Diplomacy Suggestions (Post Suggestions in here)

[sparky1978]

Ok, instead of closing this, we will make this a thread dedicated solely to suggestions around diplomacy. As there is already a "diplomacy-bug thread" I would like it if people refrained from discussing threads here (too much anyway). Mature discussion is a must, anything other than that and it will be closed. Criticising aspects of diplomacy is considered mature, criticising CA and so on is outside the scope of this thread and can also (most of the time) be immature.

There, Thread Re-open, after seeing the other diplomacy threads overrun I feared a repeat, and still do.

-Aristocrat

Diplomacy shows promise & in some ways its improved but still has a glaring omission in lacking the "get your butts off my territory or risk war" option. AI still trods all over your territory at will with no military access granted yet u have no diplomatic recourse available- the only way to get them off your land is attack them.

I simply pasted & copied the above paragraph from a reply i made in another thread. Figured it would get more exposure here. Im hoping Lusted that u r reading this since u have direct contact with CA im hopeful u will find this idea has merit & pass it on. Thanx in advance & any feedback from others would b most welcome.

[Manji]

Agreed absolutely; ever since Shogun that I've been waiting for CA to implement a fairly decent diplomacy system, with alliances (military/economical), protectorates, military exclusion of the territory, etc, etc. I think it's about time they stop pushing the graphic engine and start coding some goodies.

[Aristocrat]

Ok, instead of closing this, we will make this a thread dedicated solely to suggestions around diplomacy. As there is already a "diplomacy-bug thread" I would like it if people refrained from discussing threads here (too much anyway). Mature discussion is a must, anything other than that and it will be closed. Criticising aspects of diplomacy is considered mature, criticising CA and so on is outside the scope of this thread and can also (most of the time) be immature.

There, Thread Re-open, after seeing the other diplomacy threads overrun I feared a repeat, and still do.

-Aristocrat

[JocMeister]

Make the AI more passive in the sence that it shouldn´t always have expanding as its highest priority.

Relations are seroiusly broken. As soon as you get a border with a AI relations will deteriate fast until they attack. You should be able to have peacefull relations with other nations.

You shouldn´t have to bribe you neighbours and allies in order to try and avoid an attack.

Make alliances worth something...and make it crippleing to brake one.

Relations shouldn´t deteriate if you don´t spam everyone with diplomats every two or three turns.

etc etc...

[Llyd]

Good point JocMeister.
I'd also like to see some system implemented that would make the history of previous relations worth something. What I mean is that relations with an AI faction should slowly get better (instead of continuously getting worse) if you have a long standing peace with them, meaning a trade rights treaty, an alliance etc. AI could still backstab you but it wouldn't be so quick to do so if it saw that you are a good neighbour and basically stick to your word.

On the other hand, if you have a history full of wars with some faction then it wouldn't be so easy to have a long period of peace later on, relations wouldn't get better fast even if you have trade rights/peace with that faction if you had plenty of wars in the past.

Relations could still get worse if you make war, trot around other faction's teritory etc. but if this system could be implemented it would mean that bribery is no longer the only way to have decent relations with someone. Of course just having good relations is not a guarantee of peace but having bad relations with everyone is an invitation to war.

[Blizzard]

two words: casus belli
make reputation worth something
Extreme morale and diplomatic penalities for declaring war without a good reason or for breaking treaties.
Land acces in other countries should be allowed only after obtaining passing rights (or in case of war) except for certain units (spies,diplomats, crusaders etc). To be more explicite if you order your general to march into your neutral neighbour's teritory you should receive the message " you can't enter x teritory as you have no military access treaty signed"
restrict the number of diplomats available per year and faction (like the merchants)
introduce the concept of embassies.
introduce event's that would allow the player to finance rebellions in enemy teritories through his spy network or diplomats

[Lusted]

I simply pasted & copied the above paragraph from a reply i made in another thread. Figured it would get more exposure here. Im hoping Lusted that u r reading this since u have direct contact with CA im hopeful u will find this idea has merit & pass it on. Thanx in advance & any feedback from others would b most welcome.

16. Have a transgression option in diplomacy to ask other factions to move their troops off your land.
17. Have relations with a faction improve the longer you are allied. But also allow for them to decline if there is nowhere else for an ai faction to expand apart from your lands.
18. When an alliance is broken it should have a big effect on relations, and on a factions reputation
19. Have your history with a faction affect your relations. eg if you have lots of wars with a faction it should be harder to get an alliance with them

5. Tougher campaign ai on higher difficulties
6. Campaign ai should garrison its settlements better. It also just sometimes stands there with a full stack army next to your invading army and does nothing. Should also attack with more full stacks, sometimes it can attack with very small stacks

Taken from the First post in the bug thread. THe updated bug list will be sent off to CA on Monday.

