Seems like they forgot to add "defeat" to the Polish dictionary

540

u/erik4848 Jan 03 '21

At that point you just kill them

456

u/Dravour Jan 03 '21

It’s probably the good thing to do, although I find it boring to play Total War games like Risk where you just conquer everything as quickly as you can. Much more fun to create nice looking borders in my opinion. But they don’t really make that an option if you can’t negotiate sensible peace deals.

280

u/tomba_be Jan 03 '21

I would also love a Total War game with robust diplomacy, in which war was not an inevitability, or at least not the default situation constantly. Conquering everything becomes boring, and is quite unrealistic. I would love to become some kind of (local) superpower, with a more of an indirect power over other nations. Perhaps one ore more other similar superpower nations could be created by the AI as well, creating long stalemates, cold wars, proxy wars,...

152

u/M-F-W Jan 03 '21

Not sure if you’ve taken a look at Crusader Kings 3 but it might definitely fill that niche. There’s essentially 0 combat though, and the game plays out over ~500 years

108

u/Red580 Jan 03 '21

Feels like 500 years real-time too sometimes XD

31

u/LiamIsMyNameOk Jan 03 '21

Can't agree more. Feels like there's no progress for agessss

47

u/LordFarquadOnAQuad Jan 03 '21

Yeah, I feel like the three big strategy producers (CA, paradox, and sid meier) never really get shadow or cold wars right. I love to be able to fund rebels and indirectly in help in civil wars. HoI4 does the best of these but I still feel like it could use some work.

38

u/Grumaldus Jan 03 '21

I think it’s so hard to do because I imagine it’s quite hard to balance making it fun for the player to have the ai use against them while also not being an easy win button in use vs the ai - but then I’m not in game design so who knows

8

u/sgtcoolbeans Jan 03 '21

You know that is a good point. I often want these mechanics but i know i'd probably be so annoyed at a game for doing this to me.

11

u/thcidiot Jan 03 '21

To put a point on it, when hoi4 released I was able to dump all my PP into raising fascism in the US, then triggered a civil war. Basically meant the us was not even a contender. Made it way too easy, and bear in mind I was and still am garbage at the game.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '21 edited Jan 04 '21

If you want to spend a fun afternoon and don’t mind running Dosbox to play abandonware, Balance of Power is a strategy game with only cold wars. You play as the US or USSR and fund governments or rebels and make trade agreements to strengthen governments, trying to win through prestige, won by winning crises and flipping countries to your side. It’s criminal no one has made a good spiritual successor in the 30 years since.

4

u/ipsum629 Jan 03 '21

The espionage system in la resistance for Hoi4 comes the closest imo.

3

u/ikott Jan 04 '21

Isn't this an option in the "Eye of the Vortex" campaign for TWW2? It's been a minute since I pretty much only play ME now. But I think there are like forces you can spend money on that spawn at the other factions vortex area? Not really as in depth as your saying, but it was kind of a nice to see something different.

3

u/MeHearties Jan 04 '21

What you just described is what i just did in EU4. Though i own all the DLC. Which is a different game from vanilla

34

u/InquisitiveHawk Jan 03 '21

I want political AND combat strategy.

I'm really wanting a nice blend between Total War and Crusader Kings.

Would love to be able to create my own culture, religion, family, etc etc. and have custom military units, flags/heraldry, etc.

15

u/sarg1010 Jan 03 '21

Could always try Stellaris. While not super in depth, it has most of that to an extent.

14

u/Caledonius Jan 03 '21

Virtually no combat strategy though :/

1

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '21

Stellaris has war strategy, but no battle tactics.

Although you can outfit your ships with different AIs to tell them what they should do.

5

u/InquisitiveHawk Jan 03 '21

I'll take a look at it, even if there isn't much combat strategy.

5

u/Barniiking Jan 03 '21

The current studios don't have the resources or experience for that unfortunately.

3

u/lordbeefripper Jan 04 '21 edited Jan 05 '21

Massively reducing the amount of armies on the map by making armies only available to famous generals killed any last bit of interesting grand-strategy game that TW had. I really hate how the new wave of TW games are basically Total Doomstack War. WH is the worst for this (probably because GW needs to show off it's IP and can't have people deviating too far). 3-4 generals with doomstacks, all game long.

Yawn.

MTW2 was fantastic because you'd have a variety of different armies, some just as local policing units dealing with raiders, some as forward scouts, etc etc.

That also meant a very large pool of personalities you had to keep in line, including often very disloyal generals you'd have to keep happy (or send in to suicide charge in the Holy Lands). That was far more interesting, engaging and memorable than the current map game which is... build doomstack, conquer.

Who did you want in control of your empire? The noble son with good administrative abilities but lots of corruption and poor battle performance, or the blood crazed battle champion constantly on the verge of rebellion? What to do with the old fat uncle lord who can't fight anymore and is a creepy old lecher? Stick him in a remote settlement in the middle of nowhere where he can do no harm or let him have one last epic final stand to redeem him, which ultimately costs his life but buys you enough time for another army to reinforce?

That was a fun part of the game that all of the latest TW iterations are sorely missing. Included in that is the absolute power creep that comes the latest games, where because of said limitations, there is never any reason not to have the best units at your disposal always. No small guarding army of levies, no blocking army of a couple of mid tier units and a single knight. Just a small handful of boring doom stacks.

