DIPLOMACY GUIDE - for ver. 0.98

[Macaras]

Guys I am posting here the guide for Diplomacy/AI, i will update it whenever there are some changes. "Know your enemy" - I think its very helpful to read it to know what to expect from the opponent.

Here is the link: Diplomacy Guide

[opaxite]

I've been roleplaying as Poland for about 360 turns now, and in general, I find the diplomacy system rewarding.
It really makes me want to renew my kingdom and keep within the historical borders.

One thing I wish could be changed, though, is how liberating works. The Mongols have conquered all of Kipchak and Novgorod and were tearing into Rus as well.
I made an alliance and got military access with Rus, pushed Mongols out of their territories and waited until the dead factions were resurrected.
Once they were in the game, I conquered their old settlement, gave it to them in exchange for alliance and military access, and continued liberating and giving settlements.

My reputation suffered over time. I went from Very Trustworthy to Mixed in the process. The allies were always unhappy I conquered a nearby territory, even if I gave them the settlement the very same turn.
Releasing prisoners to improve reputation just isn't viable with so many mongolian hordes. I suspect there was also the penalty of reconquering a previously gifted settlements, because while I was regrouping, the Mongols took much of the lands back, so there were settlements I've liberated around 3 or 4 times.

The whole process did not feel very rewarding. Other factions should've celebrated me as a liberator, but instead they treated me with suspicion.
I ain't really sure if anything can be done to improve this mechanic.

[Macaras]

Opaxite, unfortunatelly liberating your lands is not recognized as such.

1. Giving settlements is not appreciated as it should be if it was real life- for AI the value of settlements is probably much lower than in reality,
2. Such thing as gratitude for ai doesn't exists, the only thing you can expect is increasing relations for some time but it is quickly forgotten,
3. Reconquering is seen much as conquering, so the warmonger points are counted and reputation damage appears the same as if you have never owned the settlements..

Maybe its possible to create some scripts that would 'remember' the provinces you reconquer, but it probably would be too complicated to make it worthy. I personally never give settlements to AI unless I have too many or don't want to border some factions.

[JB59114]

Is it me or the AI is stubborn in terms of diplomacy ?
France attacked me (England) but I easily repelled them, took orleans and Paris in the ensuing war.
They don't want any kind of peace, I tried a white peace by giving them back the two settlements + 10k of gold but It didn't worked.
I even tried a peace offer where I would give all of my settlements in exchange of peace just for testing and they still refused

[Macaras]

Yes the ai is stubborn in diplomacy. I will work on the script that counts lost settlements and make ai ask for peace in some situations. Right now if your relations with them are very bad, they will never accept peace no matter what. If you wait and do nothing to harm the relations and behave chivalrously it will go back to acceptable enough to have peace. Another thing is that they maybe hope to reconquer their provinces, I mean they are not too weak.

The stubborness is so that you cannot start a war, conquer two cities, pay 20-30 k of gold and have peace. When the city is conquered the relations go very low and the player needs to calculate some years of war after. It may happen that also your reputation will go down, and moreover your enemy have some allies that will attack you. So all of this matters, as before it was just enough to accumulate 30k of money, which is basically few turns of not building anything. Too easy . Something for something I guess.

[kostic]

I confirm the unsatisfactory aspect of diplomacy.


It all seems to come down to reputation. We can currently summarize as follows: If the latter is bad, no diplomacy possible.


Fear of the adversary does not exist. This leads - it must be said! - to an often stupid diplomacy. For example, an almost destroyed faction that refuses a peace or an alliance, or even to become a vassal while the player offers to help him against another opponent who can annihilate him...


In my current game, in more than 250 turns, no diplomat has ever tried anything with my faction and all my attempts at peace have been refused. The reason ? My reputation is despicable.
Yet I am terrifying and my faction has wiped out several others. I razed their towns, assassinated their chiefs... they are cornered but refuse any negotiation. Where is the realism here? Is diplomacy AI only compatible with a "wise" way to play?

