Everyone bloodily hates me to death - Is there any way to force the AI to sue for peace?

[TATWFan]

Hello!

First of all, gotta say i'm having a great time playing DeI. It's like a thousand times better than vanilla, however there's something that's irking me.
Turn 176, playing as the Roman Republic.
Somehow, everyone's declaring war at me for no reason, even factions that are at the other side at the map. Just look at the screen to see how many factions are trying to kill me

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I haven't even landed in the Middle East yet and everyone and their mother in there hates me!
There's another issue i'm experiencing, also shown at the screenshoot. Take the Arverni (or any minor barbarian tribe for that matter). How can the likelihood of sucess be at Low with such generous terms? (don't forget the strength difference).
I mean, I can understand that some tribes would rather fight to the death than submit to Roman rule, but it happens with EVERY faction.
It's fun having war, but...having to fight against 15 or 16 factions that straight declared war on you after you met 'em? It's becoming kinda tiresome, especially since the only thing keeping my empire from falling apart are my legions, and with 6 or 7 different fronts they're becoming a bit stretched thin.

So, is there any way you can force the AI to be more peaceful somehow? Is the diplomacy working as intended?
Playing in Normal/Normal with Softcore

Thanks!

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

Αs far as I can see you're quite the expansionist already. AI hates that. Thousands other things could affect diplomacy, from pillaging and killing prisoners to liberating and having trading routes with another hated faction.
Are you using any submods ?

[LEXI2016]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0GW0Vnr9Yc

[TATWFan]

Well, i'm using Dei softcore and then the submod that turns unit and faction names into English.
It may have to do with me making trade agreements to whoever I can, perhaps I made a lot of enemies unknowingly that way.
Also, I had positive relations with Egypt (+60 or so), even had a trade agreement with em and we were making war to Carthage together, and all of a sudden, they backstabbed me. Damned bastards

[waidizss]

Slash their envoys throats and have every prisoners head on a pike by the end of the year! Show no mercy!

[thesmoosh]

The short answer is, it's complicated. I've made some posts in the past with some diplomacy tips beyond what's in the FAQ and official guide) so feel free to look in my history to see if you can find it (I'm on mobile atm), but my overall recommendation is this.

Send some scouts out, either spies or fleets with just an admiral (that way you don't have to worry about supplies) to scout out the map. Then spend some time clicking on each faction and studying their relationships with others as well as the reasons behind those relationships (you can see the factors when you mouse over the green yellow/red mask or on the map).

Do this throughout your campaign and keep an eye on how things change. That will get you an idea of how things work and how to take advantage of diplomacy.

I can tell you that in my campaigns I have the complete opposite problem you do, in the sense that no one will start wars with me, and I have so agreements with everyone so when I do decide to conquer someone I have to wait a while for the penalty from breaking treaties to wear off.

[Bless]

I see a lot of people complaining about AI being super unfriendly but in my experience the ai is still over-friendly and diplomacy is still very predictable.

So the issue i think is that most people get factions that have diplomacy malus as traits and don't seem to recognize how that will affect gameplay, so maybe if the team want to makes change to this it could be better to tweak those traits instead of more direct changes to diplomacy.

Although even when playing as Epirus i had no problems in Greece and could put full focus on my Italian campaign, but always leaving a small garrison force at home just in case.

Anyway, i prefer a more treacherous and backstabby game ratter than "let's all be friends", this is Total War after all.

[RecKooo]

Also a little observation on Trading Agreement - AI treats Trading Agreement in a manner of a favor towards you rather than mutual benefits. So when you are at war and in bad relationship, throwing Trade Agreement / Non-agression pact will actually lower the chances of AI accepting it until you really push your enemy and leave him with 1 settlement surrounded by 2 full stacks - then they might accept it. Otherwise, try just gold and peace proposal,

Cheers.

[Satansblofish]

I think thesmoosh gave a solid answer and I want to build off of it.

I don't think most of the AI is 'randomly' declaring war on you. It's important to remember the AI utilizes diplomacy for their own gain too. TA, NAP, DA, M.Access, M.Alliance, join war, etc -- they use it all(or most). I have played around with diplomacy a lot in DeI and think the system is quite a bit better than most people seem to give it credit for. I have realized the AI will execute similar diplomatic choices as myself and I have even taken idea's from the AI.

A good example, which you seem to be experiencing, is if they're far away from you, they may not be worried about the risks you might pose versus the points they can gain in diplo for their more immediate goals, so they may join an allies war on you. Lots of seasoned players have done that a multitude of times and for various reasons. To curry favor with allies or prospective allies, the AI will do other things like join each others' wars. For the player, this becomes problematic in later turns as the campaign map develops into power 'blocs' that look and form in a myriad of ways. You're in a pretty big one right now and there looks to be some others. Those can be difficult to navigate. Plus, they tend to fight a lot and while they do usually settle down eventually, campaigns being a sandbox means there are times it can carry on for awhile.

Now, at least in my understanding, why some agreements seem almost impossible to overcome is that the algorithm being used by the AI weights certain agreements and actions significantly higher and thus require significant amount of diplo points to be overcome(my theory is that some of those same agreements matter more in the algorithm than their diplo number may suggest). An example I have ran into is when I found a faction would only offer me military access for a price I couldn't afford right then and I needed to cross their lands for an opportune time to crush the enemy as I was basically trying to beat that neighbor to the settlement. So i crossed and made up the diplo points a bit later but they would no longer entertain agreements from me.

