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 issues

bCiMUSTdoitbCiMUSTdoit Registered Users Posts: 2
edited August 31 in General Discussion
I've noticed that diplomacy is very unreliable in this game and i don't know if this is a bug or intended problem.

For example non-aggression pacts. They seem to not be valued at all by any faction whatsoever. And I understand ceratin factions have 'unreliable' trait and you should expect them not valuing such agreement, but this happens over and over again with essentially all factions. They will declare war on you even though you are liked by them and have a non-aggression pact (sometimes even combined with military accsess) and they don't have any 'negative' diplomatic traits that would suggest acting like that.

Another example is war declaration. The balance of power bar seems meaningless because even though you have 50+ settlements factions with 1 or 2 settlements will declare war on you. And a lot of the times they aren't even your neighbours either. Completely neutral factions across the entire map with terrible balance of power declare war on you.

Another example is vassalage system. Factions you vassaled by conquering their last city or otherwise will seceede from you very soon or sometimes in the very next turn because they refuse to join you in a war some other faction declared on you. And they don't have 'unreliable' trait. I've had this example with my army still standing next to the vassaled faction's only city (vassaled last turn). I would think vassalage pact would be even more reliable than military alliance. Or that factions would consider seceeding only when they have grown in strenght enough to challenge you.

It seems to me diplomatic agreements are valued way to little or sometimes even not at all by NPC factions in this game and that there should be more 'stability' in diplomacy. But than again maybe this is all intended as a very volatile time?

Comments

  • Whiskeyjack_5691Whiskeyjack_5691 Registered Users Posts: 3,794

    It seems to me diplomatic agreements are valued way to little or sometimes even not at all by NPC factions in this game and that there should be more 'stability' in diplomacy. But than again maybe this is all intended as a very volatile time?

    I think it's more so to do with the fact that Troy is built from the Warhammer 2 iteration of the Total War engine, and the diplomacy/diplomatic AI in Warhammer 1 & 2 is notoriously erratic and nonsensical. Anything more than a non-aggression pact or trade agreement is pretty much useless in those games; Military Access might as well not be in the game because the AI will regularly trespass on your lands, not caring if it has military access or not. Vassals will either sit on their hands and get steamrolled by enemy factions, or just secede at the first opportunity. And Defensive or Military Allies will drag you into multiple wars against everyone within reach for no apparent reason... sometimes your allies declare war against factions you are also allied with, leaving the player in a no-win situation.

    All of this seems to have been carried over to Troy, and the results speak for themselves.
  • bCiMUSTdoitbCiMUSTdoit Registered Users Posts: 2

    I think it's more so to do with the fact that Troy is built from the Warhammer 2 iteration of the Total War engine, and the diplomacy/diplomatic AI in Warhammer 1 & 2 is notoriously erratic and nonsensical.

    That's dissapointing to hear since this means its a bigger problem than it might seem.

    I've played a decent ammount of TW Warhammer 2 and never noticed the diplomacy being this wierd. Sure it might feel odd at times however in TROY it seems AI aggression is turned to 200% and disregard for diplomatic agreements is out of control. In multiple campaings i had a total of 1 instance where the AI had a decency to cancel NAP before attacking.

    Military Access might as well not be in the game because the AI will regularly trespass on your lands, not caring if it has military access or not.

    Yeah forgot to mention this as problem as well..

  • Whiskeyjack_5691Whiskeyjack_5691 Registered Users Posts: 3,794
    Yeah, it's shame because Troy uses the much better diplomacy system from Three Kingdoms (for the most part), but the AI can't seem to use it properly at all, which buggers any improvement.

    Also kinda' strange that they didn't import the Coalitions and the new Military Alliance system from 3K, as they would have fit Troy perfectly.

    Feels like a case of "two steps forwards, one step back."
  • Ard_RiArd_Ri Registered Users Posts: 23
    I'm not sure I agree with the premise of this thread. Playing Achilles on Legendary campaign difficulty and it's quite easy to form alliances and non-aggression pacts and with only a few exceptions, the AI sticks with them over long periods of time. Only when my trustworthiness dips do they all start going haywire and at this point the AI is just being punishing because I've violated agreements as the player so I think this is totally acceptable.

    Long story short, if you keep in good standing, your agreements carry weight. If you actions undermine your agreements, expect the AI to return the favor.
Sign In or Register to comment.