M2TW: Kingdoms

[Wiglaf]

Does the diplomacy bug affect the AI for more than a turn? Not sure how that works. Thanks for your info on the save/load bug btw..

[MJW]

Originally posted by DrSpike


QFT.

Man, I thought QFT meant Quit f**cking Trolling; not quoted for truth. Boy was I confused.

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Does the diplomacy bug affect the AI for more than a turn? Not sure how that works. Thanks for your info on the save/load bug btw..

Likely not.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Does the diplomacy bug affect the AI for more than a turn? Not sure how that works. Thanks for your info on the save/load bug btw..

Consider this: The Egyptians lay siege to Antioch. They intend on maintaining the siege for 5 turns, at which point they will storm the walls. If you save and reload at any point during that siege, they'll usually break the siege and wander around for a few turns. If and when they return to the siege, they'll still need another 5 turns to execute it - thus, if you save and reload every 4 turns, for instance (a not unusual number of turns to play before saving), the Egyptians will quite simply never capture Antioch. You might never be aware of this, if you're off playing the Julii in Gaul, but it affects the game nontheless.

So I'm not sure what you're asking, exactly, but the ramifications of the bug are long term, and not just evident for a single turn. It crippled the long term ability of the AI to expand and fight a war.

Man, I thought QFT meant Quit f**cking Trolling; not quoted for truth. Boy was I confused.

[Wiglaf]

So I'm not sure what you're asking, exactly, but the ramifications of the bug are long term, and not just evident for a single turn. It crippled the long term ability of the AI to expand and fight a war.

Nah I meant Diplomacy bug, not save load bug. Save/load seems really bad ...can't see how diplomacy can be much worse, so I was wondering about it

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


Nah I meant Diplomacy bug, not save load bug. Save/load seems really bad ...can't see how diplomacy can be much worse, so I was wondering about it

Oh, sorry, I read that wrong. The diplomacy bug is that whenever you make a proposal to another faction, and that proposal is rejected, that faction refuses to speak to you for the rest of the turn. Keep in mind that unlike diplomacy in Civ, you can't ask another faction "what would make this deal work?" You have to basically shoot in the dark and hope the other faction accepts, or else you have to wait for the next turn.

This extends to bribery, too. If I try to bribe a single unit somewhere and it turns me down (because I don't have the money to bribe it), I can't try to bribe it again that turn even if I get enough money. I can't even talk to the faction about anything else that turn; the one failed bribe against a single unit shuts down diplomacy for the rest of the turn.

Additionally, with the new patches, a refusal usually means that your rejected diplomat gains negative attributes to his diplomacy. Thus, because "diplomacy" is reduced to a long series of rejections spanning several years until you finally hit on a price the AI will accept, generally all your diplomats end up with 0 stars because of all their negative attributes, making it even more unlikely that the AI will agree to anything you ask. The diplomacy bug, in a wierd way, actually makes the series live up to the title "Total War" - it reduces diplomacy to total uselessness.

Note that this is claimed as a "feature" by some. If this "feature" were introduced in the next Civ4 patch, I predict some people would be a little upset.

I don't think it's quite as bad a bug as save/load, but for some reason the constant refusals to speak just annoy me more. It's a personal choice.

[Gamecube64]

In related news, patch is out.

Only, what? 3 months late?

[Wiglaf]

Oh, sorry, I read that wrong. The diplomacy bug is that whenever you make a proposal to another faction, and that proposal is rejected, that faction refuses to speak to you for the rest of the turn. Keep in mind that unlike diplomacy in Civ, you can't ask another faction "what would make this deal work?" You have to basically shoot in the dark and hope the other faction accepts, or else you have to wait for the next turn.

I don't think this is true. An option in the diplomacy screen is "We will offer X in turn for whatever it's worth [the AI fills in the blank].

Also, you can make multiple proposals, usually only to good friends/allies, though. Guys you are at war with tend to not want to listen to you for long.

Don't see how this is a big issue. Also, I recommend you switch to 1.5. It makes numerous fixes and balance tweaks, beyond the Save/load bug..

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
I don't think this is true. An option in the diplomacy screen is "We will offer X in turn for whatever it's worth [the AI fills in the blank].

Typically such offers are rejected out of hand, because the AI has no interest in trading them, unless it's trade rights or some other no-brainer.

Also, you can make multiple proposals, usually only to good friends/allies, though. Guys you are at war with tend to not want to listen to you for long.

No, in my experience the amount of time they'll listen to you is not dependent on their attitude. An ally will reject you after one failed offer just like an enemy will; the difference is that the ally will be somewhat more likely to accept your offer instead of rejecting it automatically.

Don't see how this is a big issue. Also, I recommend you switch to 1.5. It makes numerous fixes and balance tweaks, beyond the Save/load bug..

I played 1.5 for several months and switched back; I have played all the versions and I hate the diplomacy bug so much that I simply can't deal with it. As I said before, the introduction of such a "feature" in Civ4 would make everyone in this forum go ballistic, and yet it's supposed to be acceptable in RTW? I don't buy it. It's ****ty game design and I'd rather play with Save/Load, because though Save/Load may be crippling and insidious, at least it works behind the scenes instead of popping up in my face every turn in so much nonsensical failed diplomacy.

[Wiglaf]

No, in my experience the amount of time they'll listen to you is not dependent on their attitude. An ally will reject you after one failed offer just like an enemy will; the difference is that the ally will be somewhat more likely to accept your offer instead of rejecting it automatically.

I'll go back and check, but I just threw 3 proposals at Macedon and they rejected the second, all during one exchange.