[FriendoftheDork]

Hmm I like alot of the suggestions here, especially that which prevents the AI and player from violating anothers territory without any real repercussions.

Here are my suggestions:

You can't just send units against an ally, that is considered a betrayal. This is an age of chivalry and honor (and darkness and terror).

In order to violate the territory of an ally you need to send an emmisary to actually cancel the alliance OR a military access treaty.

When you have militairy access you cannot attack your ally, but will need to move all your troops outside the ally's area and then cancel the access.

Canceling treaties should not lower reputation at all, but probably faction relations. (not sure what is status quo).

New option: militairy protection treaties (requires alliance and militairy access). When two factions agree to this it means that if any other faction attacks or violates the territory of the protected faction, the ally will be forced to declare war on the offenders. Refusing to declare war will end the all treaties with the protected faction, and lower reputation significantly.

Honoring this alliance will not result in any loss of reputation, even if you also had an alliance with the offenders.

With the mil. protection treaty (or perhaps mutual protection pact?) factions can stay at peace for some time, (as you don't want to attack two factions!), but when someone first declares war it could be a domino effect and turn into a world war (like WW1).

mil. protection will only be allowed with one faction at a time. Optionally you could make it possible to join such an alliance as in EU2, but I think this is more hussle than it's worth.

I'm not sure if this treaty would have to be mutual or could just be "garantist" where a major faction guarantees the right of a smaller faction to exist, and declares war on anyone attacking them.

Just to stress it, you should not be able to abuse such an alliance by attacking freely and forcing your ally to war with you, however it should be possible to be forced into a war if your ally attacks a member of another mil. protection ally, forcing his allies to attack your ally and forcing you to attack his ally (ugh that make sense?).

[Lusted]

In order to violate the territory of an ally you need to send an emmisary to actually cancel the alliance OR a military access treaty.

This sort of thing would requie a major edit to the game engine, so im leaving it off the list of improvements people would like to see. Likewsie with new things such as military protection treaties, im limitng the wishes for new diplomacy options to transgression as i am not sure how much of a change to the game code that would take.

Canceling treaties should not lower reputation at all, but probably faction relations. (not sure what is status quo).

Good idea.

When you have militairy access you cannot attack your ally, but will need to move all your troops outside the ally's area and then cancel the access.

Not good idea i think, i like backstabbing my allies by getting military access then marching straight to its capital.

[Blizzard]

[QUOTE=Lusted;1338881]This sort of thing would requie a major edit to the game engine, so im leaving it off the list of improvements people would like to see. Likewsie with new things such as military protection treaties, im limitng the wishes for new diplomacy options to transgression as i am not sure how much of a change to the game code that would take.

QUOTE]

not much
I reckon just a few script lines

I think you should send them all sugestions and let them take the decision about what can be and would be implemented

[FriendoftheDork]

[QUOTE=Blizzard;1338891]

This sort of thing would requie a major edit to the game engine, so im leaving it off the list of improvements people would like to see. Likewsie with new things such as military protection treaties, im limitng the wishes for new diplomacy options to transgression as i am not sure how much of a change to the game code that would take.

QUOTE]

not much
I reckon just a few script lines

I think you should send them all sugestions and let them take the decision about what can be and would be implemented

Yeah please send all my suggestions not just you think is feasible or like. The mutal protection pact would make the game So much more enjoyable to me as the allies would be that and not just "temorary peace agreements". If they can't make it, then so be it. Perhaps it can come in an expansion or the next TW game.

As for the ability to backstab Lusted, you can already just march yout troops across the enemy lands. But really do you think it would be realistic to allow someone to march armies across the lands and line up attacks on all major cities? How often has that happened in history?

[shadyrome]

Seems like a good idea. but isn't to late ? or they can edit it still.

[Andronicus Comnenus]

I wouldn't mind the ability to kill ambassadors (without assassination). It seems a little insulting to have smashed a people to their knees, only for their emissary to demand tribute/vassalage. In terms of gameplay, it could be an action which could only be performed if the demands being made were unreasonable.

[JocMeister]

I would be very happy if you could put something on that list about the overagressive "neighbours" that will attack you instantly (more or less) the second you get a mutual border.

You can have perfect relations with a nation but the second you expand up to their borders you know for a fact that within 5 turns they will attack you. Sounds like it isn´t working like it supposed to do?

[Pelican Man]

I would be very happy if you could put something on that list about the overagressive "neighbours" that will attack you instantly (more or less) the second you get a mutual border.

You can have perfect relations with a nation but the second you expand up to their borders you know for a fact that within 5 turns they will attack you. Sounds like it isn´t working like it supposed to do?

