Is this intended....

**Mr_B0naparte** · March 20, 2014, 10:44 AM

Is it intended for the AI to give quite generous amounts of money to the player in return for trade agreements? I managed to get 2-3k per faction as Carthage for trade agreements on the first turn, ending up with 16k or so in my treasury!

Is it also intended for the AI to give payments for players to join wars they clearly can't help in? I.e. a friend as Carthage was offered 2k by AI Egypt to join the war against Persia, when his holdings did not extend beyond the starting provinces and we couldn't even see Persia on the map. He had a defensive alliance with Egypt, but I still think it was a waste of money on Egypt's part.

**tomFoolery** · March 20, 2014, 11:04 AM

I've had the AI offer me very large sums for trade agreements, but only once I've established myself as a fairly large empire (at least imperium 4 or 5) with a lot of different resources to export. Carthage starts large and has relatively a good amount of resources at the start, so I'm not terribly surprised if you can manage that on the first turn as them.

On that second point, the AI never seems to factor distance or obstacles when making/asking for war declarations, it only takes into account diplomatic standings. I've witnessed AI factions declaring war on other factions that are literally on the other side of the map that they literally have no chance of actually getting armies to, and in my current campaign plenty of factions are currently at war with such a case, it's just how it is. I've never seen an AI faction attempt to make military access agreements to help themselves in this matter either.

**Archesel** · March 20, 2014, 12:34 PM

Even it vanilla i got this. It could even be considerated as a general rule: when you see in the panel that your offer chance of acceptation is High, then ask for extra money. You'ld then get some during the bargain.

**LawL_LawL** · March 20, 2014, 02:34 PM

Depends on the situation, but yes often you can get quite a bit of fast cash from the AI by extorting them for what are really just mutually beneficial treaties.

Though beyond a couple turns this money quickly becomes not particularly meaningful unless you simply sit on it as a reserve as your own money output should increase rather quickly. Good way to get early armies and buildings though.

**tomFoolery** · March 20, 2014, 08:13 PM

Originally Posted by LawL_LawL

mutually beneficial treaties.

From my experience, the AI truly doesn't understand the meaning of the phrase...

**LawL_LawL** · March 21, 2014, 04:21 AM

Originally Posted by tomFoolery

From my experience, the AI truly doesn't understand the meaning of the phrase...

Yeah I'm not sure what to think of the assessment the AI gives. When on the brink of annihilation with a single settlement under siege they will not capitulate. Other times in peace I can dangle 15k in-front of them and they'll willingly prostrate themselves as a Client State... Though I've found out this can lead to some serious problems as Client States are not nearly as manageable as Satrapies, yet one has no option of choosing between these :/

Though to answer the OP's question of whether or not it's intended, I think this falls into the grey-area a lot of other stuff does as well. One could see it as blatantly abusing the AI as a third-party assessment of the situation would see it as being favourable to the player much more so than the AI. One could also argue the AI is scripted to assess each situation, and if that's what it feels is appropriate then the game must be functioning as intended as CA has not resolved this 'issue' that's been around in TW games for quite some time.

Originally Posted by cerebral

Had you more choice over the amount offered/demanded maybe the gradient would be better and politics in this game would seem more "grey". As is it's very black and white and easily manipulated/broken.

Oh but the luxury of having huge stores of money... You can slowly tip the scale back and forth with adding and subtracting two fixed amounts to get the amount you want. It's like trying to haggle with a broken abacus... Why can we just specify the damn amount? Stupid game mechanics. All the worse when you don't have money on hand. You open the panel and offer the AI non-aggression which is High acceptance and you wager you can get about 1.5k. Open panel to ask for money and the AI economic strength is Very High...

So you ask "Can I have 3k?"

and promptly receive

"Where is your pride? Has it been eaten away by carrion birds?"

Come on...

Your only option now: "Demanding: 17."

yet you dread for this to happen

"You have the heart of a mersshant friend, a mersshant, we do not want your gold!"

