Some samples of "Perfect Diplomacy"

[SharpEyed]

1st, a photo of my current situation, not really needed tho.
Not perfect, not bad either.. Hard mode; with Radious , Vanilla imperium, "Horde boost" , Flame arrows -love them cant help it- and the Emblems mod

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

before

the one I couldnt "subjugate", before Diplomatic things go much worse, so I made peace instead raze

Forgot to add this, dumb me -.-
*They werent at war with Ostrogoths, I've given them some gold to do so.. They wouldn't accept the NA pact, yet they accepted this one.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

and the "lovely" Ostrogoths. Never attacked, and never got attacked but still!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Just 1 turn later.

Without "any" Gold!
Edit: Just because they got declared war on them by ERE Separatists, even they have no much power to deal with Ostrogoths, neither near to their soil.

Sorry no photo of while they accept it, because wasnt my intent to open this, until they accepted :/
But u can see my gold is same, i didnt give any. (very 1st photo, and the last.)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Not related with the ones above, but still a good sample of "Perfect diplomacy"
From current turn.

Are you f... kidding me?!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

So after all these, lets hope we wont have this ridiculous stuff after new patch
Shouldn't be so much hopeful tho, could be a disappointment.

Btw Uldin refuses to die, even tho have "weak" trait I've seen s/o has him at 72 on a video tho

[Cope]

Yes diplomacy is stupid in this game.

[LestaT]

Can you recreate these without any mods ?

[SharpEyed]

Can you recreate these without any mods ?

I believe even that wouldnt be possible without mods, Radious kinda made it a bit easier (little less Great power thing, and pushing AI to accept reasonable things) , but game mechanics are broken -as u see- , maybe with mod tools it can be fixed totally - if patches doesnt help..

I mean look at this 11 years of war, but not even any agent activities between..

Btw u didnt mean "recreating" my gameplay right?

[GrimmCro]

I find that factions with leaders who either admire great empires or are indifferent to them come result with perfect diplomacy. I've had plenty of campaigns during which Saxons, Rugians, Franks and in some instances Angels went from being skittish to being very stable despite my imperium level going up. Few trade agreements, non-aggressions and marriages in the early stages of the game were signed and they held up.

To be fair, I threaded lightly in that I refused to ally, make peace or trade with factions with which the aforementioned had iffy relations. So there is that one aspect of diplomacy that isn't total bonkers. If others got balanced with some common sense, it would be a great part of the game.

I'm talking vanilla here, mods make things even more unbalanced.

[SharpEyed]

I find that factions with leaders who either admire great empires or are indifferent to them come result with perfect diplomacy. I've had plenty of campaigns during which Saxons, Rugians, Franks and in some instances Angels went from being skittish to being very stable despite my imperium level going up. Few trade agreements, non-aggressions and marriages in the early stages of the game were signed and they held up.

To be fair, I threaded lightly in that I refused to ally, make peace or trade with factions with which the aforementioned had iffy relations. So there is that one aspect of diplomacy that isn't total bonkers. If others got balanced with some common sense, it would be a great part of the game.

I'm talking vanilla here, mods make things even more unbalanced.

I've played Alamans/Geats or even ERE too (i.e in ERE I got Huns as military allies, somehow), with mods again, was easy to get allies with other Germanic/Viking based factions as was urs, but especially when u come to be a Horde or sth like that, things becomes awkward.

I dont think mods messing the system up, system is broken already, its not only me saying this, a lot ppl in official forum also saying the same, I dont think all of them use mods..

Yes there some points makes sense, but most, doesnt.

And as u can see on the pictures, there is "Admire Huns" trait on (Quadians and the ERE separatists), aint matter, even with that high diplomatic relationship, they wont accept it.

[RGA]

You are playing on Hard mode, which is supposed to make the game hard by making AI less inclined to accept your offer. Playing on Normal and AI will be much less stubborn.

Another thing concerning your case with the Ostrogoths: any change in diplomatic relation (i.e. due to gift, treaties, etc.) will be applied in next turn instead of instantly as in Rome 2. Thus you see two numbers and the status "Improving" or "Deteriotating". You started with a -15 relation, hardly suitable for peace. In the next turn it was improved to 62, which made them accept peace offer eagerly without any monetary demand.

[SharpEyed]

You are playing on Hard mode, which is supposed to make the game hard by making AI less inclined to accept your offer. Playing on Normal and AI will be much less stubborn.

