Alliance: X Turns

**Lugotorix** · October 23, 2006, 02:44 PM

This thread is to discuss a new feature of MedievalII:Total War.
In a screenshot released not too long ago, there was an alliance proposal on the diplomacy screen, and above the offer it read Allied "17 turns."
The reviews are in and they say that the AI can and will betray you, often for no reason.
The topic of discussion is this; Could the PC Gamer test run be so monumentally flawed to ignore that the alliance had expired, or are the turns listed subject to AI debate.
I for one think it would be very nice if we could ensure longer periods of non-aggression with better incentives. For example if you offered x gold along with the alliance, then the treaty would last longer. Thoughts are welcome.

**Franz Von G** · October 23, 2006, 03:09 PM

Read it "Allied FROM 17 turns"..

**God-Emperor of Mankind** · October 23, 2006, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by Lugotorix

This thread is to discuss a new feature of MedievalII:Total War.
In a screenshot released not too long ago, there was an alliance proposal on the diplomacy screen, and above the offer it read Allied "17 turns."
The reviews are in and they say that the AI can and will betray you, often for no reason.
The topic of discussion is this; Could the PC Gamer test run be so monumentally flawed to ignore that the alliance had expired, or are the turns listed subject to AI debate.
I for one think it would be very nice if we could ensure longer periods of non-aggression with better incentives. For example if you offered x gold along with the alliance, then the treaty would last longer. Thoughts are welcome.

Personally I think we can ignore the PCgamer review because the reviewer's knowledge of TW was very limited nor did he give any background.
For all we know he could have provoked the AI or he simply grew so big that the AI started to dislike him.
We don't know and I hope we can get a better review soon.

**CIaagent11** · October 23, 2006, 03:19 PM

There are no "Alliance for ... turns"-agreements in M2TW.
Developers promise that the diplomacy will be "better" than in Rome.
They never promised that the AI is any smarter or that alliances will stick.

My guess: Alliances hold a little longer than in RTW, but campaign AI is bassicly the same.

**God-Emperor of Mankind** · October 23, 2006, 03:20 PM

Well a alliance that holds for 17 turns is a very good alliance by TW standards.

**CIaagent11** · October 23, 2006, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by TB666

Well a alliance that holds for 17 turns is a very good alliance by TW standards.

Thats what we call "Zweckoptimismus" where I come from.

hehe

If an alliance holds for 17 turns, other alliances might hold even longer and M2TW diplomacy
is really improved. I'm looking forward to see it.

**Scarlett Letterman** · October 23, 2006, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by TB666

Well a alliance that holds for 17 turns is a very good alliance by TW standards.

I don't know, I had a few alliances that held for quite a while, but really an alliance in RTW was just an agreement to peace. There was never any military cooperation.

I'm just praying every night that CA got the AI right this time.

**God-Emperor of Mankind** · October 23, 2006, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by Scarlett Letterman

I don't know, I had a few alliances that held for quite a while, but really an alliance in RTW was just an agreement to peace. There was never any military cooperation.

I'm just praying every night that CA got the AI right this time.

Well there was always the chance of getting longer ones true but still a 17 turn alliance is still a good length.
Plenty of time to give both a breather which is what I want from an alliance.
Mean we are gonna fight anyway.
Alliances are only meant to be longer breathing time then ceasefires.

**JANOSIK007** · October 23, 2006, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by Lugotorix

I for one think it would be very nice if we could ensure longer periods of non-aggression with better incentives. For example if you offered x gold along with the alliance, then the treaty would last longer. Thoughts are welcome.

I think the opposite should be the case. If you give gold, it could be interpreted as a sign of military weakness.

AI should be smart and coniving. Betrayals should be limited once allies, but not eliminated. Only when there is a royal inter-marriage the peace alliance should be more or less rock solid. But once a succession has occured, AI should be evaluating whether he is the best of kin and the most eligible successor to your throne.

BUT WHO AM I KIDDING. The AI is prolly little better than Rome's and that's all I expect.

**AlfonsoVIII** · October 23, 2006, 03:48 PM

I recall seeing that image for allying for x turns somewhere. I would like to see where the more you give the better / longer the alliance. But even better, if it had to be gold, you could pay it out every x turns so you can backstab when the money was not needed, but whatever CA comes with, it will suffice. I do not expect any alliance to last a turn anyways, reality or not.

**bovi** · October 23, 2006, 05:10 PM

Alliances like Imperialism's would be nice. Whenever an allied nation came into war, whether by declaring war or being declared war on, every nation allied to them had to declare war as well, or their alliance was broken. Most countries would honour their alliances, basically because they'd probably be 2-4 against one and likely to gain from it. Now that's a deterrent, you'll be pretty cautious about attacking anyone with alliances, or risk war with "everyone" at once due to cascading alliances. Unless you trust you own allies to choose your side... In the TW games, you're merely not allowed to ally with both sides of a conflict, but the alliance itself means nothing.

Time-limited alliances are stupid IMO. You ally for mutual gain, whether in deterrence, defence or offense, and it implies a degree of equality. It dissolves not on a date set on entering it, but once the gain is no longer perceived to be mutual. Paying for an alliance says from the outset that only one side is gaining from the alliance in itself, and it will be a fragile one. Paying regular tribute to keep the peace with a stronger power makes sense though.

**AlfonsoVIII** · October 23, 2006, 05:15 PM

Like Bovi said, I want to say that the feature is in RTW. I just experienced it where I as the Julii allied to Thrace which was at war with Dacia and when I accepted. Dacia built an army north of me and sent it down to siege one of my towns.

**thomonkey** · October 23, 2006, 05:32 PM

an ally for 17 turns is very long. And also, keep in mind that PC Gamer reviewed a version of the game that isn't complete. Also, take into account that CA says they spend the most time on AI at the very end of development. Lastly, take into account that no background was given on why the AI attacked him.

**CIaagent11** · October 23, 2006, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by thomonkey

an ally for 17 turns is very long. And also, keep in mind that PC Gamer reviewed a version of the game that isn't complete. Also, take into account that CA says they spend the most time on AI at the very end of development. Lastly, take into account that no background was given on why the AI attacked him.

17 turns should not be that long. Thats like half an hour of playing time. Hmm... want some allies for some longer.
To say that the game isn't compleate means nothing. They don't change anything at this time.
What they do now is testing and making it compatible with all hardware setups.