Features/QoL requests

[Bamilus]

Another thing I'll add - I'd really like to see diplomacy expanded. Right now, based on my understanding, the AI likes to declare war a lot and the problem is if some nation declares war on me that has territory that I don't want right now, I'm forced to beat them and usually take at least some of their territory in the process, due to 1 turn sieges, until peace. I wish there was a way on peace to return the territory or demand money or something.

Or a way to invade, attack, and destroy without having to conquer the territory.

Exactly. Just give us some more options rather than having every neighboring AI hell bent on warring you all the time (annoying but I guess kind of historical but still I think needs tweaking) and forcing you into basically just remaining entirely passive and defending all your borders or being forced to take them over to stop them from warring you but now you're stuck with their unloyal regions that might be garbage and which will give you more decadence. There's plenty of historical examples to justify winning a war and not taking over land - First Illyrian War, First Macedonian War, etc.

EDIT: I see Pocus addressed part of this in a thread on the Steam forums. Unfortunately, he only addressed the issue from an OFFENSIVE standpoint, i.e. you want to declare war on a nation but not take their land. To me, this is an issue but less of an issue than being forced to take over land to stop DEFENSIVE wars from enemies because the only way to really get them to stop is by killing their armies offensively which also results you in taking their land. I don't think it's unfair to ask that in defensive wars you have the ability to return regions for an indemnity or something, rather than either A) being forced to defend all your borders at all times which prevents you from doing anything else or B) take their land, annex them, and then just let the land rot to rebels which causes another problem.

[guanotwozero]

OK, here's my ha'penny's worth:

1) I agree that the notifications can be intrusive and often not necessary; possibly replace by a scrolling list whose items can be clicked for further details or ignored. Keep intrusive clicks only for something that demands player input.

2) Enhance the Ledger so that any filtered geographic data set can be displayed on the map like an overlay, e.g. all friendly regions that contain Iron.

3) Extend the Ledger filters to cover other types of data, e.g. all regions that contain a Blacksmith, or those that are missing an Iron bonus.

4) Extend the Ledger map display to combine 2 (or more) such selections using logical AND / OR.
- For example:
-all regions containing a Blacksmith, as well as those that have Iron present (Armourer OR Iron present)
-all regions containing an Armourer that lacks an Iron bonus (Armourer AND missing Iron bonus)

I'd also like some way of avoiding owning land I march into, but this probably needs more thought as there will be significant AI implications.

OK, I might have gone for tuppence ha'penny there.

[Bamilus]

To keep it all in the same thread and not to beat a dead horse on the "auto annex land occupied in a war regardless if its defensive/offensive or if you want it", but has anyone noticed the AI is DOW happy? I've only played about 10 hours, but it seems like if you share a border with the AI then they will declare war on you within 2-3 turns regardless of your relationship level with them or if you have a cooperation agreement. I've played peacefully, had high relationships and cooperation agreements, but the second I get a border with the AI they DOW a few turns after. No doubt border friction is a thing, especially in ancient times, but the game already models raids fairly well and I think it would make more sense for the AI to have a relationship penalty if you share a border (like EU4 does), rather than them just hating you 2-3 turns later and dead set on warring you.

If this behavior gets fixed then it would lessen the negative impacts of you automatically annexing land in defensive wars despite numerous historical ancient wars making a marked distinction between occupied territories (e.g. most of Greece by Rome in First and Second Macedonian Wars) and annexed territory (Rome annexing Sicily after Punic Wars). I think both issues need to be fixed, but right now my biggest beef with this beautiful game is the seemingly incomprehensible diplomatic AI and the auto-annexation problem.

[Geffalrus]

To keep it all in the same thread and not to beat a dead horse on the "auto annex land occupied in a war regardless if its defensive/offensive or if you want it", but has anyone noticed the AI is DOW happy? I've only played about 10 hours, but it seems like if you share a border with the AI then they will declare war on you within 2-3 turns regardless of your relationship level with them or if you have a cooperation agreement. I've played peacefully, had high relationships and cooperation agreements, but the second I get a border with the AI they DOW a few turns after. No doubt border friction is a thing, especially in ancient times, but the game already models raids fairly well and I think it would make more sense for the AI to have a relationship penalty if you share a border (like EU4 does), rather than them just hating you 2-3 turns later and dead set on warring you.

If this behavior gets fixed then it would lessen the negative impacts of you automatically annexing land in defensive wars despite numerous historical ancient wars making a marked distinction between occupied territories (e.g. most of Greece by Rome in First and Second Macedonian Wars) and annexed territory (Rome annexing Sicily after Punic Wars). I think both issues need to be fixed, but right now my biggest beef with this beautiful game is the seemingly incomprehensible diplomatic AI and the auto-annexation problem.