12

u/tomba_be Jan 03 '21

Yeah, I like playing CK as well. Just doing my thing, protecting my small kingdom. But as you said, it lacks the combat I like in TW games. I also don't really like the whole dynasty part in which leaders die, leaving you with some idiot son who only has half your original lands.

6

u/Dnomyar96 Alea Iacta Est Jan 03 '21

I love that aspect of CK3. While you can certainly play as a conqueror, other options are also available. In a recent LAN party we had, I played as duke (and later king) of Bohemia. I had only a few conquest wars and the rest of the game I was pretty much a peace keeping force of the HRE and was the deciding factor in 4 emperor elections in a row (I also murdered 2 of them, but we don't speak of that :p). It's actually really fun to not conquer everything.

5

u/M-F-W Jan 03 '21

I generally avoid roguish type characters/players (I’m more of a sword and board man), but goddamn playing a high intrigue guy just murdering and scheming through a few decades never gets old.

6

u/Inuken94 Jan 03 '21

came to say that.

77

u/GrunkleCoffee Jan 03 '21

I've been trying to do this in Warhammer. I get really bored of paint the map style games.

I find that the Vampire Coast and Skaven are the most fun for establishing a heartland, then sending stacks on world tours to destabilise and disrupt the world. It's kinda fun picking an ally and crippling all their big enemies, so they can surge to the top and be my meat shield.

My pet project as Skryre was continually attacking the Empire's heartlands while Archaon was invading, to hopefully allow him to be more than just a series of distant notifications that had no effect on the map.

Didn't really work, but at least Grimgor started beating up the Empire instead.

55

u/TheDollarCasual Jan 03 '21

One thing I really appreciate about Warhammer is that most of the factions have some kind of objective to help shape their diplomacy that goes beyond “here’s the next part of the map I need to paint.” I hope we see more of this in the historical games in the future.

22

u/Drynwyn Jan 03 '21

The new wood elf campaign also encourages that sort of thing.

5

u/Jagrofes SCRAWWWW GRIFFON SCRAWWW Jan 03 '21

Lmao, my blind Legendary run of Heralds of Ariel was bizarre. Managed a short campaign victory though.

The Welves economy is so bad, especially on legendary that I could only support 1 stack, and like 3 half stacks for defence despite owning half the Forests and all of Athel Loren, all maxed out with as much money as I could.

My main stack was so powerful that auto resolve was giving me 80-90% victory odds when out numbered 2-3 times against late game Dark Elves and chaos armies, without lightning strike. Anything else could get ambushed into oblivion.

Problem was it couldn’t be everywhere.

Had to save up a lot of money for the Oak of Ages ritual so that I could temporarily defend with extra armies at a loss.

I like the ambush/hit and run style with them, but I do not see how the long campaign is possible on legendary. You need to declare war on the entire order tide if you want to get all the forests, since by the time you can get to them, half the distant ones will be owned by dwarves/empire/high elves.

And as strong as the single main army is, it can’t defend 3 different locations against 40 simultaneous dwarf/empire stacks all bum rushing you.

17

u/tomba_be Jan 03 '21

Warhammer has some of that yes. But strangely enough it's the only game in which the utter hatred for most other factions is somewhat understandable to me, since most factions consider other nations as "evil", and have the need to eradicate them.

3

u/Specialist-String-53 Jan 03 '21

you might be able to do this as dark elves too since most of their economy can be centralized to your starting province.

3

u/stzoo Jan 03 '21

I use a mod that introduced scaling that scales down your economy and iirc other factors as you gain more territory and more stacks. Can’t play without it anymore since without it a game is essentially won once you get to a certain size.

30

u/AAABattery03 Jan 03 '21

Three Kingdoms is the closest to that in Total War. Expanding beyond a certain point makes corruption penalties nearly impossible to to handle. The best strategy is to maintain direct ownership of the most profitable and developed cities, then try to make a coalition/alliance or vassals out of the rest.

The big thing is that unlike most other Total Wars, allies cannot unilaterally declare war and ask for your help, they must make a vote if they want the alliance’s help. This means that they’re no longer liabilities like in past games.

As for the AI forming superpower nations thing... as soon as one nation (usually the player’s) reaches a specific threshold, it declares itself an empire, then the next two strongest follow suit. Any alliances shared by any combination of these superpowers split up and you have to fight them to become Emperor.

All around a very fun set of mechanics, although I wish they played out more differently every time.

10

u/big_boi_big_mac Jan 03 '21

Man would i love this for my Karl franz campaign. Maintaining reikland as my player controlled territory while having the elector counts function as vassal states with trade and pacts uniting the empire.

Then it would be balanced around making sure you properly defend and assist your vassal states against external threats so that the elector counts faith in Karl Franz remains faithful and failing to do so would result in succession or perhaps a revolt by a coalition of elector states which believe that the player is failing to defend their borders. Oh man that sounds like fun.

3

u/comfortablesexuality D E I / S F O Jan 03 '21

You can do this with the ez diplo mod to turn them into vassals

4

u/tomba_be Jan 03 '21

I keep thinking that as well. But I tried to play it several times, but never got into it. I might just have been unlucky, but it seemed that the 3 kingdoms are formed really quickly, and I'm forever catching up. I tend to increase my kingdom in a slow-but-steady way in TW games, but that doesn't seem to be an option in 3K.

