Isabella Carter
Total War is a series of strategy games where players can wage wars, engage in diplomacy, and expand their empire. However, many players have criticized the diplomacy system in Total War games, claiming that it is broken or non-existent. They argue that the AI-controlled factions make illogical decisions, such as refusing to trade or accept peace offers even when it would be in their best interests. Some players suggest that this is due to the game's victory conditions, which encourage players to conquer everyone else rather than pursue diplomatic solutions. Others point out that the AI's behavior can be unpredictable and aggressive, making it challenging to establish meaningful diplomacy. Despite these criticisms, some players defend the diplomacy system, acknowledging its limitations but arguing that it is not as broken as others claim.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| AI factions would rather die than trade with the player | AI factions refuse to trade with the player |
| AI factions refuse peace even when they are losing | AI factions refuse peace |
| AI factions are illogical and unpredictable | AI factions are "berserker" |
| AI factions are too aggressive | AI factions are "batshit crazy" |
| AI factions do not behave like humans | AI factions are not atmospheric |
| AI factions do not make decisions based on logic | AI factions make decisions based on convoluted game mechanics |
| AI factions have an anti-player bias | AI factions are biased against the player |
| AI factions are not tactical | AI factions are not good tacticians |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- AI factions would rather die than trade with the player
- AI factions refuse to accept peace, even when they're losing
- AI factions don't make decisions based on logic
- AI factions have an anti-player bias on higher difficulty settings
- AI factions are not receptive to diplomacy when the player is in a weak position
AI factions would rather die than trade with the player
One of the major issues that players have with the diplomacy system in Total War is the AI's unwillingness to trade with the player. This is seen as a significant departure from historical reality, where even traditional enemies would engage in trade unless they were actively at war.
In the game, however, players often find that AI factions would rather die than trade, even when it would be mutually beneficial to do so. This is particularly frustrating when the player is in a position of strength and has no obvious grievances with the AI faction. For example, one player recounted how they had just obliterated an enemy faction and then met a new faction that immediately declared war on them.
Another issue is the AI's tendency to break trade agreements without suffering any significant penalties. This can be infuriating for players who have invested time and resources into building diplomatic relationships, only to have them shattered without consequence.
Some players have suggested that the AI should be programmed to behave more ""atmospherically," taking into account the power dynamics at play and acting in its self-interest, even if that means surrendering or becoming a client state to a more powerful player faction. Others have suggested that the game should introduce new victory conditions, such as the vortex, to give the AI more reasons to use diplomacy and make deals.
Overall, the consensus among players seems to be that the diplomacy system in Total War is in need of improvement, with many finding the AI's behaviour illogical and frustrating.
Moral Diplomacy: A Foreign Policy Approach?
You may want to see also
AI factions refuse to accept peace, even when they're losing
The AI factions in Total War games have been criticized for their refusal to accept peace, even when they are losing. This issue has been a longstanding source of frustration for players, who feel that the diplomacy system is broken and unrealistic.
There are several factors that influence the AI's behavior in this regard. One factor is the AI's pre-set hatred or dislike for certain factions, which can cause them to refuse peace out of spite or vengeance. Additionally, the AI may have a low relationship score with the player, leading to their unwillingness to accept peace treaties. The length of the war can also play a role, as there may be an internal cooldown mechanism to prevent factions from suing for peace too quickly and exploiting the system.
Another reason for the AI's stubbornness is the nature of the game itself. Total War games are primarily focused on war and conquest, with victory often requiring the player to conquer and eliminate all other factions. As such, the AI's refusal to accept peace can be seen as a way to increase the challenge and encourage players to finish off their enemies completely. However, this approach contradicts historical precedents, where even traditional enemies engaged in trade and diplomacy unless they were at war.
The AI's anti-player bias also comes into play, especially as the player becomes more powerful and poses a greater threat. The AI may view multiple concurrent wars as a sign of weakness and an opportunity to strike, making it harder for the player to achieve peace through diplomacy.
Despite these explanations, players have suggested improvements to the diplomacy system. Some have called for the implementation of victory conditions beyond conquest, such as vortex conditions, which would incentivize the AI to use diplomacy more frequently. Others have suggested porting features from other games, like Crusader Kings, which has a more reasonable diplomacy system, or Endless Legend, which offers an effective diplomacy mechanic.
