Keeping two factions allied throughout the game

[chrisb]

I've seen some similar discussions before, but could not locate them now, sorry if this has already been resolved.

I'd like to keep two factions fighting side-by-side throughout the game. With no intention to end the game through achieving the winning conditions set in descr_win_conditions.txt. If those factions would be e.g. romans_scipii and romans_brutii, could it be reached by doing the following steps:

1. descr_strat.txt

core_attitudes    romans_scipii,    0    romans_brutii
faction_relationships    romans_scipii,        0    romans_brutii

Is it by the way useful or necessary to declare these also in the reverse order, i.e. to add

core_attitudes    romans_brutii,    0    romans_scipii
faction_relationships    romans_brutii,        0    romans_scipii

Can one use negative numbers to increase the effect?

2. descr_win_conditions.txt

Check that there are no same cities in the goals of the two factions (or that there are no such cities as goals of the other faction that you want to keep as your own faction's cities).

3. Add this to the background script:

monitor_event FactionTurnStart FactionType romans_scipii
          and DiplomaticStanceFromFaction romans_brutii > Allied
          console_command diplomatic_stance romans_scipii romans_brutii allied
end_monitor

monitor_event FactionTurnEnd FactionType romans_scipii
          and DiplomaticStanceFromFaction romans_brutii > Allied
          console_command diplomatic_stance romans_scipii romans_brutii allied
end_monitor

monitor_event FactionTurnStart FactionType romans_brutii 
          and DiplomaticStanceFromFaction romans_scipii > Allied
          console_command diplomatic_stance romans_brutii romans_scipii allied
end_monitor

monitor_event FactionTurnEnd FactionType romans_brutii 
          and DiplomaticStanceFromFaction romans_scipii > Allied
          console_command diplomatic_stance romans_brutii romans_scipii allied
end_monitor

If this (nr 3) functions, is it necessary to do it both in the beginning and end of factionturn?

Would this do it or is there some problem?

Or would nr 3 better to do with monitor_conditions and how?

[Lü Bu]

Did you try it already?

[chrisb]

Did you try it already?

Yes I did and it seems to work. Well, I was only able to test it by attacking the other faction. Then the alliance was declared after each new turn. I tried to lay a siege to their city but when I press end turn, the siege is lifted. But they never attacked me, so I'm not sure... Any thoughts?

[Lü Bu]

than i guess its working...good to implement to lotrtw so elves dont attack elves, gondor not attack rohan, etc...i will try this for sure +rep

[BiggBudd]

You can also use the superfaction line in strat file to keep factions allied as SPQR does.

[chrisb]

Hi guys and thanks!

Since I don't want to install (just now) a new mod SPQR, could you tell a bit more how that is done and what does it mean in game? I found these discussions, but couldn't really figure out clearly those things:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=397522
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=359852
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=275236
http://lotr-tw.net/viewtopic.php?t=1619&start=45

Here are some questions that I still have...

- What if I don't have the senate among the factions (I don't)? Can I just define any faction as the superfaction, even the one I'm playing (local faction)? That would naturally be quite handy if I want one or two factions to be friendly towards my faction and I don't plan to attack them.

- Do I need to do something about other files than descr_strat? Is it enought to add the line about superfaction or do the attitudes need to be something different?

- Is the superfaction 100 % safe? Do the subordinate factions ever attack their superfaction, even when having common borders?

- Do you have any idea whether the script I wrote in the OP has some other consequences? For example: is there a risk that a "friendly" faction positions an army next to my city and tries to attack it multiple times and the attack is always halted between turns?

[BiggBudd]

Its very simple to implement, just add the line superfaction as shown;
faction romans_julii
superfaction romans_senate
denari 5000
to the factions you wont to stay allied, and see how it modifies on your mod. The only issue is you will get map info from your superfaction, which is sort of a feature, like having an embassy in each settlement.
Because its so simple I recommend you try it yourself and see how you like it.

[chrisb]

Sure, will try. But please tell me: does it need to be senate or is any faction ok? I don't have senate in my mod.

[BiggBudd]

Any faction will work, you dont need senate, SQPR uses it on all factions OTHER than the romans, to keep them from attacking each other.

[chrisb]

Any faction will work, you dont need senate, SQPR uses it on all factions OTHER than the romans, to keep them from attacking each other.

Thanks mate, I'll definitely have to try that. Sounds really good.

Could I still ask if you or someone else can tell me the following (so that I escape an extensive experimentation period)

- Does it somehow matter which faction I define as superfaction? If I have for example gauls, huns and britons, and I want to play britons myself, can I define britons as the superfaction of gauls and huns and still play britons? I'm wondering this, since in the original vanilla game, the senate could not be played.