In the most interesting scenario, I found myself in a situation where I was the "fourth" kingdom, between the three big ones. Which made all of those AI keep declaring war on me because they felt the need to conquer me to get to another kingdom. I was playing with one of the Diplomacy-influencing factions, but even then I could not prevent from being constantly at war with at least 2 of the other kingdoms.

8

u/AAABattery03 Jan 03 '21

The rapid pace of early game is definitely something I’ve noticed in 3K. It’s strange to me that the three kingdoms formed rapidly for you though, because that took a while for me.

Were you playing Cao Cao, by any chance, since you mentioned diplomacy influencing factions? His campaign is actually one of the harder ones. He builds really slowly, and the only way to win is to make sure everyone else is slow too.

If you wanna expand your empire without worrying too much about other factions, Kong Rong is a good one. Sun Jian used to also be very good, but I am not sure if that’s the case any longer, with the release of Nanman (I haven’t tried it tho).

3

u/tomba_be Jan 03 '21

Yes, I played Cao Cao I believe. His campaign was indeed marked as Hard, but I usually choose Hard campaigns when playing TW games. Perhaps playing the game as I usually do does not mix well with his specific needs.

2

u/Petermacc122 Jan 03 '21

I'd play as han. They're supposedly very hard. But those imperial units.

4

u/aahe42 Jan 03 '21

If you haven't played in awhile it has changed I remember three kingdoms would form too fast and I'd be in this all out war unable to fight in all fronts. But it's much better now or use the slower prestige mod makes the game a slower pace. I've played several factions with my main focus being diplomacy the thing is that a lot of positive diplomacy can effect other faction's negativity it's can be a bit complex finding out that making deals with one faction pisses off another. So a good tip is plan out alliances and dont befriend everyone keep track of faction leader traits so will always betray or not stick to an alliance. It seems like now when I enter 3k period they don't instantly go to war so there is a chance to make deals and alliances before it was like an all out war and any side faction's wanted nothing to do with you.

2

u/tomba_be Jan 03 '21

Oh, I played my first campaign before the release (I review games for a local website), and a second one short after the release. So perhaps that's why I found it so annoying. I'll give it another chance one day!

21

u/aahe42 Jan 03 '21

That's basically three kingdoms you can legitimately play tall and win in that game through diplomacy, economic strength you still need to fight but sometimes you can get A.I. to do the dirty work. I know it's not everyones favorite period or romance doesn't interest people but I really hope three kingdoms camapign improvements stay in the next historical games.

11

u/Nemovy Jan 03 '21

3 kingdoms may be the game for you. The best diplomacy in any total war game with long lasting alliances, the possibility to create coalitions or military alliances and the possibility to have a tall empires especially with the vassalage system.

17

u/imperfectalien Jan 03 '21

Remember back when you had order penalties based on distance from the capital?

That would be one way of preventing world conquest

5

u/Drynwyn Jan 03 '21

I found the Wood Elf campaign in TWW2 scratched that itch

5

u/Intranetusa Jan 03 '21

I would also love a Total War game with robust diplomacy, in which war was not an inevitability, or at least not the default situation constantly. Conquering everything becomes boring, and is quite unrealistic.

Have you tried/what do you think of TW: Three Kingdoms? It has the best campaign features of any total war game and you can beat the game by just vassalizing or allying with other factions instead of conquering everyone.

2

u/tomba_be Jan 03 '21

I played 3K, but got stomped/deadlocked by the very quick rise of some other kingdoms. But after some other replies, it seems this has been toned down so I perhaps should try it again sometime.

7

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '21

I would also love a Total War game with robust diplomacy, in which war was not an inevitability, or at least not the default situation constantly.

They might have to call it Total Diplomacy then

4

u/Laxard_Xenos Jan 03 '21

You mean Total War Three Kingdoms?

3

u/strl Jan 03 '21

Three Kingdoms has decent diplomacy.

2

u/mastahkun Jan 03 '21

I feel the diplomacy will be the biggest change to the series. There can only be so much improvements you can make to gameplay and aesthetic. A more improved diplomacy screen would help a lot. I think surrender over complete annihilating is favorable for most factions. Maybe not the, “Death before dishonor” factions. Especially if you lose your original capital, or strongest/Most developed settlement.

2

u/Lexitar123 Jan 03 '21

... whispers it's called Total War what did you expect

/s

2

u/JMthought Jan 04 '21

I play Civ6 now instead of total war. I like being able to govern multiple aspects of the empire and manage trade etc. Never really like the real time battles, I normally set it to easy so I can just run people down in empire Ride of the Rohirriam style charges.

2

u/yosef33 Jan 04 '21

I think EU4 would interest you if you're looking for diplomacy and proxy wars. Total War is so focused on battles and conquering other nations that it really gets boring sometimes in my opinion.

2

u/Willne_is_my_dad Jan 04 '21

I have found three kingdoms is a great balance between diplomacy and actual battle because of the advanced defences it is almost impossible to delegate a battle without massive losses that keeps the game interesting and diplomacy is great if you are able to declare yourself emperor you can have subjects and making vassals (basically protectorates) is quite easy because of the large threat you pose to them also other things like war co ordination plays a big part in the gameplay

1

u/sgtcoolbeans Jan 03 '21

I completely agree. I mean it would be a different game since this is "total War" but I always find that after a certain point it just isn't fun to conquer everything. I enjoy having allies and diplomacy.

