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

A Diplomacy rework will be the worst thing that could happen to WH3

elkappelkapp Registered Users Posts: 261
Before flagging my post, please read it all. I'm not trolling, and maybe you won't agree with what i wrote, but please try to discuss it in a civil way. Dividing ourselves in almost political parties won't benefit anyone except people that want the game to remain broken. I know the post isn't exactly short, but there's much stuff to talk about and i tried to compress it as much as i could while trying to make it readable.

WHAT

First, what "Diplomacy rework"? The type of rework i'm refering to is the 3K/Troy type where you have an accurate representation of the values used to calculate if a deal is going to succeed or not + other additions like settlement trading and easier alliance system. Which, since is one of the most asked rework for WH3, you might be familiar with it.

WHY

The biggest reason why people want it is that it will make the game easier: if you know what the AI likes you can manipulate diplomacy, and if you can manupulate diplomacy then you can also manipulate the AI and make the game easier. Things like that can be the difference between starting a war against the N°1 strength ranking faction, or maybe "smaller" but more powerful deals like a treade agreement while playing TK.

WHY NOT

Well, if you didn't see it above, here's the problem: manipulate the AI. Honestly, the AI in this game is not smart, and while i think it will get better in the next game it still won't be at the same level of the player, and this mean that "any idiot" will be able to cheese the game to insane levels because, while yes you can now spam stacks of overpowered heroes and T5 units and basically win every 1v1 battle (which on top of that you can force 1v1s via lightning strike), you can technically lose your wars if you are not careful enough (which is hard, but not impossible).
With the OP diplomacy that has been proposed you won't ever lose. Hell, you won't even need to doomstack: if you can pick your allies and enemies you can just go for T1 crap and spam AR. Won't even need any money cheese like entrepeneur because you can just force your allies to give you rich land or just give you money all because you spam sacked a single settlement and then have 1k relations with them.

Also, this will break the few challenging race mechanics like the Dwarf's book of grudges that are not tainted by some cheesy crap. I mean, even lorewise, can you see a dwarf knocking on someone's door and asking peacefully to return their land for some ammount of cash? Of course not, a dwarf will probably break that door and slaughter everyone inside. And maybe after half the people living there lack their head then they will start doing "diplomacy".

WHAT TO DO

Well, i know the actual diplomacy we have is not perfect, but imo if the alternative is that kind of crap is better to keep it as it is. If a rework should be done and done properly however it should reflect better the chaotic and hostile enviroment of the Warhammer World, which mean you shouldn't be able to see KaK ally with Clan Mors, or even just get a lot of relation with a faction by whatever mean. Leaders of the WW know better than to trust the first guy that happens to share the same enemy with them. I don't say good relations shouldn't be possible, but that things like military alliances shouldn't be considered a tool to get a reward, they should BE the reward.

Comments

  • elkappelkapp Registered Users Posts: 261
    Also, for peple that will write "just use mods" (as if those are the solution to any problem), please no.
    If i can steal wise words from a user in the forum:
    "mods should be used to break a balanced game, not to balance a broken one".
  • HondlisHondlis Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 775
    edited March 1
    Disagree. Playing as order faction and as non order faction offers incomparably different experience purely based on how many allies you are able to get.

    Some factions are almost nonexistent simply because every body immidiately declares war on them as they are unable to do anything through diplomacy.

    Some factions are almost always topping power rankings simply because everybody around wants to be a friend with them.

    It makes every campaign stereotypical. I don't see a reason why i can't ally Dwarfs as Vampire counts even if it's tough as we may share some common goals. It is sandbox after all and i want to use tools to play like it is sandbox.
  • AlduineeAlduinee Registered Users Posts: 50
    The biggest reason why people want it is that it will make the game easier


    No, it will make campaign map management interesting like in 3k. Currently in Warhammer games the campaign side is boring af and battles are main enjoyable side ( aside sieges )
  • Jote191Jote191 Registered Users Posts: 450
    The problem with this post is that you assume it would be poorly implemented.

