Diplomacy in this game is seriously broken

[viviyep]

Hi everyone,

Making this thread because I'm so tired of the diplomacy lol. I know I'm probably not gonna raise any new question, I believe it is known how bad the diplomacy in this game is. But since I hadn't played it for years, I had forgotten.

So I'm in a campaign with England. The year is now almost 1400 AD, so the campaign has been going on for a while now. To sum it up, at the very beginning, I conquered all Britain + Ireland, destroying Scotland in the process. I then moved my armies to Caen, which was attacked by France, and then engaged in a never-ending war against the french. I also very soon was attacked by the HRE and raped both of these new enemies, taking Rennes, Paris, Rheims, Metz, Angers, Bruges, Antwerp, Frankfurt and later Staufen. From then the whole world started to hate me at a point I can't do nothing. I decided to stop my conquest there, because going further was gonna give me new neigbors (Spain, Milan and Poland) that were going to attack me ; anyway, the pope would have excommunitad me. Because that's the point : no matter what I do, I'm the one who gets the blame. If I dare attacking an army that's trying to invade my lands, the pope blames me and my relations with pretty much every nation (allied with my enemy or not) decreases. The pope - may this be damned, for real lol - threatens me of excommunication from time to time, leaving me no choice but letting the enemy besiege my settlements. The worst is that there's pretty much nothing I can do to cancel this curse, because noone wants to deal with me - my enemis don't want to make peace altough I could destroy end them in about 2 or 3 turns if I wanted to, and others don't want to make any alliance. For about 2 centuries in-game now, I've been systematically releasing every captured soldiers, trying to increase my reputation (which it barely did btw) in order to fix the problem but it doesn't change . So for about 2 centuries in-game, I've been stuck in this ridiculous situation where the HRE in the east and France in the south keep sending me armies that I proceed to destroy, releasing the survivors, and letting the cycle continue. And to be honest the game has become so boring that I'm about to abandon this campaign, because all my turns are pretty much the same : I destroy armies besieging my settlements, buy new soldiers to replace the dead ones, try whatever I can to at least increase my reputation towards the pope (since I haven't figured any way out to do so towards the other factions), try to invest what's left of my money to improve my other settlements, and click "end the turn".

Has anyone any advice for me to avoid such a vicious circle for my next campaigns ? Is it just about making alliances early on and not conquering too fast at the beginning ?

Or is there, by any chance, a mod that managed to improve the diplomacy ?

Thank you, and sorry for the broken english

[NorseThing]

The basic problem is not diplomacy, it is that you have destroyed a faction (Scotland) and you have continuous war against a faction (France). What do you want from diplomacy? A free ticket to destroy France?

Also, it may be our styles of play are different, but I have never been excommunicated for breaking a siege even with an external relieving force. Just do not attack without including the settlement garrison in the combat. Of course I do not auto resolve anymore and that may also affect the situation a bit. As I understand the excommunication rules, just do not initiate combat and certainly do not do so outside of your own settlements.

[viviyep]

Thank you for your answer,

The basic problem is not diplomacy, it is that you have destroyed a faction (Scotland) and you have continuous war against a faction (France). What do you want from diplomacy? A free ticket to destroy France?

lmao no, I don't want a free ticket to destroy France, I only want peace, as I said. I've spent the last 200 in-game years trying to negociate a peace (sometimes offering them as much as 20 000 coins for that), same goes for the HRE, and I've never been able to negociate anything, the same way noone wants to make an alliance with me. So I'll take the blame for Scotland but not for France as neither did I start the war nor have I ever intented to keep it going.

Also, it may be our styles of play are different, but I have never been excommunicated for breaking a siege even with an external relieving force. Just do not attack without including the settlement garrison in the combat. Of course I do not auto resolve anymore and that may also affect the situation a bit. As I understand the excommunication rules, just do not initiate combat and certainly do not do so outside of your own settlements.