As I said before, the introduction of such a "feature" in Civ4 would make everyone in this forum go ballistic, and yet it's supposed to be acceptable in RTW? I don't buy it.

This feature, to some extent, is in Civ4 -- AIs routinely refuse to even speak with you in the early stages of virtually all wars.

Anyway, I think RTW's diplomacy model is designed to be a lesser part of the game than Civ4. Some conflicts are just going to happen because they happened historically -- unlike in Civ4, the Romans will never become best friends with Gaul early on because the Senate in the game keeps demanding that you hit Gaul. RTW downplays diplomacy for historical flavor, which I actually prefer.

So, I'm a little confused why you seem to think the lack of diplomacy breaks RTW. There are relatively few options in diplomacy, and many conflicts are essentially scripted. If you want, treat it as a feature -- maybe communication in the ancient era wasn't as instantaneous as Civ4 has us believe.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
This feature, to some extent, is in Civ4 -- AIs routinely refuse to even speak with you in the early stages of virtually all wars.

"Early stages of virtually all wars" is very different from "never, ever after a single rejected proposal." It's of course alright if the computer finds that, at times, it doesn't want to speak to you or negotiate with you. It's bad game design if this time lasts for the entire game.

Anyway, I think RTW's diplomacy model is designed to be a lesser part of the game than Civ4. Some conflicts are just going to happen because they happened historically -- unlike in Civ4, the Romans will never become best friends with Gaul early on because the Senate in the game keeps demanding that you hit Gaul. RTW downplays diplomacy for historical flavor, which I actually prefer.

1) Of course RTW's diplomacy is a lesser part of the game. The Total War games are RTS games with a TBS component thrown in to act as a vehicle to get to the RTS battles. The fact that it is lesser, however, is irrelevant; RTW diplomacy is terrible regardless of how important you perceive diplomacy to be in the game.

2) The wars are generally not scripted historically, except when the Senate orders you to attack somebody. Play any other faction but a Roman one and you will find that there is a distinct, albeit illogical, way that conflicts occur, and it ain't historical.

3) I'm not sure how the diplomacy bug reflects "historical flavor." It boggles the mind, really.

So, I'm a little confused why you seem to think the lack of diplomacy breaks RTW. There are relatively few options in diplomacy, and many conflicts are essentially scripted. If you want, treat it as a feature -- maybe communication in the ancient era wasn't as instantaneous as Civ4 has us believe.

I didn't say the lack of diplomacy breaks RTW. I said that I find it so annoying that I prefer the Save/Load bug over the useless diplomacy. That's all. If that's a feature, it's a stupid one. It's terrible game design, and all the realism arguments you can pull up won't change that. Diplomacy was deliberately changed from "not very good, but somewhat functional" to "totally nonfunctional in almost every conceivable way."

[Wiglaf]

You are probably right that it is bad game design. Although I think the save/load bug is the greater of 2 evils, I don't fully understand how much of a problem it can be.

[Cyclotron]

Basically, the following things about RTW diplomacy bother me in a general sense:

1) The AI attacks without reason or provocation, attacking clearly superior neighbors and blockading harbors without preparing any kind of land campaign.
2) The AI breaks ceasefires readily, even its own; it will often offer you a large amount of gold for peace and then immediately attack you later that very turn, essentially giving you a larger war chest for free.
3) The AI is incapable of judging whether it is losing or winning. It may have one city under siege left and still reject a cease-fire, even if you offer them the rest of their cities back and a hefty reward as well. It should be okay for a faction to decide to go down fighting sometimes, but the AI should also be capable of recognizing (like the Civ4 AI does) when it has been thrashed.

Before the change in diplomacy, these things could be managed in a sense. Because the economic system becomes horribly unbalanced after a certain point (you typically reach a point in the midgame where you have far more money than you know what to do with), you can overcome the AI's stupidity by offering it cash bribes to do various things. Spain won't take a cease-fire even though it has five units left, total? No problem, pay for one and move on. With the diplomacy "feature", however, it's nearly impossible to negotiate like this, and thus the AI's significant diplomatic failings are impossible to circumvent.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
You are probably right that it is bad game design. Although I think the save/load bug is the greater of 2 evils, I don't fully understand how much of a problem it can be.

As I said, the Save/Load doesn't bother me as much because it works behind the scenes and is ameliorated more easily. You can, for example, respond to the AI's incredibly slowed expansion by slowing your own expansion. Save/Load can also be combated by simply playing for long sessions instead of many short sessions, if you have the time. In any case, it's just not as "in your face" as rejected diplomacy is.

The Save/Load bug led to an interesting phenomenon known as the HE game ("Historical Expansion"). Because the AI could not expand effectively, the Gauls would probably still be in Gaul when you arrived there, and not halfway to India. RTW expansion is a bit broken anyway because the computer gives immense preference to units with multiple HPs (berserkers, spartans, and so on) when resolving battles automatically, so AI factions with these units tend to expand hand over fist at the expense of their neighbors without the Save/Load bug to limit them. The result was that you could play a game as Rome, taking a page from the history books and fighting wars when and where Rome did historically, and when you got around to fighting Macedon they wouldn't be all the way to the Baltic Sea. For history buffs it was a fun way to play, though inevitably less challenging than a game where the AI is allowed to grow monstrously large on the other side of the map.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Gamecube64
In related news, patch is out.

Only, what? 3 months late?

And poorly timed for me, with the Civ4 then GW expansions being released, and a few Xbox 360 games to play as well.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by DrSpike

And poorly timed for me, with the Civ4 then GW expansions being released, and a few Xbox 360 games to play as well.

I loaded the patch, played for a few hours, and decided to play Civ 4 in anticipation of the new expansion pack.