Result: in my current campaign, I almost never do diplomacy. I would like, if only one day, to be able to corrupt a small army of rebels rather than having to slaughter them. Even that is not currently possible. I really wonder what this "bribe" function is for...

Small fix:
the kingdom of jerusalem asked us for a ceasefire when they were almost dead. Unfortunately for them, our objective was to destroy them.


The Serbs, although immensely weaker than us - and after losing several battles - offered a ceasefire... for 27,000 florins!!! Isn't that totally absurd?

[Macaras]

Kostic, I know your opinion and I said I will try to make a script that will make ai ask for peace if loosing a war. It’s not easy - I tried with the help of Belo and abandon the idea for a moment because it was just too difficult technically- it was becoming too complicated with too many monitors. Now I think I will make something simple that will just count turns in war and lost settlements.
Regarding the diplomacy now - there are only too factors for ai in diplomacy - reputation and relations. If you have despicable rep and abysmal relations what do you expect? There is no threatening mechanism in diplomacy and the whole file is not explained anywhere except few simple remarks. And whatever I change I have to test in the campaign which takes me playing game for many turns with different factions. I didn’t even consider somebody playing like you- to grow big enough not to care for the relation, destroying cities on left and right. In my idea if you are so big then everybody should attack you from every side because you are about to destroy many factions and win the game. Thinking like this why would Serbia agree for peace if they hate you, you are too big of a threat and despicable reputation, you are able to wipe them out and they are on your mercy? I guess better then to wait for doom is to continue fighting waiting for some other faction to attack you as well, maybe then they have a chance.

[Jurand of Cracow]

This problem with programming AI/diplomacy is that changing one parameter have a range of results, most of which are not foreseeable. @Macaras is brave enought to take on this issue, but this is very demanding one, and requiring a lot of testing.

[JB59114]

Kostic, I know your opinion and I said I will try to make a script that will make ai ask for peace if loosing a war. It’s not easy - I tried with the help of Belo and abandon the idea for a moment because it was just too difficult technically- it was becoming too complicated with too many monitors. Now I think I will make something simple that will just count turns in war and lost settlements.
Regarding the diplomacy now - there are only too factors for ai in diplomacy - reputation and relations. If you have despicable rep and abysmal relations what do you expect? There is no threatening mechanism in diplomacy and the whole file is not explained anywhere except few simple remarks. And whatever I change I have to test in the campaign which takes me playing game for many turns with different factions. I didn’t even consider somebody playing like you- to grow big enough not to care for the relation, destroying cities on left and right. In my idea if you are so big then everybody should attack you from every side because you are about to destroy many factions and win the game. Thinking like this why would Serbia agree for peace if they hate you, you are too big of a threat and despicable reputation, you are able to wipe them out and they are on your mercy? I guess better then to wait for doom is to continue fighting waiting for some other faction to attack you as well, maybe then they have a chance.

For my case : I got attacked by France, tried to ransom every prisonner but the french refused.
Then I had to take some settlements specifically for having a leverage during the peace talk, my relation with them is now currently "terrible".
I wiped like 6 french armies and took 2 settlements during a 12 turn war but the AI is too stubborn to even accept a statu quo ante bellum peace proposal.
I wanted a slow conquest of france, piece by piece with multiple wars throughout the campaign but I'm now obligated to wipe them out.
Clearly, the diplomacy is broken if you want to have an historical resolution.

[Macaras]

If you play like this and you think that AI will agree for peace because is loosing but the relations are terrible, that’s not gonna fly. In this sense you can call it broken. The moment you slaughter some of their captives and conquer their cities don’t expect diplomacy until the relations go to very poor or higher. On the level of mtw2 there is no ai in the sense of “what would human do”, it’s just some rules that lead the game. The reputation is king and relations are important. If you offer them back the cities you conquered they should agree for peace- is it broken? yes. But there is no mechanism that ‘remembers’ the conquered cities, as simple as that. Historically it should be impossible trading and giving settlements, instead here to trade is very difficult, downside is that giving means nothing for ai.
In general If you play careful about the reputation and relations - you will have fun and the ai will be much more ‘historical’, difficult but making sense. In the previous versions the reputation and relations basically didn’t matter, you just needed to pay enough for peace. Here you have to think about this and be careful about your actions. Downside - you may have a belligerent enemy that will prefer to die than agree for peace. Also the prices are much bigger, but usually with around 10k you get away with peace in poor relations up.