Well, I do often use external forces to break sieges, because doing so avoids me to have to stack full armies in every of my border settlements, which would be very costly. So it is indeed my strategy to have garrisons that are not full, and to use the garrisons of the neighbouring settlements as reinforcements in case of sieges. Also, it seems that what I'm blamed for is not only for breaking the sieges but for destroying enemy armies on my lands. Which I'd like to keep doing since these armies ravage my lands if I let them at peace, increasing the misery and thus decreasing the incomes of my settlements (and also increasing the discontentment of my people in the process). Also I almost never auto resolve the fights (by leading them myselves I get much less losses) ; why would auto resolve change anything anyway ? As for the last sentence indeed, for the past 200 years I haven't led any fight outside of my borders. Yet, I'm still seen as the bad guy somehow

[Iosif Stalin]

If I were you I'd just tell the pope to go screw himself, and do whatever you gotta do to break the deadlock, start taking French and German settlements. Of course this will give you a wider frontier to defend, but it's better than just sitting in one place all game doing the same things over and over, which as you say can get pretty monotonous. If you take your enemies' towns and castles, you take their sources of wealth and troops and add them to your own realm. As for the pope, if he excommunicates you, just assassinate him and get a new pope in Rome, and keep trying to butter up the popes with gifts. Of course, assassinating people isn't going to be good for your reputation, but from the way it sounds, the situation won't be much worse than it currently is. And you can always improve it later when you're not so hard-pressed. It's great if you can eventually get an alliance with the Papal States, which you might be able to do if you improve your relations with them enough.

Do you use spies, by the way? Even using spies can lower your reputation. Which by the way I think is dumb, I think the game should be more forgiving of that because it's almost a necessity, but it could help explain why your reputation isn't improving no matter what you do. You probably know this, but I just thought I'd mention it just in case.

I hear you though; much as I love the game, the diplomacy system stinks. It's too shallow and simplistic. The game is pretty much designed purely to be a war game, unlike, say, Crusader Kings where politics is at least as important as war. But yeah, even taking that into account, diplomacy is pretty weak here, weaker than it should be. It's not completely useless though; if you do manage to get your reputation up (which can be a real pain), then it works a little better. I have a good reputation in my current game and it's surprising how much smoother things are going than usual. It's hard to get and keep a good reputation, but refraining from espionage and assassinations, always ending a battle rather than continuing it just to run down fleeing enemies, and always releasing troops seems to do the trick. I've even refrained from assassinating an inquisitor who's terrorizing my realm, despite how tempted I am to kill him.

[NorseThing]

I only mentioned the auto resolve, because sometimes strange things happen. I just wanted to eliminate some of the hurdles to avoid a Papal sanction. Your relief of sieges seems quite a bit like my style as well.


I have had games that seemed like an endless repeat cycle like you describe. And yes, I often walked away. To avoid this problem in the future, it would probably mean a change in play style. At least that is what I found to be the case. I have been playing on Hard for the two play options rather than Very Hard. I think only the campaign option is important for diplomacy though, so maybe keeping the battle option of very hard will work and help resolve this problem for you. I started this change to Hard rather than very Hard when I became more interested in the After Action Report writing. The diplomacy seemed more workable. I have not completed a long campaign yet though since I changed. If you are playing on the Very Hard options, maybe a change of pace will help in your next campaign.

But probably the most important -- do not destroy a faction. I do not buy into the idea that destroyed factions are forever at war with you, but that may indeed be the case in the computer program. I do not often have vassals, so I will not go there for a suggestion to avoid the destruction of a faction option. I just leave them without a castle and thus impotent. Eventually they end up at peace with you via another faction alliance or they get excommunicated. The excommunication thing works both ways.

[viviyep]

Do you use spies, by the way? Even using spies can lower your reputation. Which by the way I think is dumb, I think the game should be more forgiving of that because it's almost a necessity, but it could help explain why your reputation isn't improving no matter what you do. You probably know this, but I just thought I'd mention it just in case.

I admit I don't use agents a lot in this game. I do have a spy or two and an assassin, but I barely use them, so it's not the reason !

I hear you though; much as I love the game, the diplomacy system stinks. It's too shallow and simplistic. The game is pretty much designed purely to be a war game, unlike, say, Crusader Kings where politics is at least as important as war. But yeah, even taking that into account, diplomacy is pretty weak here, weaker than it should be. It's not completely useless though; if you do manage to get your reputation up (which can be a real pain), then it works a little better. I have a good reputation in my current game and it's surprising how much smoother things are going than usual. It's hard to get and keep a good reputation, but refraining from espionage and assassinations, always ending a battle rather than continuing it just to run down fleeing enemies, and always releasing troops seems to do the trick. I've even refrained from assassinating an inquisitor who's terrorizing my realm, despite how tempted I am to kill him.

