Transferring regions/territories with diplomacy

[Kinjo]

I really enjoyed the feature in NTW to be able to transfer territory/regions in the diplomacy phase. It made managing alliances and vassals practical and fun. It was extremely annoying this feature went away in Shogun 2, it really gimped diplomacy gameplay wise for me.

Why can't we give an ally a region back we helped recapture that was temporarily occupied by the enemy?

This should be an option at the minimal, if you are dragged into an allies war and they lose some regions there should be an option to give the region back to your ally if you are the one to retake it.

Also the ability to give a region to vassals during the diplomacy phase should be in Rome 2. Let us control our vassals and alliance the way we want to and not be force into a conquer one region after another as the only path to victory.

Anyways just my take but I hope CA expands the diplomacy phase because the the Diplomacy options in Shogun 2 sucked in comparison to NTW when its comes to managing your territory. Maybe we will get lucky and CA will add this feature back as well as other things like giving factions loans, option to annex vassals, and the ability to coordinate attacks with Ai allies on the campaign map.

[Himster]

I totally agree.

[♠ Thomas Cochrane ♠]

The problem is that in a game where the primary objective is to occupy as much land as possible, giving away a region for any reason is not only undesirable, but in game terms, is 99 times out of a hundred avoidable, and thus completely useless other than for role playing terms.
THIS NEEDS TO BE FIXED.
There should be a point where occupying a certain region is not only a bad idea, but could, and would have immediate and long term negative effects on one's empire, be it due to diplomacy, culture or whatever. There should be more factors than just how big the occupying army is to decide whether or not a settlement is worth holding (or even strategically possible!).
Something like an urban system, or cultural investment - for example - must already be in place before occupation to warrant that region becoming a successful annexation into a nations empire, otherwise the player would sell it.
There should also be more than just the possibility of a monetary gain from giving a settlement to another faction.
Cochrane.

[Kinjo]

I don't think its useless since regions your vassals control still count towards your region count victory conditions. Why should we be forced to paint the map with our faction color when setting up buffer states/client kingdoms might be a better option in some cases. This diplomacy feature is a tool that helps you manage buffer states and offers an alternative way to manage your territory. Did you even play Napoleon total war?

[DaVinci]

I don't think its useless since regions your vassals control still count towards your region count victory conditions. Why should we be forced to paint the map with our faction color when setting up buffer states/client kingdoms might be a better option in some cases. This diplomacy feature is a tool that helps you manage buffer states and offers an alternative way to manage your territory. Did you even play Napoleon total war?

Agree partly. But for R2, CA should not simply copy/transfer NTW diplomacy, but design it anew - a region-"liberation" could/should offer in example:
1. Vassal state (new kind of faction or native/former),
2. Client Kingdom (such like Socii, native/former or new kind of faction),
3. Full Autonomy (native/former).
And important, the "liberation" should be possible also after the initial occupation, at best along certain conditions/requirements.
And at least, awesome would be a CAI, which is strategically intelligent and has as well those abilities, and makes clever moves in this regard, and a) not unrealistic decisions (i personally dislike strategical unrealism, it destroys the campaign immersion) and b) not strategical idiot decisions.

Edit: The victory condition 50 regions hopefully goes completely into the nirvana (instead factions should aim for historical goals, this is historical proper key-settlements per faction and the destruction of historical arch-enemies, but alternative subjugate them and keep them alive).

[The Great Montrose]

In Empire when I went the Ottoman Empire I wanted to expand eastwards and so didnt want to concentrate defending my western territories, so I gave my balkan regions to my vassals to ensure their survival and create a buffer zone, I think this feature should go back in

[Kinjo]

This feature was removed and 3-4 redundant features to improve relations were added. Sure hostages is a cool feature but the same results can be achieved with financial gifts. Being able to transfer regions through diplomacy should be a core diplomacy feature for every Toatal war game. I remember when NTW first came out there was a lot of positive feed back about this feature, I just don't know why CA would remove it.

[DaVinci]

This feature was removed and 3-4 redundant features to improve relations were added. Sure hostages is a cool feature but the same results can be achieved with financial gifts. Being able to transfer regions through diplomacy should be a core diplomacy feature for every Toatal war game. I remember when NTW first came out there was a lot of positive feed back about this feature, I just don't know why CA would remove it.

Well, hm ... the unconditioned region-trade is a bad feature (since ETW at least). Why? Because the AI cannot handle that properly. See ETW, where a Hindu faction wants to get a north american region from you or from another AI.
A game is only good with its (special) features, if the CAI (and BAI, for according instances) can act with them properly.

[Horatio Hornblower]

Well, hm ... the unconditioned region-trade is a bad feature (since ETW at least). Why? Because the AI cannot handle that properly. See ETW, where a Hindu faction wants to get a north american region from you or from another AI.
A game is only good with its (special) features, if the CAI (and BAI, for according instances) can act with them properly.

Yes, that's true but they are the "doctors".
It is their duty to make these features work!!
If you want to do something, do it well or don't do it at all...

