What is your experience with diplomacy on this patch?

[nvm]

To me it seems the AI basically never signs peace except in exceptionally rare circumstances. I myself had only been succesfull in signing peace with an AI exactly one time, the rest of them it's always "Very Demanding". They literally never make new alliances with each other either, although when I send a diplomat it's often Balanced and some of them even accept it as is.

I think if I offer enough money with the ceasefire they become more likely to accept it, but what's the point if the AI never does so with the other AI factions? This state of things is quite unfortunate and detracts from roleplaying experience, as I'm forced to deal with the fact that the world is indeed in a state of Total War and attempting to alter that with Force Diplomacy would basically be cheating as only I can sign peace and AI will not. However, it's not too bad. I have faith that EB 2 team will polish AI to be just as amazing on the campaign map as it is on the battle map - which is to say, it is probably the best battle AI I have ever seen in a mod or a Total War game, although part of what makes combat so amazing could be the numerous other battle changes.

I'm hyped for the next patch!

Also do you guys ransom, release or enslave enemy prisoners? For me it usually depends on my mood and their position. I've had cases as ridiculous as an attacking enemy army I've just easily beaten by sallying out once besiege the same town I've defeated them at, as well as have the enemies retreat one tile away after releasing their troops. So in general I just judge by factors such as my forces compared to their forces, how many enemies that faction has, and their hostility towards me. I usually ransom as most of the time it's Enslave but without the rep penalty {not that rep is of any use right now...}

[XDeath007]

I played 2.2r Epeiros and am currently on 2.3 as Romani.

I find that in 2.3, literally EVERY faction becomes distrustful of me very early on in the campaign for no apparent reason. This makes it difficult even for mapinfo-mapinfo deals even if I add enough money to make it considered very generous.

In both 2.2r and 2.3, I didn't notice any new alliances being made either.

AI's tend to give ceasefires a lot easier in the beginning of the game for 2.3. However, in both versions, ceasefires become nigh impossible as the year approaches 200.

[QuintusSertorius]

"Distrustful" is just a label. It doesn't actually mean anything except that it's the middle level of faction_relations. The natural level where things will settle, unless you do something to adjust relations, is there.

Alliances skew the CAI, a faction will rarely break them unless it's caused to by revolt, and they have a major impact on the way factions behave when looking at a network of alliances. So I'm afraid the lack of them doesn't worry me in the slightest, it's much better than the previous situation where within 5 turns, everyone was allied to everyone else, and that was it for the rest of the game.

There's till more to do on diplomacy, though with z3n busy I don't know when that might happen.

[nvm]

Well, I myself love the idea of alliances, as shabbily as they are implemented in TW, but I see what you mean. I would definitely rather have Total War than Total Peace in this game.

[Cryoshakespeare]

As for my 2.3 campaign, M/M, 500 turns in as Pontos, I've noticed that throughout the game relations trend incredibly fast back towards distrustful. I really do mean one or two turns maximum after major gifts (tens of thousands of denari and settlement gifts, with relations being maxed in some tests). It surely seems like a bug.

I find that the AI seems to consider certain provinces to be of vital interest, so even if you've only taken them from the independents, it's very hard to get a truce with them should you go to war. In my experience, a show of overwhelming force garrisoned in the questioned settlement, as well as significant garrisons at border provinces and armies nearby, can be enough to dissuade them from wanting to pursue it. Beating back their armies without further aggression on your part seems to make them desire peace after a good long while (but the bloody Lougiones just won't stop randomly blockading my ports when I do sign a peace, I think it's because I own Klepidava).

[Seleukos_I.]

As for my 2.3 campaign, M/M, 500 turns in as Pontos, I've noticed that throughout the game relations trend incredibly fast back towards distrustful. I really do mean one or two turns maximum after major gifts (tens of thousands of denari and settlement gifts, with relations being maxed in some tests). It surely seems like a bug.

If i recall correctly your relations worsen if you have "Trade Agreements", but dont actually trade.
So if your relations keep dropping with distant factions you should cancel the trade agreements.

[Kravixon01]

If i recall correctly your relations worsen if you have "Trade Agreements", but dont actually trade.
So if your relations keep dropping with distant factions you should cancel the trade agreements.

Be advised though, your reputation will plummet for breaking treaties. I learned this after hearing about the trade rights thing last week

[rhavviepoodle]

I've read in multiple other threads that the most efficient way to increase and maintain relations with another faction is tithing to them (relatively) small amounts over many turns. This is effectively what Baktria is scripted to do with Arche Seleukeia, and I seem to remember it working fairly well when I tried it as other factions. Often I try to butter up the faction in question (with tithing and/or a province I can't really happen to use) before making a deal which they'd otherwise be disinclined to accept. Seems to work fairly often for me.

[Kull]

At harder difficulty levels, it's really not surprising that the code makes it "harder" to have good relations. Even ignoring the code, look at things as if you were an impartial observer. What is that human controlled faction doing? Usually, gobbling up it's neighbors. So it's not a stretch to think that the default relationships should be "distrustful". Odds are you aren't doing anything on a consistent level to make the AI (or the "impartial observer") think differently.

