their diplomat heads off to the enemy's settlement (to "warn" them).

Screenshots
1. Egypt Turn 50 - Polish crusade ship in Sea of Mamara
2. Egypt Turn 50 End turn - Allied Byzantine fleet blocks Polish crusade fleet
3. Egypt Turn 51 Start - Polish crusade disembarked at Nicaea, slowed down
4. Egypt Turn 39 - Byzantine diplomat at Caesarea
5. Egypt Turn 50 - Byzantine diplomat moved to Adana, "warning" of crusade approaching
6. Turkey T101 - Hungarian allied ships block crusades 1
7. Turkey T101 - Hungarian allied ships block crusades 2

[Vampiresbane]

Vassals
I've been thinking again about how Milan (5 territories) and the HRE (3 territories) accepted a straight offer of becoming vassals. Let me say straight away that I can't do this at will. I find it extremely difficult to get vassals in general.

The best moment to ask for vassalage is when the enemy faction asks for a ceasefire, I believe.

In this case Milan asked for a ceasefire, and Egypt countered with offer of vassalage, which was accepted. I have noted this on a number of occasions previously. Poland is good to ask when they go for ceasefire - they seem to readily accept being vassals.

To recap the Egypt, Milan and HRE example, the combination of factors was:
- Reputation (Egypt is trustworthy)
- Outnumbering the faction locally (4 to 1)
- Bankruptcy on the part of Milan and the HRE
- Authority of the king (10)
- Relations (Not sure about this. Relations were good, but fell to poor when the local battles occurred. They were not abysmal)
- Limited territorial acquisition from the target factions (1 territory taken from Milan, 1 territory taken from the HRE)

In previous campaigns, bankrupt enemy factions that are hopelessly outnumbered by a trustworthy player faction have still refused to become vassals. The only method that has worked for me there is to reduce the target faction to one, and then repeatedly siege it. So, I'm now elevating the authority of the king as a factor, though this is obviously unproven.

I whole heartedly agree with you on these points. The #1 best time to get someone to become a vassal is when they come to YOU for peace. I believe at this point, some trigger has been activated to where becoming a vassal is possible. I actually try to make sure the faction that I'm about to start a war with has a lot of young diplomats if I am looking for them to become a vassal at some point. If they don't have any diplomats, obviously this approach can't work very well.

I've seen this happen once (at least) when I recently released a king from Hungary that I had just captured during a battle and my reputation jumped from "Very Reliable" to "Trustworthy." On Hungary's very next turn, they asked for peace, I countered with an offer for Vassalage, got a "Balanced" response, and Bob's your uncle, Hungary became my vassal. At this time I had taken 3 territories from them. All other attemps before this moment, resulted in "Very Demanding" responses to vassalage.

I have a feeling relations don't play a part. Reputation definitely helps. I'll definitely keep an eye on my leader's authority while I play. That seems to be very possible-I just want to see it more in game before I agree with you.

[FootSoldier]

I think the principles are clear - the higher the reputation the less likely an attack, the better the relations with a faction the less likely an attack from that faction in particular.

However, as factions with whom you have perfect relations will attack you for a particular territory it is not all of the story :d

Often they will attack another territory, rather than the one they're upset about.

Actually, I have the impression that factions will attack for a variety of reasons - sometimes maybe just to cancel trade, or to show solidarity with an ally ... sometimes to extort money (in the early game, as Venice, for example, I've several times been attacked by Milan, who then asks for 5000 Gp or similar for a ceasefire), and sometimes, I think, to make a faction desist. The Pope quite often sieges a castle (on the islands) for several turns without taking it, and other factions do this too.

[Vampiresbane]

Often they will attack another territory, rather than the one they're upset about.

Actually, I have the impression that factions will attack for a variety of reasons - sometimes maybe just to cancel trade, or to show solidarity with an ally ... sometimes to extort money (in the early game, as Venice, for example, I've several times been attacked by Milan, who then asks for 5000 Gp or similar for a ceasefire), and sometimes, I think, to make a faction desist. The Pope quite often sieges a castle (on the islands) for several turns without taking it, and other factions do this too.