Haha I feel you about the inquisitor, what a pain in the a** they are
What you're saying about ending battles is interesting tho, I always continue them, does it actually play a role ? I'm really looking for anything here because apart from that I can't seem to find anything in my playstyle that justifies so much hate from the AI especially since I always release troops, never started a war except the first one against Scotland, and barely use any agent apart from diplomats (who btw are therefore totally useless to me, I don't believe I have managed to lead a single successful deal in this game )
Good idea for the gifts tho, I'll consider doing that with the papal states when I'm about to get excommunicated. Not that I have much money anyway, it's costly to defend all these borders, and you're right, if I keep playing this campaign I'm probably gonna go crazy and destroy what's left of my current enemies, even if that's probably gonna lead me to a war with Spain, Milan, Poland and Denmark.

But probably the most important -- do not destroy a faction. I do not buy into the idea that destroyed factions are forever at war with you, but that may indeed be the case in the computer program. I do not often have vassals, so I will not go there for a suggestion to avoid the destruction of a faction option. I just leave them without a castle and thus impotent. Eventually they end up at peace with you via another faction alliance or they get excommunicated. The excommunication thing works both ways.

Sounds fair, I'll let a city to France and HRE then. And you're right, some factions have been excommunicated in this play (in my case it happened several times to Spain and once to Milan I believe) ; for some reason tho, France always gets the love of the pope, while this little b**ch keeps sending armies to my doors. I don't know how they managed to still be seen as good christians, it's not like any pope had been french (while I managed to have english popes, but they didn't love me for long either ), they didn't play any particular role in the only crusade that's been going on so far either. These french in this campaign are a mystery to me

Thank you all for your advices, I'll play it more peacefully in the next campaign, as for this one I'm gonna go berserk towards France and HRE, to some extent at least

[Iosif Stalin]

What you're saying about ending battles is interesting tho, I always continue them, does it actually play a role ? I'm really looking for anything here because apart from that I can't seem to find anything in my playstyle that justifies so much hate from the AI especially since I always release troops, never started a war except the first one against Scotland, and barely use any agent apart from diplomats (who btw are therefore totally useless to me, I don't believe I have managed to lead a single successful deal in this game )

Oh definitely. Your reputation suffers when you choose to continue a battle after it's ended. It's considered unchivalrous to run down fleeing men. So that might be what's making it so difficult to raise your reputation. Besides, if you're gonna release them anyway, there's no point running them down, since any troops you run down after they start fleeing aren't actually killed; they're just taken prisoner.

[NorseThing]

I started up a new campaign with Hard for both Campaign and Battle options. This was to take another look at my current style of play and whether I think diplomacy is broken after the original post for this thread got me thinking. I have completed 40 turns. I have not gone to war with France. The new papal election is about to happen. On the other hand, I am helping the French out with several hundred florins a turn in their never ending war against Spain. I would prefer they attack Dijon which is held by Milan, but I have not pushed a specific demand. I do not like to make demands or requests of my allies lest they refuse or agree and then do not perform as promised. I tend to funnel florins and hope the alliance will be strong enough to help my faction out when appropriate. Right now, I understand that France has greater concerns than starting a war against Milan.

Milan holds Dijon, and is thus my principal foe with a few attacks on Angers by passing through French territory. The path to Anger is technically adjacent to Dijon but the path is not convenient. I hope at some point that France will get annoyed enough to take some action. Dijon is the most strategic of the modern French territories on the map because of it's central location and the direct connections to much of Europe. Coupled with Bern, it makes a computer Milan as an adversary a very potent enemy for England. Even on a short campaign with a requirement of elimination of France as part of the victory conditions, I tend to prefer a French alliance over a French enemy. Ahistorical, perhaps. But in game terms with diplomacy considerations, I think it esential for any English campaign. Long or short campaign choices at the start of the campaign do not really make a difference to me.

As England, I never went to war against Scotland until the Scots had established a foothold outside of the Isles. I focused expansion initially on York and Rennes. Later on Bruges, Ireland, and the Welsh castle. Bordeaux came later when Spain had over stretched themselves. A quick war and then peace after I took Bordeaux from Spain. I have not had poor relations with the Spanish since then even though Spain is at war with my French ally after the over extension episode with Bordeaux.

