Total War

Field of Glory: Empires is a grand strategy game in which you will have to move in an intricate and living tapestry of nations and tribes, each one with their distinctive culture.
Set in Europe and in the Mediterranean Area during the Classical Age, experience what truly means to manage an Empire.

Moderator: Pocus

Post Reply
Gray Fox
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 654
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:02 am

Total War

Post by Gray Fox »

As you may know, several European nations for hundreds of years used merchants to gain a foothold in new markets. Then they used their economic power to buy off local rulers and expand their holdings. Eventually, any provocation was used as an excuse to send in the troops and acquire a colony. That's what happened with England in India, France in Indochina and the Netherlands in Indonesia. So that is the RW strategy I used with Burgundi.

After spending the first eighty turns building an army and developing the one starting island region, I conquered the islands of that province and the regions of present day Denmark. I developed these and shifted the citizens to culture. However, after reaching 1000 culture in a region to generate one Legacy per turn, I again shifted them all to commerce. I was making several hundred units of money each turn. I used my cash and resources to win the Picts over as my Client State and invaded lower England. While I was conquering the two tribes there with the aid of my CS, I used diplomacy again to gain Amiable relations with Rome. I then offered to trade for Italia Superior (Latium). They refused several times, but after offering a fortune, the deal was closed. I built a Battlegroup to secure the province and my force in England took Hibernia.

The problem for me was that Antigonids was quickly winning the game with 400+ Legacy per turn. So I won their trust diplomatically and this time traded for three of their Objective regions, one of which was their capital Lycia. When they agreed, this gave them aging tokens and they moved their capital to the far off former Mauryan capital. A few turns later rebels took their capital and the Antigonids faction vanished. Finally, I traded Rome the regions I got from Antigonids for southern Italy, the province of Italia Inferior. Then I eventually traded what was left of Rome into a CS. So without fighting a battle, Burgundi has destroyed the Antigonids and captured Rome.

As Clausewitz wrote, the military, diplomatic and economic tools of the State are combined to force one's Will upon your opponent.

Here's a saved game:

https://we.tl/t-CoqFnTJ3Oq
Attachments
Burgundi.jpg
Burgundi.jpg (690.58 KiB) Viewed 2706 times
For new players: Grand Strategy AAR and Steam Guide: Tips for new players
Samstra's Trade guide: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1805684085
Blathergut
Field Marshal - Elefant
Field Marshal - Elefant
Posts: 5875
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:44 am
Location: Southern Ontario, Canada

Re: Total War

Post by Blathergut »

I enjoyed playing Burgundi. It was an interesting area up there. Maybe I'll try it again.
Gray Fox
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 654
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:02 am

Re: Total War

Post by Gray Fox »

It was my first play through as Burgundi. You're welcome to look at the save game, if you have any advice for me. Good luck!
For new players: Grand Strategy AAR and Steam Guide: Tips for new players
Samstra's Trade guide: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1805684085
david.brewster
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2020 2:44 pm

Re: Total War

Post by david.brewster »

Well played. I do think it's a major weakness of the game's diplomacy that you can so easily buy key regions off of the AI, often for merely two or three times that region's per turn income. In my first campaign, I destroyed Macedonia by gradually buying all of their cities. I do this too, so no shade, but this is probably more of an exploit of bad diplomatic AI than some clever Clausewitzian ploy. :twisted:
poesel71
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2019 10:31 am

Re: Total War

Post by poesel71 »

Yes, the AI shouldn't sell any region from the capital province. Additionally some nations should have some hard coded 'no-sell' provinces (e.g. the Italias for Rome).

Exemption: regions that are war controlled by an enemy. Those can be sold else some peace treaties would be impossible (e.g. you couldn't conquer Cisalpina without destroying Rome completely)
Gray Fox
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 654
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:02 am

Re: Total War

Post by Gray Fox »

Ancient autocracies allowed a few individuals/families/groups to control whole nations. Foreign money only had to influence these to win that control. My desire was to experiment with an extreme, but historically accurate, application of the new diplomacy rules and to post my results. Previously, the path to victory involved destroying a less capable AI military on the glorious field of battle, drawing slaves from every conquered region and if they didn't like it, slaughtering all rebels. Little Burgundi acquired mighty Rome without doing any of that. To be absolutely clear, you think that this style of play should obviously be restricted?
For new players: Grand Strategy AAR and Steam Guide: Tips for new players
Samstra's Trade guide: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1805684085
MarkShot
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 397
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 7:15 pm

Re: Total War

Post by MarkShot »

The whole problem is one of INTENT. Pocus is not going code a neural net so that diplomacy understands INTENT.

