Diplomatic mission outcome determination

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

If the diplomatic relationship is very bad (yellowreddish), i would try to pay money first to imptrove relationship a bit. A diplomat can not do wonders.

[KamenLily]

If the diplomatic relationship is very bad (yellowreddish), i would try to pay money first to imptrove relationship a bit. A diplomat can not do wonders.

I did it, and signed a trade agreement. The little face was green and the relationship was over 100. 130/140 maybe. And still two of them got killed.
I guess that my Queen is truly surrounded by idiots.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Bad luck.^^

Or you sent your diplomats permanent to the Queen of hearts:

"OFF WITH HER HEAD!"

[Basil II the B.S]

Not really a fan of this feature after further testing.

It makes no sense to have it split from the main diplomatic table, nor it makes any sense you can't decide what the diplomatic mission is about other than improving relations. The randomness element of the outcome is also nonsensical. Why should a faction give you money or a settlement if it's not in line with its strategic goals but a randomized event which is more or less probable depending on how much it likes you?

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

A clear progress about the nonsensical and easy exploitable diplomacy of Rome Total War.

[Basil II the B.S]

In Rome 1, the diplomat would handle the diplomacy. Simple and reasonable.

Now you have ''the diplomat does not handle the diplomacy, the stateman handles diplomatic missions, a random screen representing... noone handles diplomatic relations''.

If that's what you call improvement...


Let's talk about broken and exploitable too:
-you could bribe settlements for a certain amount, provided you had it and that's your max downside, a loss in your treasury
-now you can receive them as gifts by sending enough times the stateman to the faction, for no good reason as long as you do it often enough, the max downside here is that a cheap stateman gets executed

It's far more exploitable, cheap and completely lacking any logic whatsoever now.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

In Rome Total War you could buy Korinth for 500 Gold, max 1000 Gold or make peace and get Korinth and the next turn AI declare you war again. Treaties were broken without reason a turn later and so on. Diplomacy was pointless and wortless in Rome Total War. You could completely neclect it.

Rome II is less exploitable, no normal player is clicking 20times the same button, too much wasted money, only cheater. Rome I - one click - Korinth for peanuts.

But i put you on Ignore now, as i have read your "opinions" in mudpit. No dialogue with Alt Rights!

[Basil II the B.S]

First of all, you'd have to prove that behaviour for Corinth is the same for every settlement in Rome 1 and it isn't, so your argument is already invalid.

Second, what's the cost of a stateman in Rome 2? 500-1000 or so. So, worst case scenario, it's exactly the same, but it isn't really.

The AI in Rome 1 didn't normally trade settlements for peanuts, unless you did it very early in the game. If you didn't, unless bugs, the AI would never trade settlements unless you were willing to give it huge sums, not 500, but 100k. You are treating a single case, Corinth, as normal AI behaviour which is simply not true.

In Rome 2, at any point, even 100 turns into the game, you can send the stateman and obtain a settlement.

In Rome 1 your reward/loss ratio was: 1 settlement/20k cash, unless you did it very early or because of bugs.In that case, the cheapest scenario, 1 settlement/500 denarii.

In Rome 2 your reward/loss ratio is: 1 settlement/500-1000 cash for the stateman.

The latter's normal is the equivalent of the single case.

Basic maths. But yeah, facts prove you wrong, you ignore them and rely on insults, then run away from the debate. Nothing new under the sun.

as i have read your "opinions" in mudpit. No dialogue with Alt Rights!

''Look at me, I called him names, that means I win amirite?''

Nope. Ad hominem, logical fallacy. Your argument went from a mathematical mess to a logical one. Good job!!

[Daruwind]

Each player prefers different style. For example in Shogun 2, Rise of Samurai I was able to incite revolt in any province and only conquer them after that from rebels. I had whole campaign without any conflict with any clan....It is possible, it is extreme use of ingame mechanics and not everybody is interesting in it. In Empire AI had many hiccups with trading regions,trading tehnologies,access (i could spend hour milking AI at the beginning for different things but doing it every round in 200-400 turn campaign??).....It is quite easy to say I prefer Rome 1 to Shogun 2 to Warhammer.....but it is in the end your own point of view.

This new politics stuff is adding new toys. It is up to you how much,how often use it. Nobody is forcing you...