- Can there be two superfactions? I mean if I make britons the superfaction for gauls and huns, can I additionally define e.g. egyptians as a superfaction for macedon? So can there be two permanent alliances?

- Do I need to add anything to the superfaction itself? If I play britons and they are the superfaction to gauls and huns, do I need to write something about gauls and huns to the britons entry in descr_strat.txt or elsewhere?

Please help me with these since it would take quite a lot of time to find out through testing...

[Aradan]

- Does it somehow matter which faction I define as superfaction? If I have for example gauls, huns and britons, and I want to play britons myself, can I define britons as the superfaction of gauls and huns and still play britons? I'm wondering this, since in the original vanilla game, the senate could not be played.

The faction that is defined as a superfaction is still playable by the player. However, superfactions can survive without family members and never have revolts, so this will affect your campaign's gameplay. Also, the first four factions listed in descr_sm_factions, whichever those are, will be unable to attack the superfaction, if they don't start at war with them (the option will be greyed out).

- Can there be two superfactions? I mean if I make britons the superfaction for gauls and huns, can I additionally define e.g. egyptians as a superfaction for macedon? So can there be two permanent alliances?

Yes, there can be more than one SF, but all the factions involved in the superfaction system (britons, huns, gauls, egyptians, macedon) will share line of sight.

- Do I need to add anything to the superfaction itself? If I play britons and they are the superfaction to gauls and huns, do I need to write something about gauls and huns to the britons entry in descr_strat.txt or elsewhere?

No, nothing.


If you do ue superfactions, I'd suggest you first remove all senate missions and also give all characters a -1000 to PopularStanding and 1000 to SenateStanding, so that the 'dispotion' messages don't kick in and the factions are never outlawed by the 'senate' (thus breaking the allaince and start the 'civil war'). Ideally, btw, superfactions should be unplayable factions (even better, factions that don't exist on the map), so that you get around most of the hardcoded issues.

[chrisb]

Thanks Aradan! This clarified a lot. It seems that the superfaction affects gameplay a bit too much to my taste. Although it might be a good choice. Will need to test, but at least now I can avoid a few of the problems. I might still prefer the method I mentioned in the OP. Any thoughts of that, could it have some negative effects on gameplay?

[chrisb]

I'd still be happy to hear some thoughts/experiences of the solution in msg #1.

[Aradan]

Core attitudes are more important than faction relations in descr_strat. You can have values down to -600 (very friendly), which work well. Core attitudes need to be defined both ways, faction relations don't.

Win conditions aren't very important for alliances, though it certainly won't hurt if two factions have different goals and one doesn't want to capture the other one's regions.-

The script just sets the diplomatic relations, but does not affect the underlying attitudes (the AI's intentions), so if a faction really hates another faction, they will attack them again right after you force them to get allied. So, while it does technically work, it's not a perfect solution. Having the script run both before and after a faction's turn serves to re-force an alliance in case the AI broke it during its turn, yes.

[chrisb]

Thanks, I had thought about that, but wasn't sure. I'm just wondering if the attitudes would over time develop into more positive if (a "forced by script") peace exists between the two factions most of the time? Difficult to test, but any guesses?

[Aradan]

I think only the relations can change, the core attitudes remain the same through the campaign.

[chrisb]

That's a pity, I thought that keeping good relations would affect that also. But hey, actually that is not a problem, since one can set the core attitudes positive from the beginning of the game! Then what would remain as a problem are situations in which an AI faction decides to attack his "permanent ally" (LocalFaction) at some point during the game. Am I right about that? Do you think that would be a prevailing problem during the game (I mean whether the AI make a long-term strategy to attack another faction with other means than core attitudes) or would it just be a one-time attack that could be handled with the forced peace? I hope I'm able to explain what I mean...

[Aradan]

If the AI has a good attitude towards the player's faction, it's likely it won't attack right after the forceds peace. But it's not a sure thing. You need to provide 'better' targets for the factions you want to keep friendly. If factionA likes everyone the same, then it might attack factionB. If it likes factionB, and is indifferent towards its other neighbours, then it's less likely it will attack factionB. Am I making sense?

[chrisb]

If the AI has a good attitude towards the player's faction, it's likely it won't attack right after the forceds peace. But it's not a sure thing. You need to provide 'better' targets for the factions you want to keep friendly. If factionA likes everyone the same, then it might attack factionB. If it likes factionB, and is indifferent towards its other neighbours, then it's less likely it will attack factionB. Am I making sense?

Yes you are definitely making sense. In my case factions A and B would have plenty of enemies around them. I think I'll give this option really a go if no-one comes up with a serious problem with it!

[mcantu]

whats the numerical range for core attitudes? -600 to 600?