CA, how many centuries must pass before you ...

[antred]

make a Total War game whose diplomacy isn't total shambles?! What's sorely missing from this game are:

• the ability to ask another nation to make peace with a third party
• getting a say in whether a client state I recently subjugated gets to declare war on somebody else (they should have to ask me ... I made them my bi_t_ches!!) <--- P.S. The length I have to go to to prevent this utterly harmless word from being censored is totally ridiculous.
• when subjugating a conquered nation, any wars that nation has going on against other nations should be terminated (unless I'm at war with them, too)

Games like Civ 4 and Paradox' Europa Universalis have shown the way. When will you catch on?

[Errabundi]

make a Total War game whose diplomacy isn't total shambles?! What's sorely missing from this game are:

• the ability to ask another nation to make peace with a third party
• getting a say in whether a client state I recently subjugated gets to declare war on somebody else (they should have to ask me ... I made them my bi_t_ches!!) <--- P.S. The length I have to go to to prevent this utterly harmless word from being censored is totally ridiculous.
• when subjugating a conquered nation, any wars that nation has going on against other nations should be terminated (unless I'm at war with them, too)

Games like Civ 4 and Paradox' Europa Universalis have shown the way. When will you catch on?

Actually diplomacy in Rome II is way better than in Civ IV (even Civ V I must admit), in my opinion is definitely the best in Total War series. It DOES force subjugated nations and your allies to cease all hostilities with their enemy and a satrapy (read carefully: SATRAPY) cannot enter a war by itself since it striped off it's diplomatic abilities; can just declare war against it's senior. Client state is a bit different, has some minor foreign policy, so it can declare wars.

And I think there is a "demand peace" option in diplomatic panel. I'm not sure though, so once I check it I'll update it (with pictures).

I agree diplomacy in Europa Universalis IV seems more realistic, however it's a different system and you can't compare them. There you've got more variables (like global diplomacy rating, bad boy stats, relation counter, war goals and - most important - casus belli). If Rome II had gone in this direction we probably should have called it Total Diplomacy: Ancient Mediterranean, as in Paradox games war is just another mean of diplomacy.

[IlluminatiRex]

as in Paradox games war is just another mean of diplomacy.

This quote hits the nail on the head. I love Paradox games, but they're generally not wargames (Hearts of Iron not withstanding). They are games of diplomacy, and become supreme through different means of diplomacy. Total War on the other hand strives to be a wargame, and thus the focus is a little different.

[antred]

Total War on the other hand strives to be a wargame, and thus the focus is a little different.

That's an irrelevant excuse, because the lack of a demand-peace option breaks the whole point of turning a conquered people into a client state. If your client state just remains at war with your allies, that damages your relations with your allies, plus your client state may get gobbled up by another nation still at war with it. This isn't a matter of whether TW focuses on war vs diplomacy, this is a matter of a vital part of the game being broken.

[IlluminatiRex]

That's an irrelevant excuse, because the lack of a demand-peace option breaks the whole point of turning a conquered people into a client state. If your client state just remains at war with your allies, that damages your relations with your allies, plus your client state may get gobbled up by another nation still at war with it. This isn't a matter of whether TW focuses on war vs diplomacy, this is a matter of a vital part of the game being broken.

Did I ever say what Rome II has isn't flawed? No, I didn't. I agree that there are issues with Rome II's diplomacy that need to be fixed, however I don't believe diplomacy on the depth of EUIV or CKII is going to do Total War any good due to the sheer difference in focus between the titles.

[Evan MF]

Did I ever say what Rome II has isn't flawed? No, I didn't. I agree that there are issues with Rome II's diplomacy that need to be fixed, however I don't believe diplomacy on the depth of EUIV or CKII is going to do Total War any good due to the sheer difference in focus between the titles.

War is not just about fighting battles you know. The build-up and preparation for war during peacetime is as significant as the action itself. The diplomacy should serve as a mechanism as such, not to merely be a 'declare war' button and a hugely compressed trading mechanic.

[RandyRhoads]

Actually diplomacy in Rome II is way better than in Civ IV

Maybe, if it wasn't broken.

