Diplomacy and Client States: They do not work as they should

[Sylentwolf8]

I have a few complaints and issues with Client-states and Diplomacy, and figured i'd share. Also, there seems to be no organization in discussion, hopefully by singling out a few issues to discuss per post might help CA see what specifically people want?

First off, Client-State/Satrapy issues:

• The first and biggest point is that you cannot revive vassal factions. This was in Shogun 2, this was in Napoleon. Why on God's green earth was it decided to remove it for a game where it would likely be the most useful? I remember in previews being told we could create buffer states, however clearly this was a lie. Also, why wouldn't a faction be able to revive it's old ally as a client-state? It makes no sense.
• Even upon achieving a client-state, the client state still remains at war with everyone. I made Sparta a client, only to realize that unlike in Shogun 2 (EDIT: As people have said, in Shogun 2 they only made peace with your allies, the problem with this in Rome 2 is that you get a negative diplomatic penalty with the people your clients are at war with), they did not immediately make peace with the ~10 factions they were at war with. It makes no sense for a vassal to be able to wage wars of aggression outside of the realm. By your new client-state remaining at war with everyone, it forces you to either declare war on half of the known world, or let your client-state fend for itself, and STILL receive negative diplomatic penalties with everyone.

• It should be easier to trade with vassals.

  This is a great point and one that should be addressed. In what reality would a state subject itself to a situation where they are paying their overlord for protection, but refuse open trade with them?

• Why don't Vassals immediately declare war on nations you start a war with (or are attacked by)? I constantly have to ask them, which they, of course, refuse.

  This is a huge issue in my book. Isn't the function of a vassal to provide troops and money to their liege in return for protection when they need it?

Regarding Diplomacy:

• You can no longer request or give away territory. (I know this was not in recent titles, but is far more important for Rome 2 than in recent titles) This is incredibly useful in managing countless diplomatic activities:
  
  • Can no longer give territory to a client state. (For example you go on a conquering rampage in lands that used to be Egypt. You being far away from Egypt do not want to directly manage these lands, so, assuming my first points are fixed, you liberate Egypt and then continue to give Egypt it's core provinces back as you take them. This allows you to ignore the issues of local culture penalties and provincial management, while still giving more long-term benefit then a simple looting of the province.
  • Can no longer request or give away territory in a peace deal. I think this is pretty self-explanatory. Being able to give away land for terms in a peace deal can be important in paying your aggressor off.
  • Being able to sell/buy land. Also self-explanatory, if you have land in a far away land that you know another faction wants, why not sell it to them?

  • Bring back trading/gifting regions making it expensive and only possible if you, your ally, or your vassal own a region that is in the same province. That way the AI won't be landing deals that are not close to home, like in Empire.

    This would be an excellent way to bring back region trading, without having Parthians in Spain akin to the Iroquois in Poland like in ETW, which I imagine was one of the main reasons for the feature's removal.
  
  
• Option to threaten: As a gigantic faction, why wouldn't I be able to threaten a little faction into being an ally/client?
• Military alliances are as far as I can tell impossible. Literally every time, no matter how high the relations, the max they will accept is a defensive alliance and that only happened ONCE. I understand not wanting to have massive complex alliance systems, however a like-minded faction with like interests and good relations should be able to be military allies.
• Trade agreements: At the beginning of the game I was able to trade with almost anyone in the world for free. Now all of a sudden everyone, even close allies, refuse trade without a substantial bribe. I remember this being an issue in Shogun 2 as well, apparently it still hasn't been fixed.

• Money gifts are not effecting diplomacy relations

  I was not aware of this, but if this is true, this should be an easy fix and I can't see why it wasn't in the game already.

PLEASE DISCUSS
Also, please add any ideas you might have regarding the two systems.

[TuranianGhazi]

Wholeheartedly agree! Great post!

Since Shogun 2, you couldn't trade/gift territories. Seriously, that is one of the major reasons why I still play Empire and Napoleon because it's still possible there and works awesome, for the most part.

For example in ETW, as Ottomans, I would gift any Russian regions to Crimean Khanate to grow them in power as a great buffer. Similarly, in NTW, as Ottomans, I would liberate Crimean Khanate to create a buffer.

I understand that CA removed that feature because stupid computer AI abused that: Greece could become Iroquois territory, crazy stuff like that. CA is just masking their inability to properly make a decent CAI.