Then came the war with Portugal. Actually a series of three short wars. The first was at the cost of my papal reputation to take Pamplona. I had previously allied with the Pope and after the Papal warning that my Papal reputation would be less, I immediately gave 1000 florin in a lump sum to his Holiness and then captured Pamplona by assault. I then gave map information to the Pope. My Papal reputation never blinked a bit down from turn to turn despite the Pope's warning. In the end Portugal after two big assaults on Pamplona had lost all of their castle produced troops and agreed to a generational tribute of 1000 florins per turn plus trade to end the hostilities. Whether Portugal will return or not will no longer matter. Any computer faction attacking Pamplona with only city recruited troops and some mercenaries is folly. With a high English Papal rating, such an attack would probably come at the cost of excommunication any ways. Such is the nature of the diplomacy via the Pope in M2TW.

Diplomacy in Medieval II Total War is really about family ties and ties with the church for any Catholic faction. It is a bit different for the Orthodox factions and the Islamic factions. At the start of any campaign most of the Princesses start out with 3 charm reputation. The exception is the French Princess, Constance with 4 charm. It is probably no accident that one of the factions you start the game with is England. So your very first diplomacy decision is to either ally with France or plan a campaign without the alliance. I always choose the alliance and take the 4 charm Constance before she whittles down her charm over the course of several turns. This marriage offer is made by my diplomat directly to Constance. It includes both marriage to England's heir, Ruffus, as well as a dowry of Angers and alliance. I know the marriage results in an alliance, but I think the specific offer is best. Maybe it matters in the computer program or it does not. I do not know. I have my eyes on the historic Angevin Empire that controls the Gulf of Biscay though that empire is historically a bit after the game starts.

??
To keep diplomacy working, I never started more than the first war with Spain and I always made attempt to keep any war of short duration. I kept a flow for gifted florins to France and the Pope, though these gifts were never continuous for more than about 5 turns of tribute. Some were simply lump sum gifts.

Now 40 turns into the campaign I have a small rag tag army near the Scottish castle of Hamburg. I may build a castle fort to hold the border with English held Antwerp if peace does not break out with Scotland. That would leave my general free for other duties. Scotland is still at war with Denmark and they now hold only Hamburg. This is not ideal since a prefer to leave factions with only a city line settlement. I have been tossing a few florins recently towards the Holy Roman Empire to see what will happen. I also have marriage alliance with the HRE by marriage of their Princess to Henry. Henry, like all generals, has only four slots for future children. I have filled out the four slots with Man-the-Hour generals. I may regret this. We shall see. I put off marriage until the opportunity for the Princess came about. Henry was not happy with this, but King Ruffus felt it best to hold off Henry's marriage as did William before his death in old age.

Another aspect that can affect diplomacy has to do with the guilds. The theological guild coupled with an abbey is a fairly efficient means to pop out future cardinals. So spamming early priests just for the sake of priest may not be your best tactic to strengthen your Papal ties. I held off the priest binge until the Scottish war began and I held Edinburgh. I then built the abbey and then began the priests. Couple with the city history of Scotland's recruitment of priests, it took very little time to get the offer of the Theologians Guild in that previous Scottish held settlement. So I now have 4 Cardinals (including my original Cardinal which will probably die before becoming a pope). I am not convinced that controlling who is Pope is that important though. I am more concerned about the number of Cardinals. The Cardinal votes and diplomacy during a Papal election is much more important, in my opinion. This is where wars can be ended, alliances formed without a diplomat or princess, and where new trade networks can be started. If you have a large number of Cardinals, you will most certainly be on the 'right side' when the new Pope is elected.

To sum this up: diplomacy is about family ties and the Papal ratings. It is not about being able to do what you wish and not lose allies. Too many allies will always mean the loss of some so it is better to have only a few. The ties via marriage and the offer of alliance are best, in my opinion. Keep your Papal rating high and use an abbey tied with the Theologian guild to produce your future Cardinals. No need to head off to Islamic lands with a spam of priests. The diplomacy system is not broken in my opinion. Remember if you choose to play on Very Hard settings and wish to conquer the world, you have chosen to forget diplomacy. You have chosen your path, not the computer program.