Another thing concerning your case with the Ostrogoths: any change in diplomatic relation (i.e. due to gift, treaties, etc.) will be applied in next turn instead of instantly as in Rome 2. Thus you see two numbers and the status "Improving" or "Deteriotating". You started with a -15 relation, hardly suitable for peace. In the next turn it was improved to 62, which made them accept peace offer eagerly without any monetary demand.

War have been there for 11 years without anything happened, Hard mode yes I get that but this is a bit weird.

And what about other one?! I got high diplomatic relation but that doesnt matter, even I ended the war with their lovely Ostrogoth allies doesnt matter too..

Just to make the game difficult, they messed the Diplomacy up.
You are strong or not, u finished the faction off or u did not, none of them matters, they wont say, "ok u won, attack no more, we bow to you" instead they will run away with their remaining armies lol

I get this game is sort of should be like that but there extreme things exist.

Well this was only a sample, I have seen and read much weirder things about diplomacy, thats why they will do some changes with patch, I'm not sure how big the range of changes will be but well they will do some anyway.

[GrimmCro]

The system IS broken because of the modifiers. Positive modifiers need constant vigilance to be maintained resulting in a stable relationship with factions, if factions are indeed open for it. In that area the diplomacy works and if anything it shows what a gem it could be. Don't trespass, don't raid or wage war against trader partners or allies of your allies, arrange marriages, trade, support, and you'll have friends.

But when negative modifiers kick in their exponential growth in influence on the relations can't be countered easily. Even the slightest infractions gets stupendously exaggerated to facilitate total war and what's worse, they last longer than positive modifiers. Example, I trespassed on long term "buddies" Angles to defeat a British army that landed at the south of UK. I knew I'd get a penalty because of it but I wouldn't allow the Brits to resettle the south. Relations go from friendly to neutral and deteriorating within few turns. Soon after, the Angles province at the south of Britain suffers a rebellion. Since Angles had four wars on the mainland they had no army on the island. So I marched my king south to regain some influence and kicked the crap out of the rebel army and then immediately retreaded home.

The result, trespassing penalty increases, Angles attitude toward me drops significantly. At no point does the AI make the connection that my trespassing ensured they didn't lose that province. At no point do I see a positive modifiers in the form of "enemy of my enemy". I just helped them retain a province they would have otherwise lost but all the see is me on their territory without approval.

That's one of many aspects that needs fixing or, as I've said, common sense applied to it. Have our relations drop for trespassing, sure. I'll accept that. But I want to see a positive modifier kick in for helping them with a rebellion which could have had far worse repercussions than my army marching trough their land.

Hell, even a small tweak on CA's side to level the duration of positive and negative modifiers would have a drastic impact. Kings and their traits can act as instability factors with some liking empires, others disliking them, some having trust issues, others being very open to trade, etc. It doesn't have to be rigged to work.

[SharpEyed]

But I'm agreed with the rest, they declare war on me but I'm still getting the negative diplomatic effect for example,,

Or one of what u said always happens, its not reasonable or realistic

[RGA]

The system IS broken because of the modifiers. Positive modifiers need constant vigilance to be maintained resulting in a stable relationship with factions, if factions are indeed open for it. In that area the diplomacy works and if anything it shows what a gem it could be. Don't trespass, don't raid or wage war against trader partners or allies of your allies, arrange marriages, trade, support, and you'll have friends.

But when negative modifiers kick in their exponential growth in influence on the relations can't be countered easily. Even the slightest infractions gets stupendously exaggerated to facilitate total war and what's worse, they last longer than positive modifiers. Example, I trespassed on long term "buddies" Angles to defeat a British army that landed at the south of UK. I knew I'd get a penalty because of it but I wouldn't allow the Brits to resettle the south. Relations go from friendly to neutral and deteriorating within few turns. Soon after, the Angles province at the south of Britain suffers a rebellion. Since Angles had four wars on the mainland they had no army on the island. So I marched my king south to regain some influence and kicked the crap out of the rebel army and then immediately retreaded home.

The result, trespassing penalty increases, Angles attitude toward me drops significantly. At no point does the AI make the connection that my trespassing ensured they didn't lose that province. At no point do I see a positive modifiers in the form of "enemy of my enemy". I just helped them retain a province they would have otherwise lost but all the see is me on their territory without approval.

That's one of many aspects that needs fixing or, as I've said, common sense applied to it. Have our relations drop for trespassing, sure. I'll accept that. But I want to see a positive modifier kick in for helping them with a rebellion which could have had far worse repercussions than my army marching trough their land.

Hell, even a small tweak on CA's side to level the duration of positive and negative modifiers would have a drastic impact. Kings and their traits can act as instability factors with some liking empires, others disliking them, some having trust issues, others being very open to trade, etc. It doesn't have to be rigged to work.