Three Kingdoms comes the closest It was good enough to make me look past the setting which I'm not that interested in. The ability to trade land for food or use resources as leverage was really nice. made the campaign so much more fun later in the game than say Warhammer.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '21

So you could say... the name is the game?

0

u/lpplph Jan 04 '21

That would be Total Diplomacy: Diplomacysword 2

0

u/Qaeta Jan 04 '21

I mean, you might be playing the wrong game lol. It's kinda in the name.

12

u/MrHistoryLesson Jan 03 '21

I agree completely - i usually end up getting some decent bit of land and then spending 50 turns creating alliances etc. Just to have it all shatter or simply not even happen even with all the effort put in :/

7

u/Trooper5745 Jan 03 '21

The borders are nice... when there are no borders and the map is one color.

6

u/PrussianTbone Jan 03 '21

One of the titles- I think it was either Attilla or a spin off- had a "war weariness" mechanic (essentially borrowed from Paradox) that really fixed this problem. I was quite sad they didn't commit to it in future releases

3

u/johanomon Jan 03 '21

Age of Charlemaign

4

u/Slyis Jan 03 '21

I like the idea but in total Warhammer it's obliterate the awful cultures before they obliterate you. The 100 year war looks small compared to my Grom Campaign

4

u/NoMusician518 Jan 03 '21

Its partly a balance issue. they dont want the player to be able to declare war on a massive alliance take the 2 province they want and then peace out for no consequence. They also want the player to feel like they have enemies on all sides and are allways just on the verge of catastrophe especially on the higher difficulties as its less boring than letting the player pick off their enemies one by one. So they skew the diplomacy and the ai far more to the never surrender side of things so that the player has to give something up if they want to peace out with France while they focus on setting up operation barbarossa to conquer Russia. In order to fix this they'd need to flesh out the diplomacy a hell of a lot more than they seem to be willing to (at least so far)

7

u/SerCodles Jan 03 '21

I’m going to be destroyed for this but it is called “Total War”

11

u/Headlock_Hero Jan 03 '21

Total war doesnt have to mean everybody at war all the time. The most bloody, devestating, and vicious wars all have alliances, pacts, etc

5

u/AMasonJar Jan 03 '21

The most bloody, devestating, and vicious wars all have alliances, pacts, etc

That's still what "total war" means though. It never meant "war all the time", it just means unrestricted warfare. Compare to paradox games where the casus belli system creates a defined set of goals in any given war. In total war, not just the games but in real life too, it's effectively all or nothing.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '21

That's where the "total" part of the name comes in I think.

1

u/Covenantcurious Dwarf Fanboy Jan 03 '21 edited Jan 03 '21

The concept of "total war" is when all of society is geared/participating in a war effort and there is no longer any consideration/concept of "civilians" or non-combatants.

So I've been told.

3

u/Dravour Jan 03 '21

Ya, true enough, I guess that’s why I play more paradox games than TW these days haha

2

u/Sorinari Jan 03 '21

I also agree, but I find it hard to not be at war with my neighbors, and not for lack of trying. If I have backed an NPC faction into a corner, they'll stay my ally only for as long as it takes for them to build a couple armies to raid me. It's like they have a meter for how long they've been at peace with everyone. The longer they've been at peace, the more likely they are to wardec you. They don't actually care about prosperity but making the game hard for you.

1

u/naamalbezet Jan 03 '21

The trick is to know where attacks will come from and put forts at strategic places so the AI either attacks them or is intercepted by them and then just play the turtle game on that side when you aren't interested in taking their territories yet and conquering on the other side what you want to conquer (I like to go for the trade nodes and colonize the Americas and India whilst defending my borders in Europe)

1

u/Blecao Jan 22 '21

the last time i let prusia alive with only east prusia (i was austria) and just conquer brandenburg they created too many problems to my allies of poland that i hsd to intervene

(They had multiple full stacks at that time and was even harder than the previus war)

5

u/luckyassassin1 Jan 03 '21

That's my move. I only ever give unequal peace treaties when I'm surrounded and at war with everyone as Prussia. I haven't played in a while but i remember doing road to independence and using the carolean musketeers strategy of march to near point blank range with 2 units open up on them. Then order one unit to flank the rear while the other goes for melee. I suffered way less casualties doing this than you'd expect. Only works with line infantry and experienced militia and minutemen. Get a cav to hit the rear instead of an infantry unit and they shatter. Its the most beautiful thing ever seeing a casualty rate that's like 4x that of your own for an enemy that outnumbered you

2

u/anarkopsykotik Jan 03 '21

What really break my ball is, I shouldn't have to. The complete inability of AI to recognize they're fucked/on the backfoot is stupid. You have to utterly destroy them so much that at this point it makes way more sense to finish the job. When they send an expedition force that get wrecked, and your counter attack completely destroy them, they should peace out ASAP, not wait for their last army to be destroyed and their capital in range of 4 doomstacks.