The Paradox/Europa Universalis mechanic of making there be a difference between "occupied" land and "owned" land has some promise here. In those games, you can occupy territory, but it doesn't truly become yours until the peace deal. We already have some aspect of that with the occupation debuff/penalty to income. Maybe have it so that finalizing region ownership becomes a part of the peace deal, at which point the occupation debuff gets removed.

This could theoretically help make the AI more likely to accept Peace Deals. To acquire conquered territories permanently, you need to have a good enough war score. If you are willing to give some/all of the regions back, then you don't need as good a war score = higher acceptance likelihood.

[Bamilus]

Someone also had another good alternative proposal on Steam forums: add a stance option (like Total War games and every other AGEOD game) which would just be another button next to assault/garrison and make it so when you fight an enemy in their territory it doesn't siege their town but just blockades it and forages supply.

I still like having occupied territory as a thing since it reflects reality, but this might be a quicker solution to add until diplomacy gets fleshed out more.

[LDiCesare]

For annexing lands, there should be peace talk options rather than straight peace. Something like: "Marry my daughter/Give me your son in hostag... err... fosterage, and I give you this land back", increasing the peace treaty duration by a few years.
That requires some elaborate peace treaty interface like in Paradox games.
I don't think owned/occupied makes much sense in FOG:E however. Claims and the like don't make much sense. All of Caesar's conquests had next to nothing in terms of claims/justification for example.

[Bamilus]

For annexing lands, there should be peace talk options rather than straight peace. Something like: "Marry my daughter/Give me your son in hostag... err... fosterage, and I give you this land back", increasing the peace treaty duration by a few years.
That requires some elaborate peace treaty interface like in Paradox games.
I don't think owned/occupied makes much sense in FOG:E however. Claims and the like don't make much sense. All of Caesar's conquests had next to nothing in terms of claims/justification for example.

I don't really think the game is anywhere close to being able to implementing advance peace talks like that. My biggest problem is, automatically annexing land is ahistorical:

Hannibal didn't annex land in Hispania or Italy but in this game he would be forced to. Romans didn't annex land in Illyrian Wars, Pyrrhic War, First and Second Macedonian Wars, etc. The game simulates raids by barbarians, why can't they simulate occupation forces of land? Either do that or give us a way to beat enemies without annexing all their territory or being forced to just sit on your hands and only defend your borders all game. Part of this issue comes from the braindead AI who suicide wars you the second you border them but it's still an issue outside of that.

And yes, I know war was constant in ancient times, but it was almost always at the behest of the larger offensive nation, not from tiny nations suicide DOWing you.

[guanotwozero]

I don't really think the game is anywhere close to being able to implementing advance peace talks like that. My biggest problem is, automatically annexing land is ahistorical:...

Sure, diplomacy is still pretty barebones at present. I expect that will change as new mechanics are added.

Many are comparing to the Europa Universalis mechanic of "occupied until peace talks", but that's based on a Medieval acceptance of principles and conventions that usually did not exist in this ancient era. Nevertheless it's also correct that military expeditions did not permanently occupy land unless intended. e.g. The Romans fought at Mons Graupius without occupying Pictland.

I suggest that the occupier has the choice of making it permanent, and that an "occupied" status has no benefit other than keeping troops in supply in one of two ways:

1) if the army is connected to "owned" territory by an unbroken line of "occupied" territory, it is in supply.
2) if the army is not connected to "owned" territory, it automatically forages - the success of this depends on the size & skill of the army and the nature of the region.

So, a large army in a desert region would suffer badly, a small army in a fertile region would not. Every region would need a fertility characteristic, every general a forage ability. There should also be an ability to supply by sea. Oh, and pillage is still an option, but this will kill off forage for a period.

Obviously this would need new mechanics and would be a challenge for AI, as we'd expect other nations to do this. It also brings in the idea of cutting off enemy armies from supply prior to/instead of fighting them, and revolts should also feature. I think that would keep actions close to historical precedent as it would be relatively easy to cut off an army that strays far from home, so there'd be no long, snaking occupied lines.

If this could be implemented it also opens the possibility of a future tribal "migrate" ability (that had huge historical significance), but that needs more thought.

[Geffalrus]

Many are comparing to the Europa Universalis mechanic of "occupied until peace talks", but that's based on a Medieval acceptance of principles and conventions that usually did not exist in this ancient era. Nevertheless it's also correct that military expeditions did not permanently occupy land unless intended. e.g. The Romans fought at Mons Graupius without occupying Pictland.

One thing that's lacking is the equivalent of the Treaty of Apamea that occurred after the Battle of Magnesia. In that agreement, Antiochus ceded the entirety of his claims on Greece and Asia Minor, as well as paying a large war indemnity, agreeing to kill his elephant herd, and limiting the size of his fleet. Now, a lot of that can be replicated in other ways in multiplayer, particularly through the use of the Gift diplomatic option as that transfers money. Units can also be disbanded, etc. But the Romans didn't literally conquer all of Asia Minor - rather the territories were gifted to their ally Pergamon.