I wonder how much of this was "on-purpose" programming and what isn't. My initial impression when I watch the Pope attack the Moors, for instance, then disengage, sue for peace, attack, rinse, repeat, was that his programming was actually f'd up.

If they actually meant for the Pope to act this way, I wish they had made it more apparent. Declaring war to break a trade treaty seems a bit much, for instance.

[Geoffrey of Villehardouin]

Diplomacy is certainly something of a final frontier, being so counter-intuitive at times. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and discoveries with us.

There were two cases where perplexing things happened to me.

Case 1. One was a Crusaders campaign in which one faction first declared war, then was being beaten battle after battle and every time I offered peace/ceasefire, even a bit of money or a gift-region it was being refused. I was only asking for peace because I did not care to be at war with that faction. It was not a campaign target. What should one do? In the end I stopped bothering them, left some strong garrisons, tolerated their marching around my territories as best I could and marched off to deal with the faction that was a campaign target. After a period with gifts, etc they agreed temporarily to peace but only after being gifted three regions. But they broke it off after the term for the agreement (15 turns) had passed and attacked me straight away. I felt cheated. I could smash them again in battle and take back the cities I gifted them in retaliation but if I remember correctly, my reputation ended up quite low. In subsequent campaigns I avoided this, by starting continually making gifts to my prospective non-enemies from the start. Nonetheless, I find it perplexing, to start with, that a faction that is losing battle after battle and settlement after settlement will not sue for peace - let alone that it will not agree to repetitive offers of ceasefire or peace when the winning more powerful faction is offering it! Secondly, how do you deal with this kind of annoying behaviour diplomatically, seeing the result? Regular gifts despite gifting them peace and three regions in the first place when one did not have to?

Case 2. My other bizarre event was early in a vanilla campaign, near perfect relations with the Pope and good relations with all my neighbours, being very trustworthy in my reputation, I called a Crusade and joined it straight away when the Pope readily called the Crusade. I thought my reputation and relations would go through the roof with my Catholic allies and everyone would now be in love with me. Instead, next turn 3 of my 5 erstwhile allies, up to that point with good or better relations, declared war. I had not yet left for the Crusade, only agreed to join it. My armies had not significantly shifted about the map yet. The Pope did not excommunicate anyone. To call that backstabbing is an understatement. A catastrophic failure of game diplomacy, but what might have caused it? Is joining a Crusade a negative modifier to relations with Catholic allies? With neighbours? Seems bizarre, counter-intuitive ...

[FootSoldier]

The diplomacy sure is perplexing at times. I'm not sure it's working as the developers intended, but then, M2TW's diplomacy is, in fact, clearer than earlier games ...

About your 2 examples - it's hard to hazard a guess without more info. Who were the factions, and what did the campaign map look like? Even then, it's only a guess. CA released diplomacy triggers, but not the events that trigger them, and obviously keep certain algorithms, and maybe tables, under wraps. You don't get to see the likelihood of an attack, and what factors override reputation and relations.

I think the key non-visible factor is which territories a faction will always go for, and in what order. They do this regardless of alliances, relations etc. and they do it with each other - it's like part of their hard-coded victory conditions. It seems CA based it on history. For example, in the vanilla game if the HRE takes Dijon it always goes after Marseilles next which it should have historically at the start of the game. It never goes after Paris.

In Case 1 my guess is that your faction had a territory that the other faction really really really wanted. Antioch? Jerusalem? Constantinople? They were obviously reluctant to ceasefire to begin with, so you had to offer huge incentives. That alone was a warning signal. As soon as they could they attacked you again, regardless of the disparity in capability.

Several factions in Crusades had historical claims on, say, Antioch (the Byzantines, the Turks, the Egyptians and the Principality of Antioch). They will never be satisfied with less. Jerusalem is a more obvious example still.

I never give territories away now for the reason you stated - you suffer the biggest reputation loss (4 levels) from taking back a territory you've sold or gifted, even if the relevant faction attacks you and it's 200 turns in the future.

In Case 2 more info is definitely needed.

