1.5.10 Are the peace declarations this exploitable?

Currently viewing this thread:

Now I don't want to turn this thread into a warzone about game design, as my playthrough is in fact riddled with mods. That being said, I don't have any mods that change diplomacy, and was wondering if, from this video, the peace declarations are working as intended:


From the video, we, the southern empire, were declared war on by the Khuzaits when fighting a - losing - war against the Western Empire. Garios was in the midst of sieging, successfully I might add, Lycaron when the prompt for peace showed up. Was wondering if this has happened to others, as this is not the first, but rather the most extreme instance this happened in my playthrough.

I know it's supposed to help prevent snowballing, but this just seems like really bad game design if this is working as intended.
 

fysaga

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WB
WHats happening in my playthroughs that at times a kingdom will declare war against another and then immediately make peace, whichs seems more like a bug.
 
I don't know if the bots actually consider the town being under siege when they accept/offer peace. I think they just want peace ASAP because a second war just started. Which of course doesn't mean another clan will won't propose a second war anyways :sad:

They probably should consider thier possible short term gains more when accepting peace, for instance taking that town then offering peace, southern would still accept the peace, maybe at even a higher payment.
 
Last edited:
They probably should consider thier possible short term gains more when accepting peace, for instance taking that town then offering peace, southern would still accept the peace, maybe at even a higher payment.
We were actually the ones who received tribute, which makes me think this has to be some sort of bug.

Granted, before the sieges occurred, I led and wiped out a couple of armies but immediately returned to Myzea when the Khuzaits declared war. This was seen in the decision menu, receiving 1130 denars because we killed 1200 more of their guys, but between our pincer, we would have no way to defend Lycaron and the other castle from Garios' monster force.

WHats happening in my playthroughs that at times a kingdom will declare war against another and then immediately make peace, whichs seems more like a bug.
That does seem like a bug, maybe you should report it here.
 

fysaga

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WB
We were actually the ones who received tribute, which makes me think this has to be some sort of bug.

Granted, before the sieges occurred, I led and wiped out a couple of armies but immediately returned to Myzea when the Khuzaits declared war. This was seen in the decision menu, receiving 1130 denars because we killed 1200 more of their guys, but between our pincer, we would have no way to defend Lycaron and the other castle from Garios' monster force.


That does seem like a bug, maybe you should report it here.
Yup might do. COuld also because the AI already is in a war with another faction at the same time.
 

Rbtparker13

Regular
Peace declarations shouldn't be instant. It really should take a few days to a week to have peace. Depending on the size of the kingdom.
 
Peace declarations shouldn't be instant. It really should take a few days to a week to have peace. Depending on the size of the kingdom.
I agree. I think this also boils down to a bigger issue with the ways decisions as a whole play out.

I think that instead of the decision for anything (war, policies, etc) occurring instantly after the player places his vote, it should instead work in a way such that the player can tally his vote within the given timeframe (48h is Native default I believe). This 'fixes' the immersion-breaking issue of you being the last to vote for anything.

i.e: if the player goes to vote IMMEDIATELY after the decision gets pushed to the nobles, he/she will be the first or first few of the nobles giving the vote. Alternatively, if you want to wait a few hours or a day to see what the nobles are thinking, you can do that and by the time you vote more nobles, but NOT all will have placed their vote. This way you can vote for what you really want instead of being swayed to vote for the thing that will win for sure while also giving leeway for the policy/decision to pass.
 

Antaeus

Sergeant
I love how I can hear that peace has been declared instantly - it must be some sort of message courier system? But I can't communicate with AI characters, or my own cities or parties unless I'm physically present.

But to be fair... the peace notification allows for 48 hours if you ignore it. More than enough time for the player to polish off a siege.

What is kind of an exploit - is that sometimes when I see a peace vote, I'll make a rush for an exposed but valuable city or castle - knowing it wont be exposed to counter attack after the peace declaration.
 
We were actually the ones who received tribute, which makes me think this has to be some sort of bug.
Right, actually I take it back, they way their "want peace " or "want war" works taking another fief..... it would make them want peace more and your faction want war more...... so you might get payed more.... it's a real cluster ****
It looks at how many field parties it has versus fiefs and garrisons to decide how much it want war, so they get a new fief sudden;y they want peace more, but if they're loosing fiefs they want war more....

I don't know, it works for slowing snowballing but it doesn't make much sense to the player and goes counter to what most people basic strategies would be.
 

Antaeus

Sergeant
I don't know, it works for slowing snowballing but it doesn't make much sense to the player and goes counter to what most people basic strategies would be.

Well if they didn't get so much grief about snowballing, then we wouldn't have this confusing conundrum. I mean... real history had snowballs. The British Empire, the Mongol Empire, the Roman Empire. Hell all of China is one big snowball over East Asia.

But we didn't want one faction taking over the map, so they had to invent a process to prevent it happening. Now after 10 years, factions don't even expand without player intervention.

Gaming communities... who'd have one.
 
Well if they didn't get so much grief about snowballing
They could have done any number of other things to fix it, such as my non-game-developer recommendation of "Make the programable computer program NOT DO the thing you DON'T WANT it to do, the end." Just make a rule, faction can't take more then 2 fiefs from other factions unless the player has joined a faction, started a faction, or started a war with a main faction, tah duh Bots don't paint the map while the player is derping around trying to trade or whatever slow poke crap people due.

Of course what they have would be fine IF they added new options and rules for the player's faction and kingdom so the player isn't stuck in a perpetual cycle like the bots. It's find for the bots be in a stasis type cycle where it's hard for them to progress (because of thier war/peace choices), but that's not what players want in strategy tactics game. We want to tell our faction NO and have them fallow our plans for world domination.
Can't have it.
 