So there is a given ACTION1, but there could be many reasons for doing so. The real question is: what is the INTENT of ACTION1?

My example of manipulating diplomacy. I went to war against Macedonia which I had to because they were the LEGACY leader, and they were opening the lead continuously. However, I was losing the war badly.

So, I offered peace to become a client, and they gladly said yes. I got all my lands back. I disbanded my army and put all my focus into development. I let fear of Macedonia keep Rome safe. I failed to make any effort to challenge my lord's enemies. Finally, I built up the Navy and the Army. I renounced my client status; declared war; beat Macedonia; and absorbed them.

Now, if this was MP, even a dimwit would have clearly seen what I was up to, but how does EMPIRES.EXE see that? There was no sense of intent. Macedonia even patted me on the back for mobilizing so that I could be a stronger ally.

Pocus can only close exploits, but often in doing so it will be arbitrary and unrealistic. It all gets back to INTENT.

Perhaps, this why the AI in RTW1 was so aggressive. It was assumed that the intent of any bordering nation was expansion (as the game was, of course, Total War). If you make Empires behave like that, the balance will lean further towards map painting.
Gray Fox
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 654
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:02 am

Re: Total War

Post by Gray Fox »

In my experience, MP is strictly for fun. You establish House Rules, like all the big fish don't eat the little or no backstabbing, etc. Basically, Poker Night with FOG:E. Single player is the player against a machine. Pocus already replied on Steam that he would make it harder to do this. I can't tell you how much they rebalanced the game as we test drove the crap out of the Beta. Either this strategy is historically valid or it should be restricted. It's not a sin to figure something out, if it makes the game better.
For new players: Grand Strategy AAR and Steam Guide: Tips for new players
Samstra's Trade guide: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1805684085
storeylf
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:27 pm

Re: Total War

Post by storeylf »

Gray Fox wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 12:54 pm Ancient autocracies allowed a few individuals/families/groups to control whole nations. Foreign money only had to influence these to win that control. My desire was to experiment with an extreme, but historically accurate,
Small numbers of people had major influence, but they were seldom in a position to ignore a much larger group of people too much. I'm struggling to think, but can you point me at the historical accuracy you are thinking of (as in some smallish backwater nation buying out the most powerful nations core provinces in such a way?). As in antiquity, not the more modern buying alaska (which is not exactly core province of the prior owner).

I can sort of see some deal for backwater location or island, but not major regions that are objectives not so much.
Gray Fox
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 654
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:02 am

Re: Total War

Post by Gray Fox »

England was a small backwater group that became a nation and then acquired India. They did it as I posted, opening markets, expanding their influence and then using armies to subdue the people. France in Indochina and the Netherlands in indonesia followed the same pattern. Both were small nations that dominated millions of people. All of these nations also did this to China. The peoples always resisted, but the resistance was seldom organized, until the last century. Read this to get some historical accuracy:

https://www.amazon.com/War-Shadows-Guer ... 0595225942
For new players: Grand Strategy AAR and Steam Guide: Tips for new players
Samstra's Trade guide: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1805684085
storeylf
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:27 pm

Re: Total War

Post by storeylf »

We are on different pages here, ignoring the antiquity part even. That isn't remotely what I thought you were talking of - neither is what I see as the diplomacy system.

Those cases involved the biggest powers of the day with both military muscle to beat down opposition directly playing off all sorts of (relatively) minor players locally to slowly establish dominance. The fact that the locals did not acqueise is what I mean though. It sounded more like you just sat at home and threw money at the biggest powers to buy them out. It is extremely doubtful either portugal, Uk etc could have done what you mention without the large and powerful armies (even if private) actually already present to back up their 'demands', and that seemed to be missing from your playthrough unless I misunderstood.

Going back to antiquity do you have examples?
Gray Fox
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 654
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:02 am

Re: Total War

Post by Gray Fox »

Sure, but history is evolving. The book, which I've read several times, has references, but ancient cultures wrote propaganda, not unbiased accounts of their imperialism. I think historians would agree that the Europeans did not invent the tools of imperialism. The Byzantines used silver to pay off Attila. He used the money to influence the other tribes to join him. The Romans paid tribes in Spain to join their side against the more aggressive tribes.