[The Despondent Mind]

make a Total War game whose diplomacy isn't total shambles?! What's sorely missing from this game are:

• the ability to ask another nation to make peace with a third party
• getting a say in whether a client state I recently subjugated gets to declare war on somebody else (they should have to ask me ... I made them my bi_t_ches!!) <--- P.S. The length I have to go to to prevent this utterly harmless word from being censored is totally ridiculous.
• when subjugating a conquered nation, any wars that nation has going on against other nations should be terminated (unless I'm at war with them, too)

Games like Civ 4 and Paradox' Europa Universalis have shown the way. When will you catch on?

I agree , and these issues have always pissed me off in TW series , especially in STW2 , where because of this flaws it's almost impossible to have descent vassals .

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

And pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease allow us to trade regions again. This is a seriously important option for me, personally. When I go to war to assist an ally, I want to be able to give them the lands they are fighting for. When a faction offers themselves up to be my client state in exchange for protection against their enemies, I would love to be able to sail over there and conquer their enemies, then give those regions to my client state.

It was such an important feature for me in every game leading up to Shogun 2, when it was taken away. It would have been incredibly valuable there, too.

[AlexCouceiro]

Creative Assembly doesn´t need to overcomplicate the diplomacy system, I agree. All we need is a FUNCTIONAL, LOGICAL, FUN AND ORGANIZED system, that's all. If vassals will attack your own allies, then the system is completely flawed and will not fall in this category, will it? If breaking truces won't be the cause of any serious consequences to both the AI and the player, then that means the system is still very bad. Do I need to go on? The same thing applies to the political system. It could have been made so as to be relatively simple in Rome 2, yet FUNCTIONAL, FUN, LOGICAL AND ORGANIZED.

As the OP said, it's been centuries, and the whole point of diplomacy and politics in TW games still is a big mess. Perhaps it's now better than it was in the remote pass, which doesn't mean it's good enough or in an acceptable state.

[The Librarian]

And pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease allow us to trade regions again. This is a seriously important option for me, personally. When I go to war to assist an ally, I want to be able to give them the lands they are fighting for. When a faction offers themselves up to be my client state in exchange for protection against their enemies, I would love to be able to sail over there and conquer their enemies, then give those regions to my client state.

It was such an important feature for me in every game leading up to Shogun 2, when it was taken away. It would have been incredibly valuable there, too.

I remember them saying it was removed because it was very easy to exploit the AI, or caused weird issues (like the Iroquois asking for Polish territory in Empire). Same with the fact that you can't select an exact amount of money to give in diplomacy: exploits. When you're forced to give a fixed percentage of your treasury, it's much easier for the AI to gauge your intentions. I thinks it's a clever and elegant solution.

[PeonKing]

I remember them saying it was removed because it was very easy to exploit the AI, or caused weird issues (like the Iroquois asking for Polish territory in Empire). Same with the fact that you can't select an exact amount of money to give in diplomacy: exploits. When you're forced to give a fixed percentage of your treasury, it's much easier for the AI to gauge your intentions. I thinks it's a clever and elegant solution.

I mean, I feel like there should be a way around that. If they figured out how get the AI to decide to ask to become your Satrap/Client State, they should be able to figure out land exchanges. I don't really see the 'it can't be done' excuse to work here, even if they made it so the AI would pretty much never give up land, and would never compensate you for land your giving them. I agree that the AI diplomacy is pretty good in this game, but it still has problems. I still occassionally run into problems where if I'm allied to a faction, and I declare war on a faction they are friendly with, they declare war with me, and then make peace the next turn. It's effectively just going around the 'break alliance' function of being a military ally declining to aid your ally in war. It's a real pain, I'd rather have them just betray me, not use an exploit around the function. I'm also a big fan of the forcing peace options with other factions. I've wanted to create alliance blocs, but I can't do that because half the time the factions, who have been war for a century but never actually invaded each other, won't ally. Which just results in me destroying them both, so it seems kind of pointless.

I also disagree with your assessment of being 'clever and elegant.' They're limiting the player because they can't program the AI to be sophisticated enough to understand when they're being jerked around. Instead of letting you make decisions, the game limits your choices. I just get around that by using the demand button to bring up the money in smaller increments, and then switching to offer.

[Cavalier]

I remember them saying it was removed because it was very easy to exploit the AI, or caused weird issues (like the Iroquois asking for Polish territory in Empire). Same with the fact that you can't select an exact amount of money to give in diplomacy: exploits. When you're forced to give a fixed percentage of your treasury, it's much easier for the AI to gauge your intentions. I thinks it's a clever and elegant solution.