I have not found a problem with that at all. I have been allied to Hungary and The Danes (playing as Poland of coarse...) for about 25 years now, and have shared a border with Hungary for all of the 25 years, and share a border with the Danes for about 15 years. I have been allied to both since the starting (well, as fast as I could get my Diplomat to those places). The Alliance with borders is not so much of a problem. The problem for me is when I share borders with other factions, they tend to sometimes have armies in my land, without my consent. Plus, I cannot attack them or the pope gets mad. If the other faction has a problem with me, then bring it, but to just leave it there, probably waiting for my castle to be empty or short on troops, without my consent, then that is retarded. If they were my allies, I'd say, "come over and lets just kick it, watch some tube... lol jj) but seriously, There should be an option for transgression. Especially in this version of Total War, with the all the diplomatic standings with the AI.

THE PELICAN MAN

[bjeil]

There should be an option for transgression. Especially in this version of Total War, with the all the diplomatic standings with the AI.

THE PELICAN MAN

QFT


Something quite annoying happened just a few hours ago.

I was at war with France, as Milan, and had just gotten the warning from the poop to lay off France. Then suddenly France laid siege to Milano. I then moved my army next to Milano to help defend it when they attacked. However, they didnt attack. Seing my great force now defending Milano they turned around an headed for Genoa, laying siege to the city. I was quite annoyed, frankly. Once again i moved my army next to Genoa, but the next turn the King of France moved north again to siege Milano.

This repeated itself about 4-5 times untill my "mission" with the poop was over, and i finally beat the crap out'a them.

WTF?

[2ltben]

Just send out some small armies to "escort" them off your land. Unless they're itching for a fight, they'll usually give you the road and head back into their provinces. The only time to get worried is when they have a full stack in your territory, as that means only one thing.

As for the overaggressive AI, I think its the player not handling diplomacy properly. I've kept a mutual border with the HRE for close to 80 turns and we've always held eachother in high regard. I'm at war with their ally, but we've kept good relations through the entire thing. Once I finally finish France off(I got them to southern France and Milan moved in, so all they have left is the Pyrenees. its a race between me and Milan to get it, but we're also at war, so I can't pull my troops off the border in eastern France), I plan on getting them as an ally to go kick Milan's ass.

Its a good idea to keep a diplomat outside the capital of each faction, especially bordering factions. If you want to keep them on your good side, pay tribute. If you're managing your cities right, money should be no issue. I'm in the hundreds of thousands and the only other faction that's breaking 40,000 is the Papal States(thanks to my tithe)

[FriendoftheDork]

QFT


Something quite annoying happened just a few hours ago.

I was at war with France, as Milan, and had just gotten the warning from the poop to lay off France. Then suddenly France laid siege to Milano. I then moved my army next to Milano to help defend it when they attacked. However, they didnt attack. Seing my great force now defending Milano they turned around an headed for Genoa, laying siege to the city. I was quite annoyed, frankly. Once again i moved my army next to Genoa, but the next turn the King of France moved north again to siege Milano.

This repeated itself about 4-5 times untill my "mission" with the poop was over, and i finally beat the crap out'a them.

WTF?

So the AI, seeing that they couldn't win decided to attack another city. Good stuff.

Then as you followed them with your monster stack they did the same again. foprcing you to move your stack back and fro, meaning it is not in french lands creating havoc and besieging their cities. This gave them time. Of course, the AI might not be smart enough to use that time to back a big stack and attack you, but at least it's a start.

Oh and I think you can attack enemy stacks in your territory without the pope excommunicating you, as it is really defending. I may be wrong but I think I did this once without the mission from the pope failed.

[bjeil]

So the AI, seeing that they couldn't win decided to attack another city. Good stuff.

Then as you followed them with your monster stack they did the same again. foprcing you to move your stack back and fro, meaning it is not in french lands creating havoc and besieging their cities. This gave them time. Of course, the AI might not be smart enough to use that time to back a big stack and attack you, but at least it's a start.

Oh and I think you can attack enemy stacks in your territory without the pope excommunicating you, as it is really defending. I may be wrong but I think I did this once without the mission from the pope failed.

Please dont think that im whining. What really annoys me is the fact that the AI did not think this was a smart move, the AI just did it becus it was stuck in a foolish loop of stupidity. If the AI had put on a magnificent show of deception and cunning i wouldnt be *****ing about this...

I was under the impression that you couldnt attack without getting excommed when on "teh mission". Since i would be counter-attacking France when attacking their sieging force i thought that id "lose" the mission. Anyways, good thing you can actually defend yourself by counter-attacking, i just didnt want to risk it.

[chaostheory]

Faction Standing Test by Spartan

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=68314

I think the predefined faction standing might be the cause of some issue since especially all out war etc. Resetting all pre-defined relation sto 0 might solve some problems people are having (constant warfare etc)