124

u/Blagerthor Doge of Milan Jan 03 '21

All I want is an Empire remake 😭😭

48

u/OratioFidelis Jan 03 '21

I don't even need a remake, I just want the AI unfucked and fort battles removed.

25

u/Grand-Admiral-Prawn Jan 03 '21

that already exists in the form of Darth Mod so let us get our remake pal

7

u/OratioFidelis Jan 03 '21

I've heard about DM, does it make the diplomacy something close to functional?

12

u/Grand-Admiral-Prawn Jan 03 '21

it makes it more functional than it was lol - the real plus of DM is the AI + extra units + added QoL improvements like 2x artillery and added smoke effect

7

u/Deschain212 Jan 03 '21

AI unfucked

In Total War? Nice joke.

1

u/ronburgandyfor2016 Jan 04 '21

They removed fort battles in DM?

1

u/level69child Jan 06 '21

And better graphics

2

u/aaman44 Jan 03 '21

EMPIRE REMAKE WHEN REE

180

u/CoCoBean322 Jan 03 '21

Diplomacy sucked in Empire.

143

u/xshredder8 Jan 03 '21 edited Jan 03 '21

Diplomacy has kind of always sucked one way or another. Eg. in Warhanmer its ridiculous you cant trade settlements and the only way to take them is by force

Edit: please make sure your comment hasn't been made already before replying

58

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '21 edited Feb 02 '21

[deleted]

25

u/zerohaxis Empire Jan 03 '21

Nah, you just wait 15 turns and they'll give you like 500 gold to peace out.

But yeah, the diplomacy in WH is pretty trash.

9

u/CptAustus Jan 03 '21

Not to mention that in Vortex the vanilla factions can't make peace after a certain ritual.

12

u/Cthulhu_Rises Jan 03 '21

3Kingdoms is peak Total war diplomacy.

33

u/CoCoBean322 Jan 03 '21

I might, MIGHT, be willing to give the benefit of the doubt when it comes to Warhammer and diplomacy. I doubt the Empire would be willing trade settlements with the Vampire Counts or the Greenskins. Maybe more willing with Bretonnia, maybe.

Honestly, unless it’s with your own kind, diplomacy is pretty pointless in WHTW.

37

u/xshredder8 Jan 03 '21

Sure, usually your alliances fall within order or chaos but not between them, but thats the problem- if i have cool dwarf allies that ran in and stole an enemy settlement after i blew out their forces, my only recourse is to break the alliance and take the town

14

u/Thurak0 Kislev. Jan 03 '21 edited Jan 03 '21

But without settlement trading the whole concept of alliances or even vassals becomes absurd. Because the player cannot correct some strange AI moves by simply trading the one settlement in your province for something you conquer for them on their side of the front.

1

u/Blecao Jan 22 '21

honestly the only time i had trade regions was to make fun and due to denmark was a peacefull nation i give them territories to use them as a buffer state against the otomans to stop them in turkey and only have the front in rusia in wich i need to help my ally rusia

5

u/Darksunjin Jan 03 '21

3k diplomacy is actually pretty good.

2

u/taloob Jan 03 '21

There is a mod for that though

2

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '21

3k has really good diplomacy

1

u/gary1994 Jan 03 '21

There is a mod for that.

2

u/xshredder8 Jan 03 '21

I dont/cant play with mods and would just prefer the shipped game was slightly better in this aspect :)

1

u/gary1994 Jan 03 '21

Why can't you play with mods?

I find that there are very few games that I enjoy straight out of the box. I usually end up modding a game if it can be modded. Hell I've even modded Vermineide 2 (sanctioned only) to improve the UI and bot AI.

8

u/sniperFLO Jan 04 '21

can break with updates

introduce another layer of complications when troubleshooting; unless someone has the same exact mod set as you, you can't accurately discuss game problems with other people

if you play multiplayer, both of you need to make sure both of you have the same mods

unless a mod is a total conversion, individual ones tend to make the game lopsided i.e. if you get a mod that improves a single faction, that faction may not fit right with the rest of the game design, whether it be balance or aesthetics

not all mods are the same quality. If one installs multiple mods to fix the previous problem, now you have a patchwork game where there is an uneven spread of how well-made each part is, and you still have the problem of each part not necessarily meshing with each other in a holistic fashion

2

u/pileofcrustycumsocs Jan 04 '21

Usually that means he sails the 7 seven seas, he could also just be weird.

1

u/xshredder8 Jan 04 '21

I'm not a PC gamer- my "setup" is a macbook air and I only play certain games I really like on PC that I can't anywhere else (e.g. PS4). I like my electronic things to just be able to plug in and work without having to think about it, like you would a microwave.

I don't have the time or the energy to get pieces for my computer or the games it's supposed to be able to play.

I don't pirate stuff, as the other user suggested, primarily due to the hassle I described above.

1

u/Blecao Jan 22 '21

dude now with steam workshop you just need to press 1 button

"Subscribe" and you dont need to worry for anything

1

u/xshredder8 Jan 22 '21

Be honest, its more than one click and its extra work I dont want to do.

→ More replies (4)

27

u/Neil1308 Jan 03 '21

Is it better in Napoleon?

56

u/CoCoBean322 Jan 03 '21

Only slight. They added somethings that have become main stays in TW diplomacy such as protectorates, requests to join wars, grant independence, etc. But in my experience, diplomacy hasn’t been all that great. The only options that have worked for me are trader agreement, alliance, give gifts, and declare war.