In your case, what stands out right away is that you're in a military alliance with an Arverni enemy and we don't know your relations with the Arverni. Furthermore, at this point in the game it's debatable whether your offer is any good. Frankly, I don't think it is. You are late in the game enough that 1000 gold is literally nothing. You offer NAP and you're steadfast, but you're also expansionist so they don't trust you. Generally, for trade, I think of it as being for factions that are trending positively toward each other or early factions that are nearby but not immediate neighbors and have generally neutral terms across the board. It is rarely a useful tool for peace. If you really want peace, you could try offering the Arverni to break the military alliance with that faction they are at war with + gold. I have a feeling you could end a few of your wars doing that, if you so desired.

With your campaign settings, while maybe not so much in your current campaign, I think you can actually get a lot of the outcomes you are looking for, you just need to get some diplo points with target factions. I.e Gifts of gold, paying for agreements, raiding/sacking/trespassing whoever they don't like, offer to join their wars, attack their enemies, kill the enemy prisoners, join their battles, etc.

Quick side note: ONLY send diplomatic missions to pretty good allies but I would just avoid using it altogether. It has very high fail rates for anything less than pretty in positive, and even then it's still pretty risky. I would say just don't use it until it's been addressed. It fails so consistently, I have found it's most important use as building bad relations with target factions in order to create various specific scenario's. Like when I'm trying to craft a quasi-custom campaign scenario.

Also, I think another fun side note: you are trying to create your own era of vast roman expansion, albeit in an earlier period. I am not a historian but I think this would be an interesting question for our resident historians and enthusiasts to compare versus other periods where Rome expanded most significantly. Right now, it seems you are facing 15 factions in ~10 wars(if you consider how certain factions form their own 'blocs') on as you say, 7-8 fronts. I wouldn't be surprised that all three categories are high but I remain curious how it compares with other periods. Perhaps the period surrounding the triumvirate?

I guess you could also kinda like RP it away. I mean, if you have never seen each others lands or even an army from them, you don't really feel at war. So it's more like a visual representation of 'we may not be 'making war' but you're expansion will be met with immediate hostilities', which seems historically reasonable but is not represented within the game. Otherwise, the player is basically always guaranteed the initiative. If that makes sense?

If you want a more exact answer pertaining specifically to the campaign you've displayed, I may be able to help if you upload the save. You can find this out yourself as well if you go through and check the various relations between factions much like thesmoosh explained.
You can control so much of the game through diplomacy and manipulate various outcomes and sometimes watch them fall apart or blow up in your face. Personally, I have found it adds a nice little layer of depth and makes my campaign that much more fun.

[thesmoosh]

Another trick that might be helpful. You can figure out what treaties reach faction had (even ones you don't explicit see in the UI by checking the options available during negotiation.

For example, I'm at war work arverni but I want to know who they have NAP work. I start negotiation, first I add peace so other options become available, then I see if I can add break NAP with...

If either side has NAP with any other factions, you'll see it in that next window. Same with trade agreements. This information might help you figure out why they do certain things or give you an idea of what to do next.

[GeneralFoda-se]

Is inevitable that IA hates you if you expand soo much, but if you dedicate time to improve relations perhaps this changes, the problem is time because they don't give you time to this.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

Is inevitable that IA hates you if you expand soo much, but if you dedicate time to improve relations perhaps this changes, the problem is time because they don't give you time to this.

You could certainly use DAIA and Cultural Tensio for an overall slower-more difficult expansion and more time to develop your diplomatic relations etc

[mmm1234mm]

until you really push your enemy and leave him with 1 settlement surrounded by 2 full stacks - then they might accept it.

The problem sounds lie the same I had before. If you start too many wars it tends to snwoball and other factions will join too. In my latest campaign I keep wars to 2-4 factions max a time (small factions). If I had to go to a war with a big one I would firstly finish my smaller wars.

And with this strategy I don't have to fully wipe a faction to 1 settlement. I have 2 factions which agreed to become client states having 3 and 4 settlements each. Others always beg for piece and offer generous money. And no out of nothing half across the world war declarations. I am around turn 80 and have 25 settlements already as Athens. I trade almost with everyone I can (except few strategic decisions where not to trade)

[TATWFan]

I've read through all of your comments and i'll be more careful next time, instead of becoming a big expansionist blob. For now my borders have stabilized after creating puppet states, and after looting a few african towns my income has grown magically. That, plus having reached the Marian reforms just in time means....Roma Invicta

[Aussie-tosser]

Is there a submod that slightly lowers the expansionary penalty? I get why people like it, but nations no where near me getting aggro and sending swarms of stacks at me for no real reason is kinda irritating

[Satansblofish]

Is there a submod that slightly lowers the expansionary penalty? I get why people like it, but nations no where near me getting aggro and sending swarms of stacks at me for no real reason is kinda irritating

Maybe softcore mod. I haven't heard of anything else. Otherwise, the topic of 'random' war declarations has been covered ad nauseam.

[Gasmio]

Can you fix this type of scripts of the game ?

[JCB206]

So, is there any way you can force the AI to be more peaceful somehow? Is the diplomacy working as intended?
Playing in Normal/Normal with Softcore

So I remember having the discussion about how "releasing troops" should have a much larger affect on diplomacy but didn't catch the change. Playing Macedonian Wars as Sparta, Crete declared war on my as always. After defeating their first wave of troops and releasing all prisoners, I now have peace and a trade agreement. Well done DEI team and OP you now have your answer.