As pure speculation I'd say that one or more of your allies really really really wanted the crusade target, or another territory you had. I'd guess that one or more were hemmed in by you or your allies. I'd guess that one faction led the attacks and set up the deals with your other allies.

Some questions:
- did all those allies have room to expand that wasn't with you or your allies? You can hem an ally in by allying with it's neighbours. In this case, my experience is that the player, not the player's allies, will be attacked.
- was the crusade target somewhere that one or more of your former allies really really really wanted?
- did you anyway have territories one or more of your allies really really wanted?
- were you the largest faction in the game?

Joining a crusade only pleases the Pope. The Pope only excommunicates for attacking a crusade army, with the cross at the top, not for attacking a crusading faction.

Succeeding with a crusade only makes you liked by catholics for a few turns, and only by those who don't care about the crusade target and don't feel threatened by your expanding power. They will all disapprove of a faction that attacks a successful crusader straight afterwards, but again, only for a few turns. Those that want the crusade target will be "furious" underneath their friendly relations. The scenario you describe makes me suspect that one, or more, of your allies really really really wanted the crusade target, and decided to stop you before you got under way.

The attack you describe was obviously coordinated, and one faction was probably the leader. Who's diplomats were on the territories of the other allies? Who's diplomats are increasing their diplomacy points from successful deals? Which of the allies most wants the crusade target, or somewhere you already have?

Probably money changed hands. I'm sure the AI factions only charge each other a fraction of what they will charge the player.

"There's daggers in men's smiles". Good, or even Perfect, relations are not a guarantee you won't be attacked.

Generally I don't think the vanilla diplomacy is as broken as many make out. There is a logic, and it isn't the logic of "you're stronger and richer therefore I'll be docile", or "you're beating me up so I'll be your vassal" or whatever.

History is full of examples of factions that would rather die than submit, and did just that. History is full of examples of smaller states ganging up to cut down a bigger expanding faction. This was England's foreign policy for hundreds of years, maintaining "the balance of power", and being against any European faction that was getting stronger than the others.

On the other hand, I think CA may have overdone it a tad :d

[Geoffrey of Villehardouin]

I've gone over the 2nd case in a previous thread. Not sure I was satisfied with the general consensus that vanilla diplomacy is all about minimising the backstabbing. In any case, I was Venice, all settlements were adjacent to allies other than Byzantium (but Byzantium is not Catholic). It was early game, maybe 15-20 turns into it. No one concerned was remotely close to Antioch and no one else joined the Crusade (maybe Denmark did...). HRE, France, Hungary, the Pope had been 4 of the allies, Sicily was the fifth ally. Byzantium was neutral - and did not declare war. Target was Antioch. HRE, Hungary and France declared war after I joined the crusade. Byzantium actually later offered an alliance and attacked the desert peoples unilaterally, so it's hard to figure. The 3 allies declared war next turn after I proposed to join the Crusade, I did not even have a Crusade army yet. It was something else they wanted. Maybe they wanted Venice, but why was it triggered by the Crusade? I could not care much about Antioch to be honest. I just wanted to see how much going on a crusade would improve relations with Catholic countries - I assumed it could only improve relations at that point, not make them worse.

[Geoffrey of Villehardouin]

Generally[/B] I don't think the vanilla diplomacy is as broken as many make out. There is a logic, and it isn't the logic of "you're stronger and richer therefore I'll be docile", or "you're beating me up so I'll be your vassal" or whatever.

History is full of examples of factions that would rather die than submit, and did just that. History is full of examples of smaller states ganging up to cut down a bigger expanding faction. This was England's foreign policy for hundreds of years, maintaining "the balance of power", and being against any European faction that was getting stronger than the others.