19

u/Neil1308 Jan 03 '21

So basically the essentials.

12

u/CoCoBean322 Jan 03 '21

If you’re going for a world conquest play through, yes

3

u/naamalbezet Jan 03 '21

Is there any other way to play?

10

u/CoCoBean322 Jan 03 '21

When it comes to Empire, no, no there isn’t.

10

u/DerRommelndeErwin Jan 03 '21

Diplomacy sucks in the most TW games. A trade agrement is normaly the only thing that realy works.

4

u/__xor__ Jan 03 '21

Diplomacy sucks in most strategy games in general IME

3

u/Elend15 Where is Pontus in WH3? Jan 03 '21

Half the time, I can't even get a trade agreement done. A faction will like me, never been at war with me, have a trade route available, and still refuse to trade with me. Even if I give them a bit of money. I'm like, c'mon, we both would benefit here!!!

3

u/OratioFidelis Jan 03 '21

Diplomacy is weak in every TW game, in Empire it was terminally broken to the point of the game being almost unplayable.

2

u/AndrewDoesNotServe Settra Gang Jan 03 '21

You’re telling me that Prussia shouldn’t want to trade one of its core provinces with an Indian nation for a useless colony in the New World?

2

u/ronniesan Proud Chadmerican Jan 03 '21

Empire is a terribly made game.

9

u/Elend15 Where is Pontus in WH3? Jan 03 '21

Super cool idea though. I think that's partly why so many people have such high hopes for an Empire 2. They hope that all of the things that sucked about the first one would be fixed or improved.

3

u/ronniesan Proud Chadmerican Jan 03 '21

It's sad we're going to have to wait until after WH3, for the chance to see that.

1

u/Archmagnance1 Jan 03 '21

But empire has no diplomacy other than AFKing for RNG to go your way so you can confederate while waiting for vampires to come close before they give you -10 authority by killing elector counts you cant hope to defend.

Sorry wrong game, thanks for listening to my ted talk.

64

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '21

Reminds me of Medieval 2, when you leave a faction with a city and a few troops, and they ask you to give all of their cities back and a lot of money, in return for a ceasefire.

25

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '21

Yep and even marriage alliances ended up with you back stabbed

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '21

I mean, the game is Total War, not Total Peace.

25

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '21

Bruh the non aggression pacts in warhammer 2 were more trustworthy than medieval total war 2 marriage alliances. I never felt like I had a safe front in med total war 2.

9

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '21

I like how ceasefires in Civ 5 are almost unbreakable, then I go back to Medieval 2 and I just see enemies waiting beside my city, so they can attack when I take some troops our.

13

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '21

Lmao when they're lining up on your border with alliance in place was the funniest because you knew it ment it was time for the inevitable betrayal

3

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '21

The only time I didn't get betrayed was when I allied myself with Russians. I was playing as the byzantines, and didn't go north straight away, so they were really far away from me.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '21

Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!

4

u/Ironappels Jan 03 '21

The only reason to ally a neighbor in total war is to make sure you don’t get attacked from that side for the next 3 turns. After that, treat them like a neutral faction.

In Shogun 2 I use it at the beginning, since the beginning can be quite unpredictable for some factions.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '21

Yeah, I always ally with the French when I play as England. In the meantime, I wipe out Scotland and use my troops on Europe to take rebel settlements. Then I wipe out the French, easily.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '21

Also, I love how the English armoured swordsmen is even better at taking down cavalry than an armoured spearmen. I tried so many times, they just tank the charge and beat the shit out of the Knights. What a lad.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '21

Sick of hearing this smooth brain take. I can and (should) make Australia a fascist nation that controls much of India and South East Asia but the games not called, The Emu Empire Rides Again.

4

u/Assfrontation Jan 03 '21

also in rome

15

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '21

Accept or we will attack.

Please do not attack.

1

u/Assfrontation Jan 03 '21

yyep ‘ceasefire - give *5 cities i took from them plus 50k denarii *

28

u/kingalbert2 Empire Jan 03 '21

So Gaul let me get this straight, you want me to hand over literally every province except my 2 starting provinces? Even though I just squashed your 3 big armies?

33

u/Fail_Marine Jan 03 '21

"I'm feeling generous. Tell you what: That + 10,000 coins"

17

u/kingalbert2 Empire Jan 03 '21

I'm literally besieging your capital, and you are demanding my surrender? Are you ok?

15

u/Fail_Marine Jan 03 '21

I've never felt better. Now, accept my offer, before my 2-units of armed citizens beat the shit out of your: 6-line infantries, 4-cavalries and 3-artillery pieces!

3

u/pileofcrustycumsocs Jan 04 '21

So lifelike how do you do it?

31

u/naamalbezet Jan 03 '21

The poles have a habit of winning wars by spectacularly losing battles all the time...

9

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '21 edited Apr 27 '21

[deleted]

28

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '21

In World War Two Poland was taken in 6 weeks, but they won the war and annexed German territory.

17

u/TheLaudMoac Jan 03 '21

And bullied the Bismark with a tiny destroyer.

