Making "Request to Attack Another Faction" Matter
Posted this in the response section to the release. Because I'm hoping to get a lot more people thinking on this matter, and getting enough rational support (I don't want to bully the EB2 modders into implementing my ideas, I wan't them to agree to them and understand them as well) to implement this in-game, I've decided to start this thread. Hope you guys read it, understand it, and maybe even agree to it.
Gonna try to bring this up again, I hope someone like QuintusSertorius addresses the matter. Regarding the diplomatic option to "request a faction to attack another faction", shouldn't this be far more common and negotiable not just in player-AI relations, but in factions controlled only by the AI as well? The point I'm trying to drive at is that as MTW2 is as heart a military strategy game, politics between factions around the Mediterranean and in the Near East shouldn't be limited to agreeing to trade, or exchanging map info, or ratifying a ceasefire for ten thousand minai. Alliances shouldn't be just "non-aggression" pacts that result in either parties ignoring the successes or failures of their respective neighboring countries. In fact, countries should and did take an enormous interest in whether or not a certain faction was getting too powerful, or a neighbor bordering their vulnerable settlements was about to get overrun by a juggernaut of a country *cough*Grey Death*cough*. In short, alliances were made so that the factions included could call military support from one another. Which is, surprisingly, what the extremely underused, overpriced (in the sense that AI will always ask for an absurd compensation), and useless (even if AI agrees to it, they never send anybody) "Request to attack faction" diplomatic option was for. As EB2 is a complete overhaul that also focused on reworking the AI, I'm hoping that somehow an event could be coded, or values reworked, to allow priority for asking, agreeing, and following through with requests to attack another faction. Because if the AI factions start caring for what goes beyond even beyond their borders, we will have a real politico-military situation that will add depth and fun to the game. A good example would be Baktria, Pontus, Pergamon, Armenia, and Saka-Rauka all asking each other to attack one grey bastard (Arche Seleukia). Such military coalitions can stop the growth of some too powerful countries far more effectively than reworking the number of starting stacks a faction has, or making the rebel cities surrounding faction weaker or stronger, and so on. Historical examples of military coalitions happening would be the Caledonian tribes banding together to try to defeat Rome, Greek cities vs Persians, Near East states against Cyrus, Ptolemaic Egypt, Rhodes, Seleucus, and Lysimachus against Antigonid Empire, etc. So as this conforms nicely to history, one can't say it is not accurate, as you know Rome basically expanded simply because of intervening for its "allies". On the last note, I'm not saying however to give "Request to attack another faction" such leeway that it can be negotiated for 100 minai. Maybe increase and decrease its "value" depending on the relations (e.g. whether amiable, good, etc.) between factions, their respective reputations(e.g. very reliable, despicable, so on) and whether or not an actual alliance was agreed between them.
Reply With Quote