[Kinjo]

Well, hm ... the unconditioned region-trade is a bad feature (since ETW at least). Why? Because the AI cannot handle that properly. See ETW, where a Hindu faction wants to get a north american region from you or from another AI.
A game is only good with its (special) features, if the CAI (and BAI, for according instances) can act with them properly.

That's a simple fix and why I talked more about 1. the option to give a region back to an ally that was temporally occupied and 2. the option to give regions to your vassals.

By doing that it restricts uncontrolled Ai trading but still is a practical tool for the player to manage vassals and allies. Its not so hard if a little bit of thought and good design is put into the process and sure the hell is a lot better then axing the option all together.

[Horatio Hornblower]

I really enjoyed the feature in NTW to be able to transfer territory/regions in the diplomacy phase. It made managing alliances and vassals practical and fun. It was extremely annoying this feature went away in Shogun 2, it really gimped diplomacy gameplay wise for me.

Why can't we give an ally a region back we helped recapture that was temporarily occupied by the enemy?

This should be an option at the minimal, if you are dragged into an allies war and they lose some regions there should be an option to give the region back to your ally if you are the one to retake it.

Also the ability to give a region to vassals during the diplomacy phase should be in Rome 2. Let us control our vassals and alliance the way we want to and not be force into a conquer one region after another as the only path to victory.

Anyways just my take but I hope CA expands the diplomacy phase because the the Diplomacy options in Shogun 2 sucked in comparison to NTW when its comes to managing your territory. Maybe we will get lucky and CA will add this feature back as well as other things like giving factions loans, option to annex vassals, and the ability to coordinate attacks with Ai allies on the campaign map.

I don't think its useless since regions your vassals control still count towards your region count victory conditions. Why should we be forced to paint the map with our faction color when setting up buffer states/client kingdoms might be a better option in some cases. This diplomacy feature is a tool that helps you manage buffer states and offers an alternative way to manage your territory. Did you even play Napoleon total war?

I totally agree.
It's not funny to conquer all campaign map...not at all!!
I think that a diplomatic strategy is more important than conquer everything without a logical order!

[General Maximus]

I agree with OP. I enjoyed this feature.

In fact, it helped me build peacefully and avoid unwanted threats. In M2TW, I used to give Normandy region to France in the first turn, just to prevent them from taking it militarily and then massacring my people anyway.

And it also helped me to keep many factions alive. I used to give them a safe island to make them survive. And I loved doing property trading, purchasing settlements from other factions and giving them away to win loyal allies, giving someone a rebellious province and watching them being hit in the face, et cetra...

In NTW, I had special provinces which I bent upon hard and made them poorer and poorer. Then I gave it to a future enemy for free and watched as all his money went down the drain, as poorer settlements don't give money but consume them.

[Fanest]

I agree with OP and i would very much like to see this feature back

[Ichon]

Especially with Rome having so many client kingdoms and sometimes trading lands between its clients. Other stats practiced similarly with Carthage especially making use of such strategies. It would be eve more necessary if some type of logistics system is put in by CA. Bactria might not find it in best interest to garrison and build up Hispania but would be content to have client kingdom there paying small tribute and being trade partner. Of course the risk is that client might rebel or be turned against Bactria by another enemy... most interesting would be if an enemy could profit from certain forms of government more, so monarchies might have pretenders setup and client kingdoms are more vulnerable to this so an enemy of Bactria might instigate a civil war in Hispania and if Bactria does not send in troops to help their clients side they face a new enemy and lose some prestige/diplomatic relations with all their other client kingdoms.

[Totalheadache]

Yes I agree. Plus vassals/client kingdoms also should be there.

Some form of revolts and leaders of your client states can increase chance of your client kingdoms changing sides etc. and ofc marrying into the locals/installing puppets or forcing marshal law (e.g you send in a minimum of 2 cohorts which supress any problems but means you will get less productivity).

[Biggus Splenus]

Ya bring it back. More in-depth diplomacy, and the more variety in it, the better.

[Glustrod]

I am sure this feature will be back in rome 2. The only thing it was removed in Shogun2 was because there were only civil war scenarios. In a Civil War you either win or you lose so u don't trade regions for making peace with the/a opposite faction.

[Kinjo]

Toyotomi Hideyoshi did and I still don't think that is a plausible argument for removing this feature.

[CptAustus]

As long as they balance the "give region" and "territorial expansion". In Emprie I liked to offer territories in negotiations, but obviously I have to conquer them first, I'd end up with -100 from expansion and that made things terrible.

[Glustrod]

As long as they balance the "give region" and "territorial expansion". In Emprie I liked to offer territories in negotiations, but obviously I have to conquer them first, I'd end up with -100 from expansion and that made things terrible.

Thats a really BIG issue in empire, you give conquered regions back to the former owner and they still hate you for conquering this one region same as you would have kept it -.-


And Kinjo you might be right, but i'm always looking for reasons why they do this or this. And thats the only thing that makes sense to me for removing a feature like this one :/