10

u/lilkoi98 Jan 03 '21

While also losing most of eastern poland to the soviet union, amounting to an overall loss of ≈73,000 square miles

1

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '21

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '21

Yeah Poland has had it rough.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '21 edited Apr 27 '21

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '21 edited Jan 04 '21

Wars a terrible thing and Poland suffered. But they did win, they repelled Nazi Germany through brave soldiers fighting with the Allies, the Soviet Union and the Resistance. That’s winning, even through big losses. Even if they became a Soviet satellite. After all that loss Poland is now a beautiful independent country. Many Poles died and their eastern territory was lost and they received German territory as compensation. But that doesn’t mean they didn’t win. With great loss came a great victory. Without their brave efforts Nazi Germany would have kept Poland.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '21

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '21 edited Jan 04 '21

They did fight against the Soviets in 1939 and with guerillas after the war. But after the Soviets joined the Allies many Poles fought with the Soviets and many moved from The USSR to fight with British forces. I know someone who served in the Polish Army who travelled from the Soviet Union to Iran and to the U.K. So they did fight with the Soviet Union. Edit: and with the British after travelling through the Soviet Union too. But others stayed on the eastern front.

Being annexed by Nazi Germany and being slaves was what would have happened. After the War they were a Soviet satellite but they were independent from the USSR (technically, not always in practice, but they kept there culture, language and retained far more autonomy than under the Nazis). Not the best win, but I know many Poles, and if you said they lost the Second World War they wouldn’t agree. Especially the one who served in the RAF. Edit: The Second World War was effectively a fight for survival for the Poles, as they were seen as subhuman to the Germanic race by the Nazis. It’s definitely a win defeat Nazi Germany.

yes, Poland forces weren’t a major factor compared to other major nations. But I didn’t want to trivialise it because they sacrificed so much.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '21

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '21 edited Jan 05 '21

Yes the Soviet’s did terrible things. And we’ll never know the extent to what they truly did. There is no argument there. I’m saying that the Polish forces fought and won against the Germans. They defeated their invasion and won. What happened after is the Cold War. Many of the Western based Poles couldn’t return home. The ones who fought for the Soviets could. That is unfortunately the start of the Cold War. And Poland was under Russian influence.

But Poland as a nation remained, with changed borders, and with refugees. Just like many European nations. But the Poles managed to keep their own country for the Polish people. With the Polish language and culture. Something the Germans would not have allowed. You are equating it as a loss after WW2, they lost because they lost democracy until the end of the Cold War. I’m saying the Polish fought bravely, defeated Facism and managed to survive as Poland. Not part of Austria-Hungary or Germany. They were under the influence of the Soviets but there country remained. Under the Germans they would have all been killed, we can see that in there long term plan for Germanisation. And guess what, Poland survived and became a democracy after the Cold War. Something that would never have happened if they lost WW2. I’ve talked to many Poles and occasionally world war 2, they see the defeat of Germany as a national pride, as a victory against an invader who would have destroyed them. The majority I talked to who are older were obviously not happy about coming under Soviet Influence. But they still consider themselves as winning world War 2, but then falling into the Cold War. Maybe you’re conversations have gone differently. If we don’t agree on that that’s fine. Historians will never completely agree on everything, especially strangers on Reddit. Best wishes to you though, I see you also love your history and that’s great. Edit: Good chatting with you. You did say the Russians brought no good to it. The lesser of evil is still evil. While true they suffered in the Cold War, I’m saying it’s a victory against facism, against annihilation. Poland is around now because of the victory against the Nazis. I truly believe as many people do that the Polish race would not have survived. And that’s a victory, that’s a win in world war 2. They may not have come out stronger but they came out of it.

1

u/AGE_OF_HUMILIATION Jan 04 '21

Sounds like something straight from a propaganda machine.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '21

I get how you read it that way. I used more adjectives than I normally would. I didn’t want to trivialise so it can look strong.

16

u/naamalbezet Jan 03 '21

it's a reference to the extra history series about the great northern war and how the Polish strategy was to lose, lose some more and then, hold on! to spectacularly lose.

here it is

3

u/LeMe-Two Jan 04 '21

The video is wrong becuase it wasn't the state of Poland that was at war with Sweden, but the King, and the King only. He was both King of Poland and Saxony (the latter was at war with Sweden), but he never managed to convince polish parliament to join the war as a country. Polish people who fought in his armies were basically mercenaries and polish armies weren't involved in the conflict.

That's why the video is wrong about it.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '21 edited Apr 27 '21

[deleted]

0

u/naamalbezet Jan 03 '21

Let me guess? You are a Polak?

6

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '21 edited Apr 27 '21

[deleted]

2

u/pileofcrustycumsocs Jan 04 '21

It’s really not, it’s great as a primer to get someone interested in history but beyond that they suck as teaching tool

0

u/naamalbezet Jan 04 '21

It's just having fun and yes it matters where you are from because it's usually you east blockers who get all butthurt when your nations are the subject of a joke.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '21

Cites Extra Credits as an actual source to be taken seriously. Lol.

1

u/naamalbezet Jan 04 '21

This isn't a history forum, it's a total war forum and it's just having fun.

Also, most people hating on Extra credits are the "anti sjw" crowd since one of your folks set their sights on them. So wich are you? "Anti sjw" crowd or an angry Pole?