[vakarr]

One thing that's lacking is the equivalent of the Treaty of Apamea that occurred after the Battle of Magnesia. In that agreement, Antiochus ceded the entirety of his claims on Greece and Asia Minor, as well as paying a large war indemnity, agreeing to kill his elephant herd, and limiting the size of his fleet. Now, a lot of that can be replicated in other ways in multiplayer, particularly through the use of the Gift diplomatic option as that transfers money. Units can also be disbanded, etc. But the Romans didn't literally conquer all of Asia Minor - rather the territories were gifted to their ally Pergamon.

If you have a client state that is surrounded by your territory there is a good chance it will give you one or more of its regions. It may do this even if it isn't surrounded, if you have adjoining territory that you own. Pergamon was a client state and the Antigonids became a client state after that treaty.

[Huygens]

I'd really like to be able to remove a citizen or a slave from one row and send them to some other task, without taking everyone in front of them along.

Also, a way to inform the player as to what accepting a diplomatic proposal entails (apart from the obvious, like war and peace). For example, early on in my game I was offered the chance to become a client state to another faction (a very pleasant surprise, even if it's a bit insulting in role-playing terms; pleasant, because diplomacy is the least dynamic aspect of the game, in my very brief experience thus far).

Speaking of diplomacy: DasTactic has an excellent Let' Play on Youtube, playing as Syracuse. He weathered the initial onslaught of Carthage expertly, managed to turn the tables and capture the entire island of Sicily (Sicelia). He attempted to propose peace to Carthage, who were fighting (and losing badly, in terms of manpower and lands) on multiple fronts, not just Syracuse.

I think a player would have jumped at the opportunity to close one front, so at to concentrate on the others. Carthage stubbornly refused and ended up wiped out from its eastern holdings (losing its capital in the process, don't know if it's feasible to bounce back from that. Anyway).

The AI stubbornly refused. We could see in the video the parameters factored in, but as far as I could tell, parameters which are measured in-game (such as comparison of armies and navies to those of the enemy) and, most importantly, the loss of regions, were not taken into account, giving the AI 0% chance of accepting the proposal, when it desperately needed to. At least in order to buy an extra couple of turns...

Don't know how easy it would be to program such a change in diplomacy, but it would make for a far more dynamic diplomatic game.

Also, when you see a neighbor getting stronger, the other factions should have a strong incentive to accept proposals of cooperation/peace/alliance, in order to make it harder for a local faction to dominate, unhindered.

Overall, diplomacy seems to be the aspect of this fantastic game that needs the most work right now. Love Empires, hope it improves even more, as there's definitely room there.

[thierry2015]

The AI stubbornly refused. We could see in the video the parameters factored in, but as far as I could tell, parameters which are measured in-game (such as comparison of armies and navies to those of the enemy) and, most importantly, the loss of regions, were not taken into account, giving the AI 0% chance of accepting the proposal, when it desperately needed to. At least in order to buy an extra couple of turns...

yes fantastic game

but diplomacy must get more option

it is imperative that the AI knows the word PEACE!

the game already takes into account some parameters

it is very good

9 criteria = nice job

But in my opinion the money it would be the solution so that finally IA accepts the peace from the players

and this money will be used by AI...

[uneducated]

Toggle "Select All/Select None" in the chosen Factions list.

When setting up a challenge which has only a few Factions available, this would be useful. Otherwise you have to select/deselect each one individually.

[vakarr]

I'd like the "distance from me" criteria removed from diplomacy calculations or made a positive - a country far away from me should be happier about allying with me, especially if we have a mutual enemy between us - "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", or "he's so far away he can't be in conflict with my own objectives". This is normally where you go looking for allies, among people who are far enough away that they can cause a problem to your enemies but who do not necessarily want to take over the same territory e.g. Macedonia was allied with Carthage but had no border with Carthage.

[MoLAoS]

I'd like the "distance from me" criteria removed from diplomacy calculations or made a positive - a country far away from me should be happier about allying with me, especially if we have a mutual enemy between us - "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", or "he's so far away he can't be in conflict with my own objectives". This is normally where you go looking for allies, among people who are far enough away that they can cause a problem to your enemies but who do not necessarily want to take over the same territory e.g. Macedonia was allied with Carthage but had no border with Carthage.

I think that a lot of historical situations are just not able to be represented in the very simplified board game like mechanics. Paradox games have the same problems but it different ways. For instance their simulation doesn't deal with the rise and fall of societies at all.