.... *face palm*

**Ardri** · March 20, 2014, 05:12 PM

If you want it to be harder to gain money from the AI, stay away from factions/families that get diplomatic bonuses and don't take character households or skills that add to diplomacy. I'm doing this with Junia as Rome and I only have a handfull of trade partners 60 turms in and most wouldn't give me any money. I've actually had to pay a few myself. Turn 1 seems to be an easy exploit though, I was able to wheel and deal as Seluicids on turn 1. Both campaigns on very hard.

**antred** · March 21, 2014, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by Ardri

If you want it to be harder to gain money from the AI, stay away from factions/families that get diplomatic bonuses and don't take character households or skills that add to diplomacy. I'm doing this with Junia as Rome and I only have a handfull of trade partners 60 turms in and most wouldn't give me any money. I've actually had to pay a few myself. Turn 1 seems to be an easy exploit though, I was able to wheel and deal as Seluicids on turn 1. Both campaigns on very hard.

I always play as the Junia, and even with their diplomatic malus you'll eventually reach a critical mass of alliances and trade treaties that will cause tons of other nations also aligned with your trade partners to like you enough so that the slightly negative impact of that malus might as well not exist any more.

**cerebral** · March 20, 2014, 09:13 PM

It's easy to play the AI in diplomacy. If any given offer has a high chance of success, demand money until it's moderate. That amount is pretty much guaranteed, sometimes you can get away with an increase of 1 increment (depending on their economy its diff) or it'll be counter-offered. Disband entire navy other than the admiral off to discover, maybe get another to do the same in a different direction (I keep spy for spy stuff like killing insane amounts of people before a battle). Use the extra bank to rapidly develop your provinces/raise armies while keeping taxes low for initial growth. Ez.

Had you more choice over the amount offered/demanded maybe the gradient would be better and politics in this game would seem more "grey". As is it's very black and white and easily manipulated/broken.

**Friedrich's Moustache** · March 21, 2014, 04:36 AM

I don't think it's unrealistic that the like of Carthage (the greatest Thalassocracy to have existed at the time) can demand sums of money for trade accords. In fact, I think it's a much better situation than the stingy AI that came with the original game.

Now if only the mod developers could get war diplomacy to be realistic we'd be living in a Rome 2 utopia.

**tomFoolery** · March 21, 2014, 07:20 AM

The only situation I've consistently got the AI to accept/offer peace, is not when they're about to be annihilated, but when we've been at war but neither side has attacked the other for some time and mostly sat on the defensive.

**Friedrich's Moustache** · March 21, 2014, 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by tomFoolery

The only situation I've consistently got the AI to accept/offer peace, is not when they're about to be annihilated, but when we've been at war but neither side has attacked the other for some time and mostly sat on the defensive.

I would wager that is because diplomacy in this game is far far too heavily dependent on opinion, and not on more important factors...such as survival.

**tomFoolery** · March 21, 2014, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by Friedrich's Moustache

I would wager that is because diplomacy in this game is far far too heavily dependent on opinion, and not on more important factors...such as survival.

It would flow much better if factors such as that could some how be effectively tied into a numerical diplomatic relations affect...through scripts somehow maybe?

**gornoviceanu** · March 21, 2014, 08:49 AM

The AI is so bad in this game.. especially the CAI. I think the game would be better of if CA wrote the AI to think for itself and only do stuff that is beneficial for its faction. Someone else mentioned it earlier, the CAI is relying to much on opinions of factions when deciding what to do.

The AI should stop asking itself "do I like this faction enough" and start wondering if certain diplomatic actions can result in a gain (power, territory, stability, economic etc.) and if the gain is worth it.

**LawL_LawL** · March 21, 2014, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by Friedrich's Moustache

I would wager that is because diplomacy in this game is far far too heavily dependent on opinion, and not on more important factors...such as survival.

