The importance of both politics and diplomacy in a campaign

[twgamer20197]

When you play a campaign, do you give much importance to both politics and diplomacy right from the start of the campaign?

In my case I take it seriously from the start:

I first try to plan for my house to be in order: I check what the rival parties like. Then I try to accomplish their demands to reduce the odds of a civl war or secession. Also I promote some characters of the rival parties from time to time, send them to diplomatic missions, winning battles with generals of the rival parties, etc

And as to diplomacy, I check all the factions to see if I can establish at least temporary treaties with some of them in order to avoid being attacked by 2 or more factions at the same time. Moreover, having war only against 1 faction at a time helps to reduce the likelihood of secessions and civil wars specially if the rival parties are pacifists ( I found out that by experience ). And if an offer I'll send to a faction has a high probability ( or at least a moderate prediction of success ) of being accepted, I ask for a amount of money as well. That's an extra help for my treasury. Always be clever men in that aspect. Try always to get money from the treaties you plan to make. For example I recently played again the prologue just for fun: When I established the trade treaty with the Greek faction, I asked them 5000 ( always raise the amount you request until the prediction says "moderate") of money and they gave it to me)

Before attacking a faction, I first check if it has military alliance or defensive alliance treaties with other factions. I try to avoid being at war with a faction that has allies ( you know, it is difficult to persuade a faction to break its alliance ) unless I have no other better choice...

[Alwyn]

I do similar things, these strategies work work in my experience. I like having an ally, so there's a border I don't need to defend, and I like the way that for military allies, their regions count as ours for the victory conditions (so we don't need to betray an ally to win). Of course, having an ally can help with getting trade agreements with other factions, as they tend to like you if you're friends with nations they like.

How much do you try to expand your family tree? I normally keep trying to expand it, through marriage and adoption and by sending children to be tutored (to give them a better chance of reaching adulthood and so I'll have good candidates for the next generation of commanders). However, I tend to expand my ruling family too much - this gets expensive in both coins and the loyalty of rival parties.

[twgamer20197]

Yes. I also marry all the characters from my party ( and also at least one character of each rival party ) And I have recently done what you do: sending some children to be educated. This is very helpful

[twgamer20197]

I see that most R2TW players in youtube don't rely much on diplomacy as a tool or weapon for achieving their goals. They rely more on military conquests. But at least in my experience, a combination of both diplomacy and military conquests is the best thing for increasing your odds of achieving the chapter objectives and winning the whole campaign. For example the ancient Romans were clever: they combined both diplomacy and military strength/conquests to achieve their goals.

[LuckyPistol]

Yes, objectively speaking, politics and diplomacy are pretty much optional; many only pay just enough attention to avoid a civil war. I like the politics system in the current version of Rome 2; though the difficulty in managing it does depend on the faction you play.

Diplomacy is something I've enjoyed since M2TW. Getting the right ally can really improve the roleplay/emotional investment of the campaign. It's especially fun to form coalitions of allies and take on the world! Seriously though, the war target coordination is probably the coolest feature introduced in Rome 2.

[twgamer20197]

Maybe some players are just unaware of the benefits of taking advantage of diplomacy in the campaigns. One example is that when you get an ally, it can help you distract or keep a particular enemy faction busy while you deal with another

[LuckyPistol]

Definitely. Allies can be crucial for limiting risk during expansion. Buffer states are important on the strategic level.

[twgamer20197]

There are some players who really don't care about avoiding secessions or civil wars. I mean, they don't seek pleasing the rival parties. And instead they just prefer to be prepared to deal with either a secession or a civil war. I think that's not bad. It is the player's own criterion or decision. It's a valid option as well. Probaly this type of players are very good at both developing their miltary might and fighting battles manually.

(so we don't need to betray an ally to win)

You should never betray an ally because that reduces your reliability from the other factions' perpective. If you want to attack an ally later, you should first gradually break the treaties you have.

[Alwyn]

I agree, that's a valid option. Fighting secessions and civil wars can be challenging (taking on an army you built, or an army with elite units if the rival party didn't command armies in proportion to their influence).

[twgamer20197]

It is very important to try to expand your party's tree as much as you can and promote soon all of them ( the free promotion at least ) right from the start of the campaign. The higher your characters rank, the faster they acquire gravitas. And the faster they get gravitas, the faster they are ready to get married. The faster they get married, the more likely you'd have candidates from your party to be generals/admirals. Once a character from your party dies, get another wife/husband for him/her. Don't let anyone stay single for a very long time.