Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Diplomacy is broken in WII TW

tomraidertomraider Posts: 1Registered Users
While playing campaign as Wood Elves at about turn 160 (last turn of Chaos Invasion - they died durnig end turn) I had about +300 positive relations with Dwaves and military alliance with them. During end turn I recived diplomatic penlties for military and hero actions against Bretonia putting me at -2 relations with Dwarves, they declared war on me breaking alliance and taking other allies to join war on their side. After end turn diplomatic penalty for war with Bretonia was no longer there and I had +100 relations with Dwarves despite loosing bonuses for Chaos Invasion and reciving penalties for war with them.

It's not first time something like this happened but it is most distinctive. I was left at war with Dwarves, Empire and High Elves (they singend military alliance with Dwarves at the begining ot this end turn) who hade over 180 settlements together and -38 Amber.

Comments

  • makar55makar55 Posts: 1,674Registered Users
    It is, that's why clever people don't go further than trade agreements, but it does not change the fact how bad diplomacy is.
  • Aventus_MaximusAventus_Maximus Posts: 230Registered Users
    Well i'm not really sure why stuff happens but i do know the end of chaos is enough for most factions to go back to normal dispositions.

    Dwarves hate elves. Bretonia hates wood elves, empire and high elves hate everybody
    their can be only one you know
    furthermore i prety simple keep relationships good with friends to perform a hero action against their most hatred enemy once in a while
    and lets not forget diplomacy is an intricate game which seems sometimes as difficult as tracking a single meteorite traversing the asteroid belt for many years





    Male Parta Male Dilabuntur – ‘What has been wrongly gained is wrongly lost.’
    Fiat Lux – ‘Let there be light.’
    Alea Jacta Est – ‘The die is cast.’
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 20,624Registered Users
    It's broken because it's also largely irrelevant. Just expand, spam doomstacks, expand more and spam more. Allies are useless, they're only squatting on land that should be yours and they don't help you anyway.

  • ArneSoArneSo Posts: 1,390Registered Users
    @Ephraim_Dalton
    Agree! That’s why I don’t like that CA removed regional occupation. I‘m so tired of Dwarfs occupying Empire Cities and the Empire occupying Dwarf Karaks.

    I‘m playing Belegar right now and I always fear that my Empire allies conquer one of the regions around Karak Norn. I need their help against Skarsnik but I don’t want them to steal away these territories. I don’t want to declare war on them just to get that region back. Dwarfs and Humans should support each other and not steal away each others territories.

    When regional occupation stays in game 3 (I hope it will not), we need at least the option to trade regions.

    CA should also make regional occupation optional. I just expand lorefull anyways. Means I don’t conquer Empire settlements as dwarfs and the other way around.

    Beeing not able to occupy certain regions made good allies way more important in game 1.

    In my opinion each race should only be able to occupy certain parts of the map.

    The empire for exampe should not be able to conquer the following regions:
    - Mountains (Dwarfs)
    - Badlands
    - Norsca
    - Naggaroth

    Dwarfs should not be able to conquer the following regions:
    - flat old world regions

    Southlands and Lustria should be able to get occupied by all races since it is a region for lots of colonies. GS, Skaven and Undead should be able to conquer everything except Ulthuan.

    This way the player would be forced to keep allies and play smarter. The climate system is a joke and the AI doesn’t care about it.
    Instead of creating climate zones, CA should split the Map regarding to regions and continents.

    So the final map should get the following region groups:
    - old World flat Lands
    - Mountains (Old world + mourn)
    - Badlands
    - Norsca
    - Ulthuan
    - Lustria/Southlands
    - Araby/Nehekara
    - Naggaroth
    - Dark Lands
    - Steppes
  • JycceJycce Posts: 105Registered Users
    You went from +300 to -2 because you attacked Bretonnia ? (Heroes actions are never enough to lower your relations that much). You probably betrayed someone, broke an alliance or
    ArneSo said:

    @Ephraim_Dalton
    Agree! That’s why I don’t like that CA removed regional occupation. I‘m so tired of Dwarfs occupying Empire Cities and the Empire occupying Dwarf Karaks.