I got your complaints and will see what I can do. But consider that for example. You sneak attack, take two cities and give one of them back asking for peace. Ai agrees. So you repeat it every 10 turns until ai is left with nothing. If I make a script that would make ai signing for peace that would be an easy exploit scenario. If I make it 3 cities not two, some factions will first disappear before being forced to sign peace, as having only 3 cities.

[bitterhowl]

Kostic, I know your opinion and I said I will try to make a script that will make ai ask for peace if loosing a war. It’s not easy - I tried with the help of Belo and abandon the idea for a moment because it was just too difficult technically- it was becoming too complicated with too many monitors. Now I think I will make something simple that will just count turns in war and lost settlements.
Regarding the diplomacy now - there are only too factors for ai in diplomacy - reputation and relations. If you have despicable rep and abysmal relations what do you expect? There is no threatening mechanism in diplomacy and the whole file is not explained anywhere except few simple remarks. And whatever I change I have to test in the campaign which takes me playing game for many turns with different factions. I didn’t even consider somebody playing like you- to grow big enough not to care for the relation, destroying cities on left and right. In my idea if you are so big then everybody should attack you from every side because you are about to destroy many factions and win the game. Thinking like this why would Serbia agree for peace if they hate you, you are too big of a threat and despicable reputation, you are able to wipe them out and they are on your mercy? I guess better then to wait for doom is to continue fighting waiting for some other faction to attack you as well, maybe then they have a chance.

Just try my CAI, as I've read from testers AI wil ask ceasefire if losing campaign, even with bad relationships.

[William the Silent]

I took 2 cities from the french and they offered me ceasefire, trade rights, alliance for 3250 florins.
I declined and offered just ceasefire + trade rights and later with 3000 florins, but they keep refusing now.

So I married my heir to a HRE princess and France is locked up between 2 allies.

[kostic]

Just try my CAI, as I've read from testers AI wil ask ceasefire if losing campaign, even with bad relationships.

Interesting ! Where can I find your CAI? The current one saddens me as it does not suit my current way of playing.

@Macaras: in history, diplomatic negotiations to exchange cities or territories have often existed. The principle of diplomacy is an exchange that suits both parties. I think the principle of basing diplomacy on reputation and relationships causes terrible nonsense and is obviously a false "good idea". If previous versions did not take reputation and relationships into account, it was ultimately much more coherent and realistic.


The Serbs - who currently only have Croatia - and are surrounded by my armies have offered me a ceasefire in exchange for 27,000 florins, when it should be up to them to offer me something in order to be spared.
I think you don't even have to be a "Tamerlan" to end up with an acutely absurd diplomacy. The case of @JB59114 is one example but I think there are many others.

[Jurand of Cracow]

Interesting ! Where can I find your CAI? The current one saddens me as it does not suit my current way of playing.

@Macaras: in history, diplomatic negotiations to exchange cities or territories have often existed. The principle of diplomacy is an exchange that suits both parties. I think the principle of basing diplomacy on reputation and relationships causes terrible nonsense and is obviously a false "good idea". If previous versions did not take reputation and relationships into account, it was ultimately much more coherent and realistic.


The Serbs - who currently only have Croatia - and are surrounded by my armies have offered me a ceasefire in exchange for 27,000 florins, when it should be up to them to offer me something in order to be spared.
I think you don't even have to be a "Tamerlan" to end up with an acutely absurd diplomacy. The case of @JB59114 is one example but I think there are many others.