[LDiCesare]

I'd like an option to select a (list of) building(s) that is not available for building now and have the game automatically shuffle till one of them becomes available. This "build queue" would save a lot of time when you want to build certain culture enhancing buildings but not others for example (I want school or tribunal or noble gardens but not gladiator's schools or major temple).

[Demetrios_of_Messene]

As already mentioned by previous posters:

1. More diplomacy options (like coalition against an enemy or option to become a protectorate if small nation is threatened and looking for protection or option to release nation which should be automatically in alliance with you).

2. More options in peace treaty (like money, force into alliance, make client state).

3. Option to choose whether to annex a region, liberate (if possible to create nation), return to previous owner, pillage (with pros and cons) or just walk though .

4. When fighting together with allies, liberated regions should automatically return to previous owner.

5. Nations with very slime chances at defeating you should not declare solo wars. Right now they are a big nuisance and not fun.

6. Faster way to navigate through regions with unused slots. E.g. button "go to next region with unused slot".

7. Additionally, I would like to be able to choose buildings from the province window (a list with the possible building names without the explanatory text would be fine).

8. I do not like the randomness in building choices and the reshuffling option. It is too tedious to have fun with this mechanic in a medium size or bigger country. Maybe the possibility to force select buildings that you want (from available tiers, I like the idea of tiers) at a cost.

9. I would like a list with buildings and their upgrades.


I have finished one game with Macedonia and currently playing with Sparta. Great game and thank you to the developers for making my dream of tactical battles in a structured campaign possible!!!

[guanotwozero]

...
2. More options in peace treaty (like money, force into alliance, make client state).

3. Option to choose whether to annex a region, liberate (if possible to create nation), return to previous owner, pillage (with pros and cons) or just walk though .
...

One approach may be to use a "Victory Points" system; success in war gains you VPs, and you spend them in the peace treaty to gain cash/territory/concessions. OK, a bit like EU, but with some significant differences:

Taking enemy territory means you occupy it, not own it (as mentioned already). The territory has VP value that is inherent (wealth, infrastructure) and strategic (e.g. close to enemy capital, contiguous with other occupied regions, dividing enemy regions).

Spending VPs at the peace treaty allows you to demand occupied and unoccupied territory, as well as cash and diplomatic terms. An example: Rome occupying territories close to Carthage gains enough VPs to demand an unoccupied Carthaginian territory in Sicily. Clearly the VP cost of unoccupied territories should be much higher than occupied.

Spending VPs also allows you to demand diplomatic terms, e.g. guaranteeing neutrality / non-access of certain regions for a number of turns. e.g. Carthage is prohibited from entering Emporia for 20 turns. Breaching this triggers war AND costs them VPs.

Tribal nations may need different rules i.e. they can take ownership of a region prior to a peace deal (as their standards and diplomatic abilities are limited), though by the same reasoning their enemies can take their regions the same way. So there could be a distinction between "civilised" and "barbarian" nations.

The VP system would be a cost/gain for war as well as "undiplomatic" actions.

All this, of course, would add more challenges for the AI, such as how to assign strategic values to regions during war and how to make them goals.

[LDiCesare]

I don't like the VP idea. This is not and shouldn't be Europa Universalis. Allowing to exchange territories, extort money as a peace deal yes, but using VP for retaining territroy or maybe only part of what you control doesn't seem much like antiquity, where people who wanted to conquer just did it.

[guanotwozero]

I don't like the VP idea. This is not and shouldn't be Europa Universalis. Allowing to exchange territories, extort money as a peace deal yes, but using VP for retaining territroy or maybe only part of what you control doesn't seem much like antiquity, where people who wanted to conquer just did it.

I'm thinking of examples like Rome regarding the attack on Saguntum as a casus belli (2PW), or Rome withdrawing from Carthage's African hinterland (after Zama -2PW) and Carthage withdrawing from Lilybaeum (1PW) as a result of peace treaties. It should be possible to use military advantage at A to force handover/withdrawal at B.

Sure, VPs may not the best way to do this - have you any suggestions how activities like this could be implemented?

One thing that's lacking is the equivalent of the Treaty of Apamea that occurred after the Battle of Magnesia. In that agreement, Antiochus ceded the entirety of his claims on Greece and Asia Minor, as well as paying a large war indemnity, agreeing to kill his elephant herd, and limiting the size of his fleet. Now, a lot of that can be replicated in other ways in multiplayer, particularly through the use of the Gift diplomatic option as that transfers money. Units can also be disbanded, etc. But the Romans didn't literally conquer all of Asia Minor - rather the territories were gifted to their ally Pergamon.

We're talking about a number of behaviours which can be demanded in a peace treaty - how could the extent and duration of such behaviours be established? A decisive war would result in larger demands than an indecisive one - how could that 'scale' be represented during peace negotiations?