    I‘m playing Belegar right now and I always fear that my Empire allies conquer one of the regions around Karak Norn. I need their help against Skarsnik but I don’t want them to steal away these territories. I don’t want to declare war on them just to get that region back. Dwarfs and Humans should support each other and not steal away each others territories.

    When regional occupation stays in game 3 (I hope it will not), we need at least the option to trade regions.

    CA should also make regional occupation optional. I just expand lorefull anyways. Means I don’t conquer Empire settlements as dwarfs and the other way around.

    Beeing not able to occupy certain regions made good allies way more important in game 1.

    In my opinion each race should only be able to occupy certain parts of the map.

    The empire for exampe should not be able to conquer the following regions:
    - Mountains (Dwarfs)
    - Badlands
    - Norsca
    - Naggaroth

    Dwarfs should not be able to conquer the following regions:
    - flat old world regions

    Southlands and Lustria should be able to get occupied by all races since it is a region for lots of colonies. GS, Skaven and Undead should be able to conquer everything except Ulthuan.

    This way the player would be forced to keep allies and play smarter. The climate system is a joke and the AI doesn’t care about it.
    Instead of creating climate zones, CA should split the Map regarding to regions and continents.

    So the final map should get the following region groups:
    - old World flat Lands
    - Mountains (Old world + mourn)
    - Badlands
    - Norsca
    - Ulthuan
    - Lustria/Southlands
    - Araby/Nehekara
    - Naggaroth
    - Dark Lands
    - Steppes

    I'm not sure moving backward on the climates is a good idea but yeah we need the option to trade settlement (like you I try not to conquer zones which are not loreful and I hate when the AI takes one of "my" settlement - once I had to go to war against the Dwarves because they took Averheim ...).

    The problem with climates is that they don't really penalize you enough. A nerf in public order and growth is annoying but the income should also be reduced. For instance, if Dwarves can easily colonize "flat" lands they won't be able to continue their "mining based" economy and they probably aren't good farmers.

    A way to do that - and which could be more interesting than just "-10% on your income when it's not your climate"- would be to have economic building specific to the climates. For example, if the Empire colonize a mountain, it won't have the option to build the "weaving workshop" (not sure it's the good translation) but as a replacement it could build a "stone quarry" producing less gold.

    PS : Sorry if all this is a bit off topic.

    PPS : On topic : I find weird that you dropped from +300 to -2 just because of "military and hero actions" against someone else. Something else is probably going on.
  • kondenadokondenado Posts: 382Registered Users
    If anyone at CA is reading this:

    We need to trade regions.
    We need to have a treaty that's let's you seeing though the "fog of war" of the faction you have the agreement with.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 20,624Registered Users
    They should cap what building tiers you can build in unsuitable climates.

    Yellow - max T3
    Red - max T1

  • JuroslavJuroslav Senior Member Posts: 291Registered Users

    They should cap what building tiers you can build in unsuitable climates.

    Yellow - max T3
    Red - max T1

    I think that players are restricted enough in terms of climate. Sometimes I want to cap unsuitable regions. What will be the point now? On harder difficulties it will be not possible to hold them because of penalties to public order (which is challenging even now). Meanwhile I wouldn't stand a chance against any resistance because I wouldn't be able to build even basic garrison.

    Answer to OP: I think that it has something to do with event after defeating of Chaos. It is designed to break alliances you had before and declaring nonsense wars.
    LOVE FOR DIPLOMACY!!! :)
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 20,624Registered Users
    Juroslav said:

    They should cap what building tiers you can build in unsuitable climates.

    Yellow - max T3
    Red - max T1

    I think that players are restricted enough in terms of climate. Sometimes I want to cap unsuitable regions. What will be the point now? On harder difficulties it will be not possible to hold them because of penalties to public order (which is challenging even now). Meanwhile I wouldn't stand a chance against any resistance because I wouldn't be able to build even basic garrison.

    Answer to OP: I think that it has something to do with event after defeating of Chaos. It is designed to break alliances you had before and declaring nonsense wars.
    Seriously, that's the point. It shouldn't be easy to hold such settlements but right now there's barely any reason to not gobble up all settlements you can take because the penalties are irrelevant and you can all max them out at your leisure.