[Welsh Dragon]

Each player prefers different style. For example in Shogun 2, Rise of Samurai I was able to incite revolt in any province and only conquer them after that from rebels. I had whole campaign without any conflict with any clan....It is possible, it is extreme use of ingame mechanics and not everybody is interesting in it. In Empire AI had many hiccups with trading regions,trading tehnologies,access (i could spend hour milking AI at the beginning for different things but doing it every round in 200-400 turn campaign??).....It is quite easy to say I prefer Rome 1 to Shogun 2 to Warhammer.....but it is in the end your own point of view.

This new politics stuff is adding new toys. It is up to you how much,how often use it. Nobody is forcing you...

Agreed.

If you set out to just spam diplomatic missions and swarm other factions with low level statesmen you're going to get very different results than if you do what I've been doing, which is using it selectively with higher gravitas politicians to improve relations with other factions and maybe get a buff or some money in return if I'm lucky.

Basically don't see it something you heavily invest in to try and get regions without conquest, but as another tool in your toolbox which can give you a very nice big reward occasionally but most of the time is probably only going to give you a small one. It's mainly a way to improve relations and I think improve loyalty of other parties.

It's kind of like when I see someone complaining about the AI not being able to defeat that person's army and present a challenge, and then when you actually get some details the player is using full stacks of Praetorian Guard and/or moving their armies in groups of four. (Both true stories. ) If you set out to exploit the system you'll get odd results. If you play a bit more realistically you get a more interesting game. At least that's been my experience.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[Basil II the B.S]

The fact that I think the system has a poor design, doesn't mean I disapprove CA attempting to create a better diplomatic frame. Rome 2 is not a new game, far from it. If CA is using it to test new diplomatic options to see what works and what doesn't for future games, then I'm not against it. I'd be significantly more annoyed to have a malfunctioning, counter-intuitive game that just came out, rather than an old one.

[ThePoshBarbarian]

The problem I have with the new politics system for rome 2, especially with what we've seen in the newer games or those to be released *cough cough* thrones of Britannia *cough cough* is that, it has the potential to be far more that it currently is!

For example, if they had added the estate management system of ToB for the politics system, it would have made sense to include the political parties owning territory map, but currently, it feels imho useless!

[sidiust]

I really like the new Diplomacy system.

Here's how I imagined things going when I sent my Roman statesmen out on diplomacy missions to my Armenian allies:

The mighty Roman empire sends a delegation to the relatively weak Armenian Kingdom every year (i.e. every turn), their allies for a quarter of a Century. The Roman Statesmen in charge of the delegations are effectively diplomatic extortionists... making increasingly audacious demands of "tribute" as the Roman Empire grows in power compared to the Armenian Kingdom. While unskilled Roman Senators (read: low gravitas) could only wring out tributes of gold, reknowned bards, or master tacticians, the more influential and diplomatically skilled (read: high gravitas) senators of the later years (i.e. when # of Roman provinces >>> # of Armenian provinces) could squeeze out more and more out of their "Allies" as tribute. The Armenian King, while not thrilled at having his arm twisted by his powerful Ally, was happy enough to grant the Romans authority over his newly-conquered regions, such as Syria and Mesopotamia, since those were poorer regions in the outskirts of their Kingdom, in exchange for continuing the alliance. Eventually, as Roman might became unstoppable and the balance of power shifted dramatically in Rome's favor, the diplomats subtly but unmistakably began to drop hints of "regime change", "client states" and "puppet rulers"... forcing the Armenian King into giving up core provinces, in exchange for "protection".

[Basil II the B.S]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Note that in the Samosata case, my relation with Pontus was red.

I honestly think the system would be better if you could choose what the goal of the mission is about, and then have the outcome generated by the algorithm, rather than both being generated like that, because as it is right now, it's kind of effortless. The patch made it from impossible to too easy.

[KamenLily]

The last time that I played, my politicians still keep dying in their missions. Even with green relationship and high gravitas.

Stop dying you useless morons!!
*goes to cry in a corner*

[Basil II the B.S]

It seems they changed the formula significantly.
I get critical successes with red (often close to yellow) initial diplomatic relations.
I never get critical successes with green, 100+ initial diplomatic relations.
I actually get critical failure in those cases, even with very experienced politicians.

[Skozi]

Hello!
As i understand it is possible to change "send diplomat" outcome chance somehow (even not through mod), but i can't understand how exactly.
Maybe someone can help me?
I even found the "send_diplomat_incidents_tables" in PFM but can't open it(and not sure if it right place to change)
(I just lost 3 diplomats in 3 turns and was dragged in war because of it with my former ally and i am a bit upset (to say the least))