No one is asking Pocus to show how trade existed in ancient times. Trade is a weapon. Nations that produce raw goods are always poorer than the nations who use those goods to make finished products. A rich nation wants the poor nation's goods and wants to sell their finished goods in those markets. They need access to harbors, warehouses and approving, greedy rulers to do that. The Phoenicians had small trading colonies all over the Mediterranean. The next thing the locals knew, "Welcome to Carthage!".

P.S. I did have a saved game in my post.
For new players: Grand Strategy AAR and Steam Guide: Tips for new players
Samstra's Trade guide: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1805684085
storeylf
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:27 pm

Re: Total War

Post by storeylf »

Funny you say that, the India thing is what I was seeing as just being trade range and trade accumen to start with. Progressing to all war and battles as well client states etc. But not diplomacy in the sense you talk of. The bribing people to fight or the private armies of the EIC could just be mercenaries or using diplomacy to request provincial troops etc. There's a difference between money = non aggression pack, or go look elsewhere and just outright buying whole swatches of empires.

Some of what you are talking about would be more like trading (via normal trade rules) gives a bonus to future diplomatic requests IMO (maybe it already does).

I have a hard time with a logic that says even a rich state like yours could have just bought the 2 major empires in your game like you seem to indicate. Yet at the same time you could never be bought out should you refuse (will the ai even ask). Does it matter, maybe not - as a SP player I can ignore it, but it makes me question how far from historically accurate it is, and logic behind the diplomacy engine which could put me off. I don't see it as historical at all in those scenarios. I can see it being allowed to 'sell' provinces, but buying Italy off a Strong Rome should in practise just be non feasible due to the modifiers. Equally I can see an AI being able to buy off you (with no player choice- you are not the emperor!).

I wasn't asking Pocus anything, I was querying and still disagreeing with your statement that your game used an historically accurate diplomacy engine to buy core imperial provinces.
Gray Fox
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 654
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:02 am

Re: Total War

Post by Gray Fox »

So specifically, you say it is illogical for a great empire in antiquity to sell off it's "core" provinces.

I have pointed out historically, Europeans did exactly that to China and India, which were great empires. Traders used their nation's wealth to open markets, gain footholds and form colonies, like Hong Kong. When the locals finally objected, armies sealed the deal. The governing of the territory had already changed hands. The Europeans did not invent these tactics.

I explained that Phoenicians in antiquity formed trade outposts that became colonies and eventually Carthage. This did not happen in a vacuum. The locals may not have had a huge empire, but they had rulers that were usurped.

Machiavelli based the philosophy of his book, The Prince on ancient Rome. History does not accurately record what exact machinations occurred when territory exchanged hands in antiquity.

We do know that Rome eventually gave large land areas to barbarians to settle in return for military service. In my game, Burgundi traded military units for service, manpower/slaves, money and metal in return for those provinces. In most of Africa and Asia, the national Capital was lost because the country was ruled by foreigners. War, diplomacy and trade have been used throughout history as I have used them in the game. If you absolutely don't want single players trading for capital provinces, then I am sure that the game can be changed to make that happen.
For new players: Grand Strategy AAR and Steam Guide: Tips for new players
Samstra's Trade guide: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1805684085
storeylf
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:27 pm

Re: Total War

Post by storeylf »

The game should reflect the diplomatic and political realities of the era not that of 1400+ years later, but never the less in none of those cases did the 'buyer' simply sit back miles away and chuck 'money' at the other side, nor was the selling side more powerful than them.

Tyre and that the phoenicians were the dominant trade city/culture of the era, with no real established 'states' in the western med. They established trading posts (high range and accumen, not diplomacy) and then over a period of centuries their more advanced civilisation and culture became dominant with in those localities (population movement and culture conversion). Carthage was established, what, some 500 years before the game starts. They didn't just send a diplomat over to some major power and offer to buy the region over a few turns.

The Europeans did not send a diplomat over and throw money at the Indians or Chinese, nor Americans. They established trade posts to trade from (range and accumen) and then over time wanted more control. Population movements (Americas especially) and military took care of the pesky locals.

In India the greed of the EIC led to wars with local rulers, some of which they lost, and some of which drew in the National govt. To start with it was the Brits bowing to the Mughals who were a great empire at the time. Only after the Mughal empire disintegrated and started to fracture into individual princedoms in the 1700s did the Brits really expand and then they made client states etc and waging war against others. It wasn't for another 100 years in the 1800s until the Brits really took control of india more directly. I hardly see that as buying India via diplomacy over few turns. The brits were taking advantage of a power vacuum and playing off a whole range of 'minor' states and other external actors with force if need be. Neither did it happen fast, and neither for a long time was it a form of state strategy to eventually control India.