    The garrison building is T2, so you'r wrong anyway.

    Nope, climate penalties need to be definitely way harder than the joke they are now.

  • JuroslavJuroslav Senior Member Posts: 291Registered Users

    Juroslav said:

    They should cap what building tiers you can build in unsuitable climates.

    Yellow - max T3
    Red - max T1

    I think that players are restricted enough in terms of climate. Sometimes I want to cap unsuitable regions. What will be the point now? On harder difficulties it will be not possible to hold them because of penalties to public order (which is challenging even now). Meanwhile I wouldn't stand a chance against any resistance because I wouldn't be able to build even basic garrison.

    Answer to OP: I think that it has something to do with event after defeating of Chaos. It is designed to break alliances you had before and declaring nonsense wars.
    Seriously, that's the point. It shouldn't be easy to hold such settlements but right now there's barely any reason to not gobble up all settlements you can take because the penalties are irrelevant and you can all max them out at your leisure.

    The garrison building is T2, so you'r wrong anyway.

    Nope, climate penalties need to be definitely way harder than the joke they are now.
    I'm not wrong. May I remind you that you insisted that buildings in red climate should be max tier 1?

    I like current system because we are able to build whatever we want but it will take a lot of time. Why I wouldn't be able to build walls wherever I want? Or barracks? Or anything. Today's system is based on growth = population. Once you have enough you can let's say recruit more and more rare units. Build more complicated building and establish commerce buildings.

    I believe I don't have to remind anyone that to get growth in red climate is not an easy task.

    On the other hand we have public order penalties. Which on higher difficulties are ridiculous in red climate regions. How should I compensate it? Stay there with an army for whole duration of game? Again it is reflected with growth/ population. You settle in territory which have hostile population or environment towards yours or your reign. Once your own population exceeds drasticly native population, public order should naturally be more positive. Or in case of environment we can imagine that with more time passed, new population get used to climate and/ or change the environment to the level which is acceptable.

    Moreover there is income penalty. This reflects for example low purchasing power of region. Or that region has some resources that they are hard to obtain or there is not simply so much as your race have in green climate. Maybe delivering goods to your main territory is quite dangerous or it is too far. All these things are considered here.

    In conclusion I personally don't want all factions to only be able to build welf style of outpost. Which honestly in case of red climate as you insisted (only T1 buildings) would be the case. Basically you are able to only build T1 settlement which natuarally means that there is only one! free building slot.

    TL;DR
    It is fine as it is today. Hospitability/ harshmess of regions are sufficiently reflected in penalties.
    Restrictions in terms of what you can build are against logic of population and growth.
    Only T1 building in red climate would mean that you can only build worse type of welf outpost. (For example you even wouldn't be able to build T5 settlements in most of Ulthuan as Alith Anar because of T3 restricion)
    LOVE FOR DIPLOMACY!!! :)
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 20,624Registered Users
    Juroslav said:

    Juroslav said:

    They should cap what building tiers you can build in unsuitable climates.

    Yellow - max T3
    Red - max T1

    I think that players are restricted enough in terms of climate. Sometimes I want to cap unsuitable regions. What will be the point now? On harder difficulties it will be not possible to hold them because of penalties to public order (which is challenging even now). Meanwhile I wouldn't stand a chance against any resistance because I wouldn't be able to build even basic garrison.

    Answer to OP: I think that it has something to do with event after defeating of Chaos. It is designed to break alliances you had before and declaring nonsense wars.
    Seriously, that's the point. It shouldn't be easy to hold such settlements but right now there's barely any reason to not gobble up all settlements you can take because the penalties are irrelevant and you can all max them out at your leisure.

    The garrison building is T2, so you'r wrong anyway.

    Nope, climate penalties need to be definitely way harder than the joke they are now.
    I'm not wrong. May I remind you that you insisted that buildings in red climate should be max tier 1?