On the other hand, I think CA may have overdone it a tad :d

There is some truth in what you are saying. However, in a short campaign, if Venice takes Milan and Byzantium they have practically won the campaign. They do not need many more settlements and some rebel settlements will make up the total. So there is no obvious conflict of interest. The human player can always beat the computer player in battle, so the sensible policy should have been for HRE, Hungary and France to join in the crusade. They could win Antioch and maybe other nearby settlements with the help of Venice (who didn't care for any settlements around there) and expand their empires in far away territories that would not bring them into conflict with the human player, since Venice mainly cared about defeating Byzantium. So they would not end up wasting resources fighting against the human player, who they cannot beat. I have managed in a subsequent campaign, where I used massive amounts of gifts, to keep Venice's neighbours sweet (also avoided the disastrous idea of asking for a Crusade). However, I see no reason why it takes so much effort to achieve what should have been a win-win situation for Venice's neighbours. They should be dancing with joy seeing that the human player has no desire to attack them and is in fact proposing an alliance and seems to be committed to help them acquire new territories.

My feeling with the logic behind diplomacy is that there is no overall strategy, since it is made only for the long campaign, where you have to conquer everything. If there is some strategy it is just that each faction has a couple of settlements hard coded that it wants as a first goal. These invariably belong to their neighbours and this is a recipe for immediate war against your neighbours. In a long campaign where you need to conquer the world this may be ok. In a short campaign where you have specific goals and you would very much like to finish the campaign quickly without conquering the entire planet, the difficulty in making your neighbours realise the obvious is very annoying.

Of course I still do not know why joining a Crusade triggered what it did.

[Old Geezer]

I'd like to thank you FootSoldier for #18 post above. I have been wondering why there never are rebels in Ireland after the whole isle is conquered (esp. noticeable in KGCM). Now I shall be killing off unwanted diplomats or herding them to places that I want to see rebels (I use them for training purposes).

[Judeman266]

Very good thread. +rep to Vampiresbane

[Syanur]

It is a basic question but I couldn't find the answer anywhere.

How can we increase the negotiation number for a diplomat in a turn?? Each diplomat has only 1 change to negotiate. I want to make it unlimited or 100 at least...

[Vampiresbane]

Syanur, you may have to ask the modding folks. I know next to nothing of how to edit files and I have a feeling you'll need to do just that in order to allow diplomats to negotiate multiple times during a turn.

[Incredible Bulk]

This is great stuff rep for you my friend

[Highlander of Scotland]

good guide

[Incredible Bulk]

Question I am playing as Spain and I have trade rights and given gold to Scotland and we have an outstanding relationship but we are still just neutral it won't me the option to ask for an alliance why?

[Earl of_Duke]

Question I am playing as Spain and I have trade rights and given gold to Scotland and we have an outstanding relationship but we are still just neutral it won't me the option to ask for an alliance why?

If you have been at war with a factions' ally, you will not get the option to ally with them. If a faction has been at war with one of you allies: same thing.

[Vampiresbane]

Took forever and a lot of internet digging, but I finally included all the actual bonuses and penalty numbers for relations and reputation into a single thread (Chapter 10).

It always bugged me that TWC wiki had a great breakdown of reputation but nothing for relations. I also remembered seeing relations somewhere broken down as well as point values for dealing with the Pope. Finally realized it was in taw's old blog "why everyone hates you."

At any rate, it's all in Chapter 10 in a hopefully easily read format.

This all was motivated by my own need to see all the numbers for Papal relations. Enjoy.

[pkptz]

Thanks for cool guide! However there are some questions left. As far I can see this thread is still alive.

1. As I understand there is no instant penalty to Reputation for starting war(only for brocken trade threaty this case) but it is constant penalty being at war every turn? If there is penalty for starting than who gets it? Starter or victim or both? And prize for being at alliance twice bigger so one alliance negate effect of two wars?
2. Is there any penalty to Reputation after faction has been at war eliminated? As far I understand if the faction is dead the diplomacy status continue being same "at war" with that faction.
3. Attacking itself don't affect Reputation? Only executing/releasing, attack ally/enemy of ally. So if I attack just some army at war with me(not ally and not enemy of my ally) this act don't effect the Reputation? Only relations with Pope(in case of catholics)? So if you attacking the enemy of your ally, releasing them and capture their cities: all those will only increase your Reputation?
4. How to change this stacked "at war" status with dead nation? Maybe anybody know how to edit saves for this matter? The command "Diplomacy_stance" doesn't work.

Thanks for answers in advance!

[pkptz]

And one more: does making the vassal somebody affect the Reputation?