    I'm not expecting a massive change to diplomacy. Just some new things to make it interesting. As it is now diplomacy is just kinda boring.
  • MalalTheRenegadeMalalTheRenegade Registered Users Posts: 375
    Agreed about the values in diplomacy. I don't like it in 3K and IMO it breaks immersion. Same for "autoresolve" diplomacy or it should at least have downsides.

    Absolutely disagree on what's left, Diplomacy in TWW is pretty bland and lead to a lot of both unloreful and illogical situations.
    Also, there is actually a lot of counter powers and tricks to avoid the AI to be abused in stuff like region trading (for instance, a region against a region). So the problem is about balancing, not about implementing it or not.

    Also "picking allies and ennemies" is one way to perform strategies. So it would only deepen the gameplay.

    Improved diplomacy is a must and will greatly help to make the game more enjoyable. I hope CA will dig in one of the many ways to do that.

    A sidenote (but it doesn't really matter), your comparison about dwarfs is wrong. First, dwarfs are not really known to be mindless killers with a tendency to enter a blood rage. Second, some grudges in the BoG can actually be settled thanks to gold (and even when the wrong was pretty bad).
  • MaelasMaelas Registered Users Posts: 1,520
    How can you be against more clarity ? Would you like to remove unit stats too ?

    EU4 use extremely clear diplomacy that tell you exactly why something is refused or accepted by the IA and it's infinitely better than having this one random noble with 200 opinion spit in your face because you dared ask a trade deal.
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 6,280
    WTH? It's just a quality-of-life improvement. You can get the exact same result by trying different proposals over and over again.
  • ValkaarValkaar Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,806
    If ‘but you could abuse the AI with X feature’ was a reason to not implement a feature..... this game would have: Zero features.

    Anything, including the current diplomacy system, has potential for abuse and cheese. The current Eltharion infinite money exploit for example abuses both diplomacy and Eltharion’s mechanics. Under your logic.... this means that Eltharion should just not have been added to the game 🙄🙄.

    Yes, some people game the 3k/Troy AI to get ‘phantom’ deals where they offer an extended payment in exchange for a lump sum, then they just cancel the extended payment to farm free money.

    ^^i don’t think this is how MOST people are playing 3k/Troy right now. MOST people have remarked positively about the system and want it imported over to Warhammer for its increased depth and complexity. Not it’s cheeseable features.

    Yes, ideally the exploits in Eltharion and 3k should be patched. A fix would be welcome. But if I have to pick between a potentially exploitable improvement.... and NOTHING. I’ll take the improvement.

    TL;DR: the mere POTENTIAL for an exploit does not make the game worse. Asking for a bug fix is more reasonable than asking for the content to not come at all. And bug fix or not.... evaluating whether content is ‘good or bad’ for the game based on what LegendofTotalWar and the SpiffingBrit are going to do with it is just a wrong-headed metric to use. As they’ll find some crack in just about anything and how they play is not how most people approach the game.
  • MalalTheRenegadeMalalTheRenegade Registered Users Posts: 375
    edited March 1
    Xenos7777 said:

    WTH? It's just a quality-of-life improvement. You can get the exact same result by trying different proposals over and over again.

    Actually, treaty proposals shouldn't be spammable. They only are to compensate the poor implementation of the mechanic.

    A limited number of proposals per turn and/or per target would make diplomacy more meaningful (it could also be related to the number of heroes/diplomats you have on the map). Edit : Only if diplomacy is improved to give a better preview of the results to the player (but exact results is going to far in that direction).
  • elkappelkapp Registered Users Posts: 261
    I might not be in the majority with this one, but i would prefer if the devs did not try too hard to buff the player for the sake of buffing the player.
    For the love of god, if is needed is needed, i won't spit a half word, but for diplomacy the situation reminds me too much of the mount debate, where everyone first asked CA to remove the skill tree for the mounts, only to cry now to have that back. And maybe i'm wrong, maybe everyone will like the diplomacy improvements, but i fear that won't be the case.
  • Commissar_GCommissar_G Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 12,461

    Xenos7777 said:

    WTH? It's just a quality-of-life improvement. You can get the exact same result by trying different proposals over and over again.