    I like current system because we are able to build whatever we want but it will take a lot of time. Why I wouldn't be able to build walls wherever I want? Or barracks? Or anything. Today's system is based on growth = population. Once you have enough you can let's say recruit more and more rare units. Build more complicated building and establish commerce buildings.

    I believe I don't have to remind anyone that to get growth in red climate is not an easy task.

    On the other hand we have public order penalties. Which on higher difficulties are ridiculous in red climate regions. How should I compensate it? Stay there with an army for whole duration of game? Again it is reflected with growth/ population. You settle in territory which have hostile population or environment towards yours or your reign. Once your own population exceeds drasticly native population, public order should naturally be more positive. Or in case of environment we can imagine that with more time passed, new population get used to climate and/ or change the environment to the level which is acceptable.

    Moreover there is income penalty. This reflects for example low purchasing power of region. Or that region has some resources that they are hard to obtain or there is not simply so much as your race have in green climate. Maybe delivering goods to your main territory is quite dangerous or it is too far. All these things are considered here.

    In conclusion I personally don't want all factions to only be able to build welf style of outpost. Which honestly in case of red climate as you insisted (only T1 buildings) would be the case. Basically you are able to only build T1 settlement which natuarally means that there is only one! free building slot.

    TL;DR
    It is fine as it is today. Hospitability/ harshmess of regions are sufficiently reflected in penalties.
    Restrictions in terms of what you can build are against logic of population and growth.
    Only T1 building in red climate would mean that you can only build worse type of welf outpost. (For example you even wouldn't be able to build T5 settlements in most of Ulthuan as Alith Anar because of T3 restricion)
    You should not be able to easily hold red settlements. See absolutely no reason why you should.

    Tiers for such should be capped. The current system is crap and needs to be changed. They should have never removed RO at all.

  • EnforestEnforest Posts: 1,991Registered Users
    Diplomacy is utter trash. As was said ealer, you never should go beyond NAP, Trade and Military Access except for certain cases (Beastmen + Skaven Military Alliance works OK, Cult of Sotek can become buddies with all the Lizardmen and make the AI win the campaign for you).

    The prime example of broken diplomacy is Nakai campaign in ME. Due to how rigged the AI is, everyone would see you vassal as a punch bag due to very low faction power and instantly declare war on it, bypassing ALL the treaties the player has with those faction.

    Have fun being dragged into wars with Bretonnia and Empire, then the Dwarfs and having to fend off endless stacks of "Order" factions by turn 100. Absolute chore and unplayable without the certain mods which change the diplomacy and lock out interactions with vassals.


    Demand more love for Empire, Greenskins and Beastmen! Playable Middenland with Cult of Ulric! Expanded Beastmen roster with Ghorgon and Jabberslythe! Bring back Black Orcs variants and Orc Big Boss heroes!
  • JuroslavJuroslav Senior Member Posts: 291Registered Users

    Juroslav said:

    Juroslav said:

    They should cap what building tiers you can build in unsuitable climates.

    Yellow - max T3
    Red - max T1

    I think that players are restricted enough in terms of climate. Sometimes I want to cap unsuitable regions. What will be the point now? On harder difficulties it will be not possible to hold them because of penalties to public order (which is challenging even now). Meanwhile I wouldn't stand a chance against any resistance because I wouldn't be able to build even basic garrison.

    Answer to OP: I think that it has something to do with event after defeating of Chaos. It is designed to break alliances you had before and declaring nonsense wars.
    Seriously, that's the point. It shouldn't be easy to hold such settlements but right now there's barely any reason to not gobble up all settlements you can take because the penalties are irrelevant and you can all max them out at your leisure.

    The garrison building is T2, so you'r wrong anyway.

    Nope, climate penalties need to be definitely way harder than the joke they are now.
    I'm not wrong. May I remind you that you insisted that buildings in red climate should be max tier 1?

    I like current system because we are able to build whatever we want but it will take a lot of time. Why I wouldn't be able to build walls wherever I want? Or barracks? Or anything. Today's system is based on growth = population. Once you have enough you can let's say recruit more and more rare units. Build more complicated building and establish commerce buildings.

    I believe I don't have to remind anyone that to get growth in red climate is not an easy task.