But to be fair... the peace notification allows for 48 hours if you ignore it. More than enough time for the player to polish off a siege.

What is kind of an exploit - is that sometimes when I see a peace vote, I'll make a rush for an exposed but valuable city or castle - knowing it wont be exposed to counter attack after the peace declaration.
The opposite is true, as seen in my video in the OP. Garios was sieging Lycaron, but because I rushed the peace agreement, the siege ended prematurely. Definitely exploitable.

Well if they didn't get so much grief about snowballing, then we wouldn't have this confusing conundrum. I mean... real history had snowballs. The British Empire, the Mongol Empire, the Roman Empire. Hell all of China is one big snowball over East Asia.

But we didn't want one faction taking over the map, so they had to invent a process to prevent it happening. Now after 10 years, factions don't even expand without player intervention.

Gaming communities... who'd have one.
They could have done so many other things as opposed to this tbf. Look at this diplomacy mod for example, it adds allies as well as other diplomatic features that both prevent snowballing, while also not going the lazy route.

Snowballing happened in real life, but you know what else happened? Alliances. Or if not alliances, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"/ Take for example the Mongol Empire into Palestine and Eastern Europe. In fear of the massive hordes, the Crusaders and Muslims would put off battle with one another to defend against them. Other examples are the Roman Republic with Carthage, Spain, and Greece.

I don't think its fair to blame the community for asking for something that was game-breaking, as snowballing literally prevented the idea of a dynasty since the game ended before your child reached 10. But I digress.
 

Antaeus

Sergeant
I don't think its fair to blame the community for asking for something that was game-breaking, as snowballing literally prevented the idea of a dynasty since the game ended before your child reached 10. But I digress.

The community is to blame for plenty of things that are game breaking. Well... the developers are to blame for trying to co-design a game with community input rather than presenting a finished game.

I mean, Total War abandoned that approach the best part of a decade ago. Players take too much ownership and entitlement and just turn toxic when they don't get their own way, and there's too many people who all want their own different ways to ever be appeased and you end up with a fragmented game experience with too many ad-hoc patch-ups, rather than dedicated solutions developed from the ground up.

It's development whack a mole. Having worked in actual co-design environments for years, I feel so sorry for them.
 
Well... the developers are to blame for trying to co-design a game with community input rather than presenting a finished game.
I know those 6 troops tress of sword sister sure ruined everything!
Oh wait that didn't happen, why didn'y no devs listen to ME!
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
 

madnessario

Squire
WHats happening in my playthroughs that at times a kingdom will declare war against another and then immediately make peace, whichs seems more like a bug.

I tried to look for the information that was shared by @mexxico at some point but I couldn't find it (I am going by memory here, so I may be wrong).

A kingdom may pay tribute to the war target currently, so it will start a new war to force a new peace agreement in order to pay less tribute.
 

BigFat

Regular
I feel like kingdoms really try to avoid two-front wars now even when they're not the target of both nations. I've seen several peace agreements show up a day or two after someone else declares war and had a very prolonged peace time as Vlandia when Sturgia, Battania, and WImps, were all currently at war someone.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
opposite is true, as seen in my video in the OP. Garios was sieging Lycaron, but because I rushed the peace agreement, the siege ended prematurely. Definitely exploitable.
It seems like that should be when peace offers happen. Making peace when your enemy is poised to do serious damage to you is reasonable. It is certainly better than than old "come at me, bro" kingdom peace decisions which sometimes had middling kingdoms fighting the two strongest factions until they got smashed to dust.
They could have done so many other things as opposed to this tbf. Look at this diplomacy mod for example, it adds allies as well as other diplomatic features that both prevent snowballing, while also not going the lazy route
Those diplomacy mod alliances didn't prevent snowballing.
 
ECONOMY , LOGISTICS and WARFARE SUGGESTION LIST
I find these methods of ending the war and preventing the snowball effect "artificial".
In the link inserted above you will find 4 threads of which 2 suggest mechanics that assisting tend to give "methods in play" to face stronger and / or more numerous enemies.
The threads are:
1) logistics and supply lines thread
2) GEOGRAPHICAL COVERAGE: marching formations, ambush, interception of armies, resting


-logistics and supply lines thread:
One method to prevent the snowball effect is to have methods of facing strong or numerous opponents without directly making battles or making them but in a condition of extreme advantage.
The thread inherent in logistics tends to give greater weight to maintaining the army and equipment (food and ammunition) through supply lines consisting of wagons and base camps placed at a certain distance from each other and connected to a city that grants such a line or which is obliged to do so.
Large armies are slower and consume a lot, so the supply line is vital for advancing into enemy territory.
It must be defended, so the large army must divide or have small armies defending the flanks of the line or forming a "FRONT" DURING THE ADVANCE, to prevent the enemy from bypassing the big fish to cut off supplies.
In the thread I explain everything, and suggestions of all kinds are allowed.
If you want to vote positively vote the main thread, the one containing the 4 threads.

-Geographical coverage:
the second thread talks about geographical coverage and marching formations on the campaign map.
In summary: HOW AN ARMY MOVES IS IMPORTANT.
It goes in column formation (fast but very elongated, therefore weak to an assault from the hips and slow in repositioning maneuvers).
Do you go with a more compact formation? slower but more defended.
suggests mechanics of: movement, armies positioning, march formations, ambushes and interceptions during maneuver or formation changes.
This allows you to face larger armies by exploiting their inefficiency during a campaign map movement.
 
Top Bottom