All in all, increasingly, Paradox is proving to me as a consumer that they LISTEN to their fanbase and are better strategy designers, leaving CA good at only the graphical pizzazz of TW battles. Strategy is most gutted in this latest TW release. Don't get me started on capture points. People calmed me down saying that the flags are only for sieges, not for open battles. Well, they are for EVERYTHING.A

Also about diplomacy, here's a situation that happened to me where CLEARLY more diplomatic options were needed:

1) As Parthia, I'm attacking Carmania province port region held by enemy X (Gadrana something). However, I cannot siege the city because it is navy-blockaded by enemy Y (Mascat). There is nothing I can do to enemy Y to stop its hostiliies with enemy X or threaten them, except to declare war on enemy Y, so just I can finish off enemy X. This is broken. There should be much more diplomatic maneuvaribility and flexibility in handling such situations.

Oh and Dahae with just one REGION in Amul... I can't make them a Satrapy ... chance is always LOW. Diplomacy is broken, completely useless. Client-states/satrapies are useless because one cannot gift them Territories or Technology or Military Units to strengthen them, make them a buffer state. It's FAR easier to just conquer everything outright, no matter the cultural costs, etc.

[Sylentwolf8]

Wholeheartedly agree! Great post!

Since Shogun 2, you couldn't trade/gift territories. Seriously, that is one of the major reasons why I still play Empire and Napoleon because it's still possible there and works awesome, for the most part.

I understand that CA removed that feature because stupid computer AI abused that: Greece could become Iroquois territory, crazy stuff like that. CA is just masking their inability to properly make a decent CAI.

Unfortunately I have to agree with that last part. The intercontinental territory trading was pretty ridiculous. You would think that could easily be avoided however by simply putting restrictions based on the distance from the buyer to the territory in question. So for example Rome could purchase Sardinia from Carthage, however Parthia would not be able to purchase Sardinia since they would be way too far a distance.

[Sylentwolf8]

All in all, increasingly, Paradox is proving to me as a consumer that they LISTEN to their fanbase and are better strategy designers, leaving CA good at only the graphical pizzazz of TW battles. Strategy is most gutted in this latest TW release. Don't get me started on capture points. People calmed me down saying that the flags are only for sieges, not for open battles. Well, they are for EVERYTHING.A

Also about diplomacy, here's a situation that happened to me where CLEARLY more diplomatic options were needed:

1) As Parthia, I'm attacking Carmania province port region held by enemy X (Gadrana something). However, I cannot siege the city because it is navy-blockaded by enemy Y (Mascat). There is nothing I can do to enemy Y to stop its hostiliies with enemy X or threaten them, except to declare war on enemy Y, so just I can finish off enemy X. This is broken. There should be much more diplomatic maneuvaribility and flexibility in handling such situations.

Oh and Dahae with just one REGION in Amul... I can't make them a Satrapy ... chance is always LOW. Diplomacy is broken, completely useless. Client-states/satrapies are useless because one cannot gift them Territories or Technology or Military Units to strengthen them, make them a buffer state. It's FAR easier to just conquer everything outright, no matter the cultural costs, etc.

Couldn't agree more, I may have to just go back to EU4 for another few weeks until Rome 2 is out of Beta. Also, that's a great example, for at least 50 YEARS there were at least 5 factions all taking turns besieging the rebel port of Lilybaeum. None of them went to assault it, and short of leaving an army there forever waiting for them to give up, there was no reasonable way that I could take the town.

[Sigfried]

I agree in all the client states point.. I just feel its missing stuff that actually was included in older games and that could had even been improved..
Also agree in threating.. just cant belive its not there... about other stuff im just not that far into the game yet to judge it, but i havent seen any alliances yet

[Snizel]

Great points. I agree with all of them.

[krisslanza]

Also pretty sure in Shogun 2, vassaling someone didn't make them drop wars. It just meant any they were involved in, you didn't have to join in.

[Earende]

• Even upon achieving a client-state, the client state still remains at war with everyone. I made Sparta a client, only to realize that unlike in Shogun 2, they did not immediately make peace with the ~10 factions they were at war with. It makes no sense for a vassal to be able to wage wars of aggression outside of the realm. By your new client-state remaining at war with everyone, it forces you to either declare war on half of the known world, or let your client-state fend for itself, and STILL receive negative diplomatic penalties with everyone.