    On the other hand we have public order penalties. Which on higher difficulties are ridiculous in red climate regions. How should I compensate it? Stay there with an army for whole duration of game? Again it is reflected with growth/ population. You settle in territory which have hostile population or environment towards yours or your reign. Once your own population exceeds drasticly native population, public order should naturally be more positive. Or in case of environment we can imagine that with more time passed, new population get used to climate and/ or change the environment to the level which is acceptable.

    Moreover there is income penalty. This reflects for example low purchasing power of region. Or that region has some resources that they are hard to obtain or there is not simply so much as your race have in green climate. Maybe delivering goods to your main territory is quite dangerous or it is too far. All these things are considered here.

    In conclusion I personally don't want all factions to only be able to build welf style of outpost. Which honestly in case of red climate as you insisted (only T1 buildings) would be the case. Basically you are able to only build T1 settlement which natuarally means that there is only one! free building slot.

    TL;DR
    It is fine as it is today. Hospitability/ harshmess of regions are sufficiently reflected in penalties.
    Restrictions in terms of what you can build are against logic of population and growth.
    Only T1 building in red climate would mean that you can only build worse type of welf outpost. (For example you even wouldn't be able to build T5 settlements in most of Ulthuan as Alith Anar because of T3 restricion)
    You should not be able to easily hold red settlements. See absolutely no reason why you should.

    Tiers for such should be capped. The current system is crap and needs to be changed. They should have never removed RO at all.
    If you hold them easily or not is based on opinion and circumstances. If you capture red climate settlement on your borders it is much more easy than do an invasion to Norsca and capturing their cities.

    The current system according to my opinion is fine. I mentioned before few points which were somehow omitted in your response.

    Capping tiers of settlemets don't have logic... and I will say it again. According to your proposition we will have this: Only T1 building in red climate would mean that you can only build worse type of welf outpost. (For example you even wouldn't be able to build T5 settlements in most of Ulthuan as Alith Anar because of T3 restricion)

    As for regional occupation. In WHI it has its place because it was focused on struggle between archenemies. Empire and Vampires, Dwarfs and Orcs etc. But even there were instances when it was total failure. How could you beat your enemy which has giant territory? Yes it is possible. But it is even the stupidiest and grindiest ways to defeat your enemy. Imagine playing as Dwarfs when Vampires have a lot of territory along your borders. You destroy one-two-three settlements. That is all you can do because you can't hold them. Then there will be attrition if you want to move swiftly or if you want to replenish you will be slow. Meanwhile another vampire army will come, possibly destroy your army and/ or settle in destroyed settlement. Experience may vary but this was basically my campaign as Dwarfs in WHI

    Let's think about WHII. And let's say we want to give Tomb Kings regions which they can hold. They will have desersts in Southlands, that's for sure. But what about Badlands and Mountains. Orks raided TK's territories in lore. So how should we do it. If you don't give TK abbility to conquer Badlands and Mountains there is a possibility that war between TK and Orks will be as I mentioned before... incredibly stupid. Let's say we give them that possibility. Well then they can become Empire's neighbour... Or have a mountain pass between Empire and Brettonia. I can see ppl arguing about that. And what about Norsca. Norsca did raid TK as well. And Settra have grudge against them - a HUGE grudge. Should we give them the option to capture Norsca's territory? Let's say we will not give them any of these... well... then you will be able to only conquer Southlands (which in ME is only desert, two mountain passes and small Lizardmen jungle in the east) *without* mountains... and that's game. Hope you enjoyed wars between TK again and again. Moreover why should they do ME with regional occupation. It doesn't make any sense. Especially for possibly one-region-locked races like TK.

    I hope you can see now why I think it is and was bad for sandbox game. Nowadays you can play WH more according to your own will and desires than you ever could with RO.

    If challenge is what you seek, difficulty of game can be changed. And if you find it easy even after you beat it on multiple occasions on highest difficulty, with all respect I suggest you to try different game. Every game is simple when you know what and how to do.
    LOVE FOR DIPLOMACY!!! :)
Sign In or Register to comment.