The first time you sent an army into their land without permission, the friendly peace-loving Angles sent a respectable noble to politely ask you to leave. He was refused even admittance to your general. The captain of the guards even snatched a huge germ decorating the nobleman's cloak and kept it as his own. Some "hefty negotiation" ensued and the words " the Noble High King of all Anglians" had been heard from one of your hotheaded guards. Your army passed through their territory and defeated the treacherous British rebels without many incidents, except some barn burning because the locals refused to cooperate without being paid.

Then there was a rebellion, the Rebellion as recorded in the chronicles. Houses were burned, people massacred and a huge area depopulated. The Anglian King, too busy with his petty continental conflicts, scraped the bottom of his barrel to assemble a mercenary army and marched it hastily to save the British fiefdoms. Before this ragtag bunch of criminals ever hit the first nail building ships to cross the Narrow Sea, your mighty army, uninvited of course, appeared again and defeated the rebels. This time, marching on a desert of burned villages and salted fields, they needed a little bit more persuation to acquire enough food, often involving torture and hanging of peasants.

Now the Anglian High King faced a dilemma: he had promised the mercenaries rewards from the rebel's treasure and he couldn't pay them now. Worse still, other provinces in Southern England began to see you as their true protector, not he. Afterall, he had been ignored twice. There were also rumors that he was now a weakling controled by one of your agent from behind. Such affronting of the King's honour must not go unanswered. Heavy-hearted, he decided to go to war against his once friend (you), using the very same mercenary army he had assembled before.

But you, warming yourself behind your mighty castle wall, were oblivious of all these development. All you could see was a ungraceful warlord defying all of your goodwill gestures and choosing war instead. Such a irrational dumbhead! How could anyone who lacks even children's common sense become king? Or was that the Lord's (aka CA) will to punish you from your prosperity?

Sorry couldn't resist

[GrimmCro]

The first time you sent an army into their land without permission, the friendly peace-loving Angles sent a respectable noble to politely ask you to leave. He was refused even admittance to your general. The captain of the guards even snatched a huge germ decorating the nobleman's cloak and kept it as his own. Some "hefty negotiation" ensued and the words " the Noble High King of all Anglians" had been heard from one of your hotheaded guards. Your army passed through their territory and defeated the treacherous British rebels without many incidents, except some barn burning because the locals refused to cooperate without being paid.

Then there was a rebellion, the Rebellion as recorded in the chronicles. Houses were burned, people massacred and a huge area depopulated. The Anglian King, too busy with his petty continental conflicts, scraped the bottom of his barrel to assemble a mercenary army and marched it hastily to save the British fiefdoms. Before this ragtag bunch of criminals ever hit the first nail building ships to cross the Narrow Sea, your mighty army, uninvited of course, appeared again and defeated the rebels. This time, marching on a desert of burned villages and salted fields, they needed a little bit more persuation to acquire enough food, often involving torture and hanging of peasants.

Now the Anglian High King faced a dilemma: he had promised the mercenaries rewards from the rebel's treasure and he couldn't pay them now. Worse still, other provinces in Southern England began to see you as their true protector, not he. Afterall, he had been ignored twice. There were also rumors that he was now a weakling controled by one of your agent from behind. Such affronting of the King's honour must not go unanswered. Heavy-hearted, he decided to go to war against his once friend (you), using the very same mercenary army he had assembled before.

But you, warming yourself behind your mighty castle wall, were oblivious of all these development. All you could see was a ungraceful warlord defying all of your goodwill gestures and choosing war instead. Such a irrational dumbhead! How could anyone who lacks even children's common sense become king? Or was that the Lord's (aka CA) will to punish you from your prosperity?

Sorry couldn't resist

In a twist of fate, pressured by the populace he had left behind, King Cnebba was forced to abandon his campaigns in the east. Pride called for response, people demanded that their king showed more care for them than their neighbors did. For where was the king when the Britons landed on Anglian shores? Where was the king when Britons raided and pillaged from Anglian people? Nowhere to be seen was the answer. And although the slight of the Geat trespass has rattled the nerves of the Anglian people and gave birth to the seed of fear for what could come next, reason gave way to fear. It was the absence of their king that spawned the rebellion and it was the Geats that destroyed it, as they have done to the British armies usurping their land. And they asked for nothing in return.

That power corrupts even the best of men has been known for eons, but history has shown that some men are capable of resisting it. Although merely adopted into the royal family, King Sveinn of the Geats had the same traits that made his stepfather Heidrek so beloved amongst his people. Honorable, steadfast, trustworthy. Anglian people saw it too, but their kings pride failed to do so.