Without prejudice to any of the AI, I'd say that it's very difficult to create one that would fit taste of even one person, not to mention many. An AI/diplomacy based on other factors then reputation and relationship may work in one situation, but produce utterly crappy results in hundred of others. Plus the player may learn how to exploit certain behavior of the AI. So we should know what we wish for.
This said, I liked the SSHIP AI the most, as it was quite aggressive and unforgiving.

[JB59114]

I might have been too harsh toward the AI @Macaras
After my original complaint, I continued my campaign and the french AI suddently begged for peace, I only took one province of the two that I conquered.
Maybe it's because it got attacked my the HRE, or I relaeased some prisoners or maybe because of the longevity of the war.
Anyway the diplomacy AI seems to be fine, It's just dull sometime

[kostic]

I too am indeed very harsh with my criticisms of diplomacy. I'm playing with the September version. Maybe @Macaras has already modified the latter with that of May 17? @JB59114 : Which version are you playing?

[Macaras]

You may think that the problem is that the diplomacy considers relations and reputations, but I think the problem may be something else. I made the tall_poppy syndrom much 'heavier' so when the player is really big everybody is relentless, kind of either win or die attitude - this is maybe what Kostic is experiencing (I don't know bu if you are playing France and are destroying Serbia - imagine, this is the end for everybody, France is too big). But if not like this, the player just wins, because everybody is already weaker. Anyway, maybe I should limit this mechanism just to the VH level..

Your criticism though motivates me.. I don't know how will you find the last version - better or worse than before, I already forgot what changes I made since then. I am adjusting now the value of settlements in the trade, so basically the settlement has less value for AI in buying then in selling. So trading will be still limited hopefully, but if one offers 5 settlements for peace it should be possible no matter the relations etc. Thats my goal - lets see if it works. I already tested it a little but to really see how it works I will need to play a campaign.

I am also working on a script that will count turn numbers at war, basically one turn=one point. Settlements besieged by whatever enemy - add another point. Maybe, if its possible the lost battle with whatever enemy -> another point. This is so far the only factors that I see possible to include. Then if the number of points reaches lets say 40 the relations will go up automatically to the so-so level and that will allow to sign ceasefire - this is the idea at least lets see If the script will work. It will still be one monitor for each faction, but maybe it's not too much.

[kostic]

@Macaras: I support you in your efforts to improve AI, but I have doubts about your goals.
Where is the realism if it is necessary to propose 5 settlements (5 regions on the map) to obtain a ceasefire?
I complain that it takes exorbitant sums to bribe a small army of rebels and you tell me that you have further tightened the conditions for obtaining peace. I admit I don't understand your logic.


If it is impossible to simulate the fear of the AI ​​in the face of a very powerful adversary, making the conditions for accepting a ceasefire even tougher, depending on power and reputation, simply kills any option for peace and forces the conquering player to destroy his enemies to the end.


When I have time, however, I will test your latest version to see if your changes improve the credibility of the AI ​​with diplomacy.

[j.a.luna]

@Macaras is it possible that in your scripts it is not penalized so much if you are of a different religion than your enemy's?
For example, being Abbasids, you loot or exterminate an army or Christian city of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and vice versa, supposedly you would be killing infidels and relations with other Muslim factions would increase but would decrease with the Christians (including Orthodox).

On the other hand, you have to try to make the settlements and regions take longer to convert to your religion, currently you can convert them in few turns...

[Macaras]

@Macaras is it possible that in your scripts it is not penalized so much if you are of a different religion than your enemy's?
For example, being Abbasids, you loot or exterminate an army or Christian city of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and vice versa, supposedly you would be killing infidels and relations with other Muslim factions would increase but would decrease with the Christians (including Orthodox).

On the other hand, you have to try to make the settlements and regions take longer to convert to your religion, currently you can convert them in few turns...

The differences between religions are already in DFS, I don't want to additionally complicate the scripts with this.. Regarding the conversion rates I agree but this is one of the game balance things, I think Jurand is in charge of it.