For a role-playing game, try a "Normal" setting and you'll probably see more varied AI diplomatic results (which still requires you to actively do things that the AI values, like giving them money)

[Ivir Baggins]

At harder difficulty levels, it's really not surprising that the code makes it "harder" to have good relations. Even ignoring the code, look at things as if you were an impartial observer. What is that human controlled faction doing? Usually, gobbling up it's neighbors. So it's not a stretch to think that the default relationships should be "distrustful". Odds are you aren't doing anything on a consistent level to make the AI (or the "impartial observer") think differently.

For a role-playing game, try a "Normal" setting and you'll probably see more varied AI diplomatic results (which still requires you to actively do things that the AI values, like giving them money)

Having played both BC & EBII, I've found BC to have the far more dynamic diplomacy, with vassal states, peaces, wars, alliances, alliance breakings etc all occuring, though that's probably due to weaker rebels & a slightly smaller map too IIRC, so the factions end up talking with eachother earlier. There's probably a difference in the CAI though, not sure what.

[QuintusSertorius]

Our CAI is custom-written by z3n, so there's bound to be a difference, though I couldn't say what specifically.

[Floren d'Asteneuz]

Strangely enough, I have the opposite "problem" :

My "allies" are good with me, even helping me to fight against my enemies, and then suddenly, they come by sea, drop 2 or 3 units near one of my cities, and if I wait, they continue until they are numerous enough to siege it.
But, the illogical part is that : when I kick them out and initiate diplomacy with them, they are eager for peace and find my peace offering "very generous" and I can even ask money (between 2000 and 5000) to even the offer.
And then, they start again to stack their units near my city, siege it and so forth. I had a campaign on Pergamon which just did that until 70bc... I won a lot of money in the process

An other situation is when they start to blockade your habours and then you ask for peace, they find it "very generous", and they blockade your habours again, etc.

There is clearly something a bit strange with the AI and the diplomacy.

[Cryoshakespeare]

Absolutely Floren, I've had that happen a lot to me too! It's very strange behavior.

[k123cp]

The AI randomly blockading ports is a problem from vanilla M2 I believe.

[Kull]

The AI randomly blockading ports is a problem from vanilla M2 I believe.

Exactly, that appears to be something hard coded. EB2 has had many different AIs over the years, and that has been a feature in all of them. I've never tracked the instances to see if there's a tie-in to Campaign Difficulty level, however. Probably not, but it would be worth knowing if any of you have data in that area.

[YourMadDoc]

Exactly, that appears to be something hard coded. EB2 has had many different AIs over the years, and that has been a feature in all of them. I've never tracked the instances to see if there's a tie-in to Campaign Difficulty level, however. Probably not, but it would be worth knowing if any of you have data in that area.

Could it be connected with naval strength? I usually have wars from blockades and weak navy just for transport, but I have built strong navy early this time with 5 pentere fleets and some triere fleets and noone made a blockade in 200 turns. I had two invasions on Korsim , but they landed troops and avoided port. And as a Roman I have ports everywhere and neutral factions from every direction (allied with KH and they have only Sparta, Athene and Korinth). It is VH campaign difficulty in case there are ties to it.

[Kull]

Could it be connected with naval strength? I usually have wars from blockades and weak navy just for transport, but I have built strong navy early this time with 5 pentere fleets and some triere fleets and noone made a blockade in 200 turns. I had two invasions on Korsim , but they landed troops and avoided port. And as a Roman I have ports everywhere and neutral factions from every direction (allied with KH and they have only Sparta, Athene and Korinth). It is VH campaign difficulty in case there are ties to it.

That's an interesting observation, and it DOES make sense. If the designers were going to "hard code" an AI decision to blockade the human faction's port, tying the decision to "opposing naval power" (or even a ratio between the two forces) would certainly be a better system than "random" (or even "campaign difficulty").

[Floren d'Asteneuz]

Could it be connected with naval strength? I usually have wars from blockades and weak navy just for transport, but I have built strong navy early this time with 5 pentere fleets and some triere fleets and noone made a blockade in 200 turns. I had two invasions on Korsim , but they landed troops and avoided port. And as a Roman I have ports everywhere and neutral factions from every direction (allied with KH and they have only Sparta, Athene and Korinth). It is VH campaign difficulty in case there are ties to it.

Nope...

I got the problem with several quinqueremes in the port or near the port.

It makes some factions just suicidal coming with their small boat blockading my higher tiers harbour risking to face the fire of my whole navy next turn.

[nvm]

I used to have idiotic things happen in past version of EB 2, like Seleucids blockading my ports as Rome early on, but now I've played over 200 turns as Areuakoi and 140 turns as Makedon and my ports have never been blockaded by a neutral faction despite almost complete lack of any navy during this period. That's weird. Also I've only ever been playing on H campaign difficulty.