Yeah, it doesn't matter for me that I can or cannot trade regions. Hell, in Medieval II when I was rolling in cash I basically bribed an entire faction to give me their territories(except for the capital). How much fun is that?

[antred]

Yeah, it doesn't matter for me that I can or cannot trade regions. Hell, in Medieval II when I was rolling in cash I basically bribed an entire faction to give me their territories(except for the capital). How much fun is that?

The fact that the AI in TW is frequently too dumb to tie its shoe laces should not be used as an excuse for not providing the player with adequate diplomatic options. You cannot use one short-coming to excuse another short-coming. That said, the ability to trade regions is far less important than a peace-brokering option; to me anyway.

[Cavalier]

The fact that the AI in TW is frequently too dumb to tie its shoe laces should not be used as an excuse for not providing the player with adequate diplomatic options. You cannot use one short-coming to excuse another short-coming. That said, the ability to trade regions is far less important than a peace-brokering option; to me anyway.

Sure, trading regions are useful when for example giving your AI ally a region that you do not want, but it is far to easily exploited as proven.

If CA or modders add that diplomatic feature, then I personally would like to see some sort of penalty, or some sort of 'condition' for giving/trading regions, so that it is not as easily exploitable by giving the AI 100,000 denari. That's just a personal preference, mind you.

[SirRobin]

Same with the fact that you can't select an exact amount of money to give in diplomacy: exploits. When you're forced to give a fixed percentage of your treasury, it's much easier for the AI to gauge your intentions.

It would be easy to allow the player to offer any amount of money they like, but at the same time let the AI compare that amount to the player's estimated wealth.

After all, when you meet a diplomat from another nation, you generally have an idea about how wealthy that nation is, even if you don't know the exact amount of money they have.

So, if you have 10 provinces and lots of armies, then offering 100 gold isn't going to persuade anyone.

[High Fist]

Yeah, it doesn't matter for me that I can or cannot trade regions. Hell, in Medieval II when I was rolling in cash I basically bribed an entire faction to give me their territories(except for the capital). How much fun is that?

So it's basically a workaround, people seem to be rolling in cash all the time in R2.

The fact that the AI in TW is frequently too dumb to tie its shoe laces should not be used as an excuse for not providing the player with adequate diplomatic options. You cannot use one short-coming to excuse another short-coming. That said, the ability to trade regions is far less important than a peace-brokering option; to me anyway.

I like the option and find it useful. You need an alliance with your neighbour? Give them a poorly defended region of yours, lessens your over extension and gets you great relations. Got a castle up in Lithuania thanks to the crusade? Gift it to somebody else; don't worry about it yourself.

It's a nice option.

[Pajkes]

I remember them saying it was removed because it was very easy to exploit the AI, or caused weird issues (like the Iroquois asking for Polish territory in Empire). Same with the fact that you can't select an exact amount of money to give in diplomacy: exploits. When you're forced to give a fixed percentage of your treasury, it's much easier for the AI to gauge your intentions. I thinks it's a clever and elegant solution.

IMO there is absolutely NOTHING elegant nor clever in that.It's just one more cheap excuse to not implement something because working on it and making it work well isn't easy.Just like everything related to this game (hint: politics).It's not just that game itself is dumbed down,but it seems like devs are also inexperienced and pretty much incompetent.Combine that with lead director Tim Heaton coming from EA and pulling all the strings (doing what he is told by Sega) and you pretty much get shallow game or in other words: Rome 2.

[Rijul.J.Ballal]

And pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease allow us to trade regions again

[DeliCiousTZM]

make a Total War game whose diplomacy isn't total shambles?! What's sorely missing from this game are:

• the ability to ask another nation to make peace with a third party
• getting a say in whether a client state I recently subjugated gets to declare war on somebody else (they should have to ask me ... I made them my bi_t_ches!!) <--- P.S. The length I have to go to to prevent this utterly harmless word from being censored is totally ridiculous.
• when subjugating a conquered nation, any wars that nation has going on against other nations should be terminated (unless I'm at war with them, too)

Games like Civ 4 and Paradox' Europa Universalis have shown the way. When will you catch on?

Diplomacy in Rome II is the best out of all the total war games. Also i'd like to note that not all "client states" are the same. We have the Satrapies, the client states, the weird carthage client states.