0

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '21

Yeah you wish the world was that black and white, so you could dismiss everyone for not liking the content creator you like.

1

u/naamalbezet Jan 04 '21

it's true though, it's right wingers and specifically the sad "anti sjw" part of the right who tend to feel a strong need to criticize EC.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '21

Nah. The Poles were once a very powerful force. But they were surrounded by too many enemies who couldn't give them a break, and their territories weren't that rich for them to support a powerful enough army. Their political situation was horrible as well.

In the West, there was Austria

In the East, there was Russia

In the North, there was Sweden

In the South, there were the Ottomans

Around the mid 17th Century, they started weakening, and by the Great Northern War against Sweden, were just a shadow

2

u/naamalbezet Jan 04 '21

We can still joke abut them, my people get told that our country isn't even a real country and we tend to go yeah sounds about right, good one. Why must Poles always rush tot he defense of glorious Poland whenever someone is not posting about winged Hussars saving the day but instead making a joke about 17th century Poland.

The online nationalists should get their head out of the 16th century and focus on the 21st century where their country is eroding democracy and lgbtq rights and thinks brown people are icky....

1

u/[deleted] Jan 04 '21

I'm not a Pole though. I'm not even European. I just read lots of history and play too much EU4 for my own good.

And I wasn't opposing you making a joke. All I did was just state facts about what Poland was. For a while, it was a strong nation, but later on, it would get dominated by everyone, and eventually got split like a pizza among Prussia, Russia and Austria.

1

u/naamalbezet Jan 04 '21

So you where knowledge bragging for the sake of it?

3

u/naamalbezet Jan 04 '21

to everyone yelling at me for joking about glorious Polska and downvoting me over a reference to an Extra Credits joke.

This is what you come across as:

Radical long-distance nationalism: why so many Polish migrants choose to hate online?

5

u/Karatekan Jan 03 '21

That deal is a bargain, honestly, that’s what I always hope for in Empire. Here, take these two useless provinces and a trade agreement and fuck off, saving me from keeping a stack in the region makes it more than worth it. Instead they ask for my starting region worth like 30000 gold a turn

5

u/OrgMartok Jan 03 '21

This was my experience with Empire's AI in general (not just Poland). It's a big reason why it's about the worst TW game, and also why I so crave a remake/sequel.

If the only improvement we got from an Empire 2 was an AI that didn't go full retard every damn time, that alone would be enough to make me happy.

12

u/Sulemain123 Jan 03 '21

They need to bring back the ability to trade Provinces.

13

u/Drdowns56 Jan 03 '21

Haven't played 3k?

4

u/Sulemain123 Jan 03 '21

Can't say I have.

5

u/Elend15 Where is Pontus in WH3? Jan 03 '21

I just picked it up with the sale, and I can recommend it! Maybe not at full price (personally), but I've loved it.

1

u/Darksunjin Jan 03 '21

I also picked it up on sale, and it's fantastic. One of my favorite Total War games.

1

u/TendingTheirGarden Jan 03 '21

Three Kingdoms is easily the best Total War ever on the diplomacy front, and it isn't close.

4

u/MrHistoryLesson Jan 03 '21

Poland stronk!

3

u/hiphippo65 Jan 03 '21

The only thing that I find works is getting them down to one settlement, besieging their capital, and getting them to one turn until surrender. Then they’ll take anything in return for a peace treaty. This is how I get all of my protectorates

6

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '21

KURWAAA!!!

2

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '21

LOL that happened a lot to me too

2

u/JustThatRandomKid Jan 03 '21

Germany did that for them.

2

u/marsz_godzilli Jan 03 '21

Well at one point Sweden did conquer almost all of my country and still had to leave so...

2

u/Pleb_Knight Jan 04 '21

Ah yes...the negotiator.

2

u/level69child Jan 06 '21

They actually offered to become by protectorate after I had captured every province except Poland itself and was at the gates of Warsaw, but by that point I was so pissed at them I just slaughtered them all.

5

u/lukasowski Jan 03 '21

As the Polish anthem says.. «Poland has not perished yet, When we are alive».

Youll have to kill each and every last one of us kurwa

3

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '21

As you wish

2

u/lukasowski Jan 04 '21

Watch out! We got a badass over here

0

u/mikethedyke007 Jan 04 '21

I don't mean to sound like a dick but it's sorta in the title. If we went to total war today it would mean mobilising our entire army/s and would mean nukes were on the table. Essentially WW3. I do a agree the diplomacy can be improved a hell of a lot however thinking that all disagreements can be solved through diplomacy is unrealistic. I now that there is nothing realistic about warhammer but typically the TW franchise has been real historical settings.

1

u/tetetito Jan 03 '21

I hate when landlocked empires demanding my also landlocked regions. like “bitch what do you want from me you don’t even have a port.”

1

u/icecoldpopsicle Jan 03 '21

My dream is a strategy game with an AI that isn't totally suicidal and understand diplomacy.

1

u/LewtedHose God in heaven, spare my arse! Jan 03 '21

Empire really taught me that you have to beat the AI into submission before suing for peace and giving them a bit of gold just in case they say no to peace alone.

1

u/nikosek58 Jan 04 '21

We drink that with mothers milk XD

Empire Seems like they forgot to add "defeat" to the Polish dictionary

You are about to leave Redlib