    Actually, treaty proposals shouldn't be spammable.
    Tell that to the Border Princes during my end turn.
    81jt2dj75iky.png


    Kia Kaha and C'est La Vie Kiwi123, neodeinos and FungusHound, the mighty Troll Slayers.
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 6,280

    Xenos7777 said:

    WTH? It's just a quality-of-life improvement. You can get the exact same result by trying different proposals over and over again.

    Actually, treaty proposals shouldn't be spammable. They only are to compensate the poor implementation of the mechanic.

    A limited number of proposals per turn and/or per target would make diplomacy more meaningful (it could also be related to the number of heroes/diplomats you have on the map). Edit : Only if diplomacy is improved to give a better preview of the results to the player (but exact results is going to far in that direction).
    I mean, exact results are how it works in reality. Ribbentrop proposed to Molotov some conditions, Molotov looked at them, made some counter-proposals, Ribbentrop accepted and the treaty was signed. It's not like Ribbentrop proposed stuff and Molotov kept shaking his head in silence, till Ribbentrop randomly got it right, and then he nodded.
  • PatriksevePatrikseve Member Registered Users Posts: 1,966
    edited March 1
    I dont think a rework should be troy or 3k it should be assymetrical. Some factions will not have diplomacy at all others will have variants and limited abilities to do things trough them. They might include differences inbetween dealing with different races aswell. I think that would go a longer way. Essentially building a unique diplomatic system around each race rather than giving everyone the same tools.

  • TeNoSkillTeNoSkill Registered Users Posts: 3,799
    Your base premisse "people want feature X because it makes it easier for them" is wrong.
    Because that implies people can only have fun if they win.

    People want to spend their time in a meaningful way.
    Which means trying out different ways to solve a problem.

    Expanded diplomacy does that.
  • DeadpoolSWDeadpoolSW Registered Users Posts: 2,215
    I don't want to manipulate the AI, I just don't want to spend 10 minutes in the diplomacy screen trying to get one "moderate" trade agreement.
    Nagash will rule again!

    Justice for Chaos Dwarfs, Ogre Kingdoms, Araby, Albion, Amazons, Halflings, Nippon, Ind & the Hobgoblin Khanate!
  • BonutzBonutz Registered Users Posts: 3,770
    This is a tad extreme to be honest.

    There’s no doubt that a good rework for diplomacy would only benefit the game, not make it worse.

    Region trading needs to be a thing. A make it work button needs to be a thing. The ability to have an enemy make peace with your allies needs to be a thing.

    These would all be improvements.
    I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass...and I’m all out of bubblegum.
  • Cryptic_FreezeCryptic_Freeze Registered Users Posts: 193
    I disagree,

    I personally want diplomacy reworked to increase the dynamics between allies and loreful enemies. When I play I like to nurture allies but the current formula makes it annoying, not hard. Maybe it would be cool to gift some dwarfs a few Empire regiments to a garrison or something, that could be loreful. Maybe when I join war with the dwarves against the greenskins, I could get some idea of where they are sending their armies (i.e. expanding on cooperative targets). Maybe if you have very high power rating or influence based on a new political system, you can create a proxy war, that's loreful. There should be some hard lines for allies, like no dwarf/skaven / greenskin/order, chaos/order, maybe no alliance for high elves/dark elves, etc..

    The point is, there is nothing but benefits to the GAMEPLAY LOOP by expanding on political dynamics. Campaigns in general already suffer from being extremely cheeseable, I don't think expanding on loreful social dynamics will be the bane of balance.
  • Steph_F_DavidSteph_F_David Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,732
    I don't see how someone can consider that the diplomacy we have now is good, and that it doesn't require some improvement.

    So claiming "A DIPLOMACY REWORK WILL BE THE WORST THING THAT COULD HAPPEN TO WH3" is a rather strange statement...

    We could discuss how to make good rework. But keeping it as it is is certainly worse than reworking it smartly.

  • Kapika96Kapika96 Registered Users Posts: 156
    Completely disagree.

    The diplomacy in the game sucks right now and the game is worse off because of it. I couldn't care less that having a better diplomacy system would make the game "easier" I care because it would make it more fun and that's a lot more important!
Sign In or Register to comment.