• I don't remember Shogun 2's vassals going auto peace with their enemies, unless their enemies happen to be your allies. Maybe it's the same over here?

[Sylentwolf8]

I don't remember Shogun 2's vassals going auto peace with their enemies, unless their enemies happen to be your allies. Maybe it's the same over here?[/LIST]

You're right, perhaps that is the case. Unfortunately I cannot test that as I cannot achieve an alliance.

[Aelita]

I totally agree, not being able to revive dead factions as my satrapy was the most disappointing part of the game

[Sylentwolf8]

I totally agree, not being able to revive dead factions as my satrapy was the most disappointing part of the game

Especially when you can't revive that faction that's been your friend since the beginning of the game, or a past client-state. It just makes no sense, and only ends up making the world into a world of rebels.

[Revan The Great]

Starting up a Carthage game I was mortified to find that my 'Client' states were refusing my trade agreement requests, even with a hefty bribe.

[Entotz]

Starting up a Carthage game I was mortified to find that my 'Client' states were refusing my trade agreement requests, even with a hefty bribe.

Improve and recruit more to your army to give deterent effect, that should make the diplomacy easier. But at mid - late game you have to include some money (sorry for english)

[Dresden]

Two easily fixable issues that are major problems.

1. You should be able to revive factions into a client state.

2. If another faction is blockading a port, you should still be able to siege the town with an army.

[TuranianGhazi]

Two easily fixable issues that are major problems.

1. You should be able to revive factions into a client state.

2. If another faction is blockading a port, you should still be able to siege the town with an army.

BRAVO. Kudos!

Easy and simple solutions. C'mon, CA ... get to it! You don't have much time.

[xjlxking]

As far as giving away territories, I care not. Why should I? It make no sense.
Trade agreement are easy to get. Don't accept what they have, just counter offer them till it's removed from the table

[Sylentwolf8]

As far as giving away territories, I care not. Why should I? It make no sense.

I think I explained the purposes for it in the original post quite well. Honestly though this isn't a big problem for me, I mostly care about the client-states.

Trade agreement are easy to get. Don't accept what they have, just counter offer them till it's removed from the table

I don't believe this works at all, and I don't see why it would. Even when offering 2000 denarii most do not accept when you get to a certain point.

[Tiwaz]

As far as giving away territories, I care not. Why should I? It make no sense.

Oh? It makes MUCH sense, specially historically. It has been ages old "tradition" to force another party to yield territory you have not conquered in exchange for peace for example.

[fish157]

I have not had a problem with trade at all. After about 10 turns when I had some decent resources I got a few trade offers then it snowballed and as I began getting more resources from trade and conquest everyone I came into contact with would offer agreement or accept mine. This makes sense too me. If you don't have something the other faction wants why would they trade? I also found non aggression pacts easy to get. Client states and alliances are a little trickier and I'm not sure how the AI decides that. No one accepts my requests for these agreements, however friendly factions have offered alliances. Client states I think work better than any other tw game. Most previous titles I found almost impossible to get vassels. In RTWII I have found that like alliances, no faction has agreed to my offer however in quite a few situations the AI has asked to be my client state. This seems to occur if I have defeated them in battle or conquered one o their neighbors. My first client state was breuci and they offered the agreement as I was massing an army on their border. To me this system makes sense. Barbarian factions arnt going to submit to your dominion untill they have seen a show of force. I agree with the rest of your points about territories and client states following your diplomacy

[Revan The Great]

As far as giving away territories, I care not. Why should I? It make no sense.
Trade agreement are easy to get. Don't accept what they have, just counter offer them till it's removed from the table

Giving away territories makes perfect sense. It's a great way to force a peace with a faction that's too big for you to want to conquer right away. At war with Macedonia? Take Pella and offer it back to them in the peace deal. This would drive up significantly the 'value' of your offer and make them that much more likely to accept.

As for trade agreements, yes it's possible to obtain them, but not for a reasonable cost. I once had Athens ask me for 4,000 gold to get a trade agreement worth 68 gold a turn. Counter-offering 2,000 gold (just for giggles) made them reject the offer outright so clearly they want much more gold than just 2,000. No way I'm agreeing to a trade deal that will only pay off after 50 some turns if that one province faction isn't conquered somewhere in those 50 turns.