Dollar Diplomacy: Taft's Foreign Policy Explained
You may want to see also
AI factions don't make decisions based on logic
It is undeniable that the AI factions in Total War games don't always make decisions based on logic, and this is a common criticism of the game. One player, for example, described how they had offered peace and a trade agreement to Poland-Lithuania, and they accepted, only to declare war again ten turns later. In another instance, Prussia refused a peace offering of two major cities, one minor city, and 50k gold.
The AI also seems to have an illogical bias towards certain regions, with France always attacking anyone who owns Alsace-Lorraine, and Spain always attacking the owner of Gibraltar. This is a common issue in strategy games, where the AI is often too simplistic, and players can find loopholes or illogical behaviors that they can exploit. For example, in one game, Germany joined the Soviet faction despite being at peace and fascist, and despite the Soviets being ideological enemies.
The AI also seems to be biased against the player, with some players noting that the AI factions will gang up on the player and that ally AI factions are often weak. This can make the game less fun and reduce the replay value as the same factions win every time.
The lack of logic in the AI's decision-making can lead to frustration and a feeling that the game is "broken". Players want the AI to behave in a more reasonable and atmospheric manner, and for the diplomacy system to be improved.
Who Receives the Most Campaign Money?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
AI factions have an anti-player bias on higher difficulty settings
AI factions in Total War games have been criticised for their anti-player bias on higher difficulty settings. On harder difficulties, the AI will go out of its way to ruin the player's game, ganging up on the player character and prioritising them as a target over other AI factions. This can make the game less enjoyable, as the player is forced to deal with constant attacks and ambushes, which can feel like an "unfair" challenge.
Some players have noted that certain factions, such as Skaven, Vampires, and Greenskins, will recruit large numbers of lower-tier armies that raid the player's settlements, while also fielding high-quality, high-tier armies for invasions. This two-pronged strategy can be difficult to counter, as players must defend against both types of armies.
The anti-player bias is particularly noticeable when the player is playing as an order faction, such as Bretonnia or the Empire, as these factions typically have fewer enemies. In contrast, factions like the Borrow Legion or Pestilence may be better played on lower difficulties, as the AI will be less likely to gang up on the player.
Players have suggested that the anti-player bias could be addressed by introducing new victory conditions or alternative goals for the AI, such as seeking to finish in second place or forming alliances. This would encourage the AI to use diplomacy more often and make deals with the player, rather than always resorting to conflict.
Additionally, players have found that adjusting the "AI Behaviour" setting to "Passive" before starting a campaign can reduce the anti-player bias without needing to install mods.
Campaign Funding: Corrupting Politics, Undermining Democracy
You may want to see also
AI factions are not receptive to diplomacy when the player is in a weak position
Players of the Total War series have often criticized the diplomacy systems in the games, citing issues with the AI's handling of diplomacy. One common complaint is that AI factions are not receptive to diplomacy when the player is in a weak position. This can manifest in a few ways:
- AI factions may refuse to accept peace terms, even when they are losing the war or when the player is offering generous concessions. Players have reported instances where they offered multiple cities and large sums of gold in exchange for peace, only to be rejected by the AI.
- AI factions may be unwilling to trade with the player, even when it would be mutually beneficial. This contradicts historical accuracy, as even traditional enemies would engage in trade unless they were actively at war.
- AI factions may not surrender or seek peace when faced with overwhelming odds. Players have expressed frustration that the AI does not act logically in these situations, refusing to wave the white flag even when their survival is at stake.
- AI factions may become increasingly hostile towards the player as the campaign difficulty increases. This can result in the AI declaring war more frequently and behaving in a more aggressive manner.
- AI factions may form military alliances with each other, creating powerful blocks that can be difficult for the player to counter. This can lead to a sense of imbalance in the game, as the player has to contend with these superpower alliances.
These issues with diplomacy can lead to a frustrating gameplay experience, as players feel that their diplomatic efforts are futile and that conquest is the only viable path to victory. However, it is worth noting that some players have reported positive experiences with diplomacy in certain Total War games, such as Attila and Warhammer 1 & 2, where factions acted more logically and predictably.
Anonymous Political Donations: Secure Ways to Contribute
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The AI diplomacy in Total War games is often criticised for being illogical and not based on realistic, strategic decision-making. For example, AI factions would rather die than trade with the player, even if they are losing the war.
The lack of effective diplomacy in Total War games limits players' options, as they are unable to use diplomacy to further their empire. Instead, they are forced to conquer everyone else to win the game.
Some players consider Attila to have the best diplomacy out of the Total War games, as the AI behaves based on its current leader. Thrones of Britannia and Warhammer II are also considered to have decent diplomacy.