Cold crept in the halls of the two kingdoms and the drums of war grew in the deep. Anglian armies, rested from their eastern campaigns gathered their numbers at the Geat borders. They made ready for war. Eboracum was a short march away and the wind took the Oath Makers within the sight of Hrefnesholt. King Cnebba would punish the trespassing of his borders, the destruction of the Briton army raiding on his land and stealing from his people, and justly reply to the suppression of a rebellion that kept his land his own.

But then his eyes rested upon King Sveinn's army, the Kingsmen, the Strokes and the Rolling Stones, encamped at the walls of Eboracum they had previously liberated from the Romans. His Oath Makers saw the Wet Bandits and the Misfits guarding the the northern jewel of the Geat kingdom. He saw the might that his neighbor had at his disposal and he understood all too well that it would take less than a whim on a king's bad day to unleash the northmen upon his lands. They would lay waste to all had they the inclination. To indulge hubris in the face of such might would be to court destruction.

But frack it, let's just fight them. Never mind the fact we're already at war with three other factions to the east, let's piss off the 3rd ranked faction in the world bordering us to the north. It makes perfect sense. I mean, sure, even through the mist of a brain fart it's obvious they'll wipe us out from the face of the Earth and won't even break a sweat, let's do it anyway.

[ggsimmonds]

The leaders have the aggressive trait.
Makes sense that an aggressive leader would not want to sign a non aggression pact.

[SharpEyed]

I'm sorry I'm not agreed with Mods part, I have watched tons of videos that ppl doesnt use any mods at all, it's all the same.

Making game difficult by making the diplomacy -almost- useless, is not the way to do it, u have to offer a challange, not just all world declare war on you or pursuing u all over the world or so.

Where is the strategy then?!

How u can offer a challenge is make the AI working better, make it working reasonably, make it Defend its freakin country! when they Declare war on me at least.
I get this game has immigration system but then AI acts like, "meh who cares if i lose my cities, i can migrate at any time if i have to"

Well its still not bad, if it wasnt same for Roman factions. I dont think they can immigrate, well even if they can, crazy amount of enemies wont let them.
They use money on agents instead making army btw.

Can any1 answer this, how a faction with 1 city declares war on you , meanwhile u have 2 or 3 full stack armies in their province?!
My tributary state did that a lot of times, I loaded the last save and if they wont, other faction will, or another bad will happen like Political things or some agent will act against me or so.

This is not the way.

[SharpEyed]

Arghh I forgot to add sth to on very 1st message of the thread, that the only reason Ostrogoths accept the Peace is: Because just 1 turn ago I given a bit money to ERE separatists to declare war on them!
(They wouldnt accept Non-Agression but they accepted that one)

I'm sorry guys.

[SharpEyed]

What comes after 1 another turn is being declared war by dam Visigoths and its all freakin allies (including Ostrogoths and Quadians! they accept peace tho!) , such a funny thing.

I'm not even close to Visigoths' place, I'm in the north somewhere, yea well doesnt matter thou, AI has to pursue Huns thru hell afterall.

[Zhayedan]

i know you're gonna say sassanids are like this and that, but this is good diplomacy for me knowing that i whiped out ere and subjugated wre before the 29th turn in this campaign

[SharpEyed]

i know you're gonna say sassanids are like this and that, but this is good diplomacy for me knowing that i whiped out ere and subjugated wre before the 29th turn in this campaign

so whats ur point? meaning that im suck at diplomacy something?!

Yes exactly I will say Sassanids are like "this and that" (what a kind usage), seriously wiping out a faction that is enemy of every1, and ally of no one (WRE cant be considered as one, they cant even protect themselves..) is a "Diplomatic" success? (Every enemy of them will love u for this also!)

U just used brutal force of Sassanids, didnt u?

Well good job tho, for 29th turn, and btw idk how u subjugated the WRE, they seem to have a lot cities still?

[ggsimmonds]

Question: Does reputation go down whenever you declare war?

Playing as the Visigoths I settled down in Gaul and the Picts managed to get one city in the area. I want full control of the province so I declare war on them. No treaties of any kind and relationship already in the red. Why does my reputation drop?

[Zhayedan]

Question: Does reputation go down whenever you declare war?

Playing as the Visigoths I settled down in Gaul and the Picts managed to get one city in the area. I want full control of the province so I declare war on them. No treaties of any kind and relationship already in the red. Why does my reputation drop?

if you break treaties or have recently ended treaties with them