Not to mention this opinion value fluctuates depending on aggressive actions. Which leads to a situation where you're more likely to be given peace after 2 turns of warfare with no losses than you are with 60 turns of warfare and the enemy on death's door-step, as every military action against them just raises their hostility level.

Originally Posted by tomFoolery

It would flow much better if factors such as that could some how be effectively tied into a numerical diplomatic relations affect...through scripts somehow maybe?

Scripting seems to be the go-to for anything the game can't produce on it's own. We can only hope diplomacy is one of these things scripts can salvage though. And I wouldn't keep these hopes too high...

**Iltedge** · March 21, 2014, 06:16 PM

I don't know if you guys are familiar with Anabasis and Yukishiro's mods ("Give Peace a Chance" and "Historical devellopment sub for DeI"). They managed to have more realistic behavior from the AI regarding war and peace. From what I can remember, one of the most important change was making a bonus relation for the losing side toward the winning ( a battle, a sack ... ), thus making the losing side more inclined to peace, I even had the AI offering me peace with gold after a crushing defeat.

Only to say regarding peace there things that can be done in a realistic goal, and can greatly improve the diplomacy. I only wish that would be included in the mod already. I will try to find the links if you like.

**tomFoolery** · March 21, 2014, 08:11 PM

Originally Posted by Iltedge

I don't know if you guys are familiar with Anabasis and Yukishiro's mods ("Give Peace a Chance" and "Historical devellopment sub for DeI"). They managed to have more realistic behavior from the AI regarding war and peace. From what I can remember, one of the most important change was making a bonus relation for the losing side toward the winning ( a battle, a sack ... ), thus making the losing side more inclined to peace, I even had the AI offering me peace with gold after a crushing defeat.

Only to say regarding peace there things that can be done in a realistic goal, and can greatly improve the diplomacy. I only wish that would be included in the mod already. I will try to find the links if you like.

I was using Give Peace a Chance at the beginning of my current campaign. I stopped because something seemed to be wrong somehow, I was having contradictory things on the diplomacy relations, seemingly a negative and a positive value for the exact same action being the key thing. From the time using it, I also feel like the diplomatic affects should decrease much quicker. I mmay very well try it again sometime, custom tailoring some values to my preference. A good mod in concept, though.

**Friedrich's Moustache** · March 22, 2014, 05:57 AM

Unfortunately, the same old line gets trotted out by CA, "this is Total War, not Total Peace...blah blah". Which basically means, "we can't be bothered with the extra work and we know we'll get your money anyway". If it wasn't for the modding community, CA would have been out of business years ago. Here's hoping DeI can implement some great changes to diplomacy.

Originally Posted by tomFoolery

I was using Give Peace a Chance at the beginning of my current campaign. I stopped because something seemed to be wrong somehow, I was having contradictory things on the diplomacy relations, seemingly a negative and a positive value for the exact same action being the key thing. From the time using it, I also feel like the diplomatic affects should decrease much quicker. I mmay very well try it again sometime, custom tailoring some values to my preference. A good mod in concept, though.

I found said Anabasis mod on workshop, subscribed and it refuses to download. How odd.

**Xaero.xiii** · March 22, 2014, 01:12 AM

Well if only Rome II had a "War Exhaustion" mechanism which increases as wars progress/army losses/raids etc. Which then counts as a factor for AI to accept peace. Now that would be nice.. Honestly, why didn't CA develop a fleshed out diplomacy mechanism. There were many games released out there that had nice diplomacy systems that could very well be incorporated to Rome II. Its no shame to copy your competitors best game play styles, just make it unique. Look at the Europa Universalis I-IV games. They have solid diplomacy systems and that had been around in a while.

**LawL_LawL** · March 22, 2014, 05:52 AM

Oh for sure. I loved that about Paradox titles. Waging a cold war against someone for years on end with no gains to show for would never work in those games, and for damn good reason.

Even if CA doesn't copy it, I would love to see it implemented in DeI if at all possible on some level or similar format.