Ditto in China, they didn't sell, they were forced to hand increasing control at the point of guns, an out dated empire unable to resist the far more powerful ones.

Rome did not sell. Partly it was general population migration and culture (not unlike Phoenicians) and partly due to simple military might- the Romans simply had no realistic chance of resistance between plague and disasters like Adrianople. Like India and China it was the once great empire forced by more powerful enemy forces, who could actually back it up with Swords, on the door step. In many cases the barbarians acquired land as a peace treaty if anything not simple diplomacy (E.g the Goths); in other the constant raids simple wore down the weakening Roman empire in places like Gaul etc.

I fail to see any of them as in any way equivalent to the current cede province via 'just' diplomacy. In each of your cases a powerful external actor used raw on the door step power to 'persuade' the other side who knew they had no chance to fight back (or lost when they did), it may have been in exchange for something, but the great empires didn't simply hand over core provinces just like that.

In your game would you say that Rome was so desperate for men and money that it needed to allow you in, or was it just a simplistic valuation in some cede province formula? Were you parked with overwhelming force just outside?

At the end of the day, if you can see it as a combo of factors that meets your views then I can't argue. I can merely disagree that the diplomacy engine provides historical accuracy in that scenario.
david.brewster
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2020 2:44 pm

Re: Total War

Post by david.brewster »

Gray Fox wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 12:54 pm Ancient autocracies allowed a few individuals/families/groups to control whole nations. Foreign money only had to influence these to win that control.
What you are describing sounds great, but that's not quite what happens in-game right now. There are no mechanic for winning over local nobles and then using that relationship to seize a chunk of a country. Instead, you only need to offer the AI a small amount of money and they will hand over pretty much any region.

Gift - > Offer cooperation - > relations hit 25 - > buy all their regions, even their capitol, as long as you have the money. There's no potential for anything to go wrong and it will pretty much always work.
Gray Fox wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 12:54 pm My desire was to experiment with an extreme, but historically accurate, application of the new diplomacy rules and to post my results. Previously, the path to victory involved destroying a less capable AI military on the glorious field of battle, drawing slaves from every conquered region and if they didn't like it, slaughtering all rebels. Little Burgundi acquired mighty Rome without doing any of that. To be absolutely clear, you think that this style of play should obviously be restricted?
I think it should be fleshed out more, and harder to do. I like that you can win the game through economic power but it needs to be more involved and it harder to pull off.

Imagine, for instance, if winning over provinces involved not only money, but also some mechanic where you had to befriend locals in that region.

- Edit -
Gray Fox wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 12:54 pm have pointed out historically, Europeans did exactly that to China and India, which were great empires. Traders used their nation's wealth to open markets, gain footholds and form colonies, like Hong Kong. When the locals finally objected, armies sealed the deal. The governing of the territory had already changed hands. The Europeans did not invent these tactics.
This example is way out of the timeline, but the European colonization of India and China involved far more than just throwing money around.

- Edit Again -

Ok, let me also lay another solution that would make me much happier with the current system. Make it so that the AI will only sell its provinces when under stress. So maybe - Rome will sell you Spain, but only if they're bankrupt; or they'll sell you a city in Germania, but only if you're offering Rome manpower while Rome is at war, losing the war, and out of manpower. This would make it more interesting because you could do stuff like manipulate another empire into a bad situation, then make them sell their cities in return for bailing them out.
Morbio
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2164
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:40 pm
Location: Wokingham, UK

Re: Total War

Post by Morbio »

david.brewster wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 9:03 pm Well played. I do think it's a major weakness of the game's diplomacy that you can so easily buy key regions off of the AI, often for merely two or three times that region's per turn income. In my first campaign, I destroyed Macedonia by gradually buying all of their cities. I do this too, so no shade, but this is probably more of an exploit of bad diplomatic AI than some clever Clausewitzian ploy. :twisted:
I've done this successfully too. Dacia had one of the biggest territories and land, it had absorbed most of the Greek states. I simply gave them cash, initially to stop them attacking and absorbing me, then to stop them raiding me, then I found that I could buy neighbouring regions, often with massively surplus manpower, to complete provinces and then it was to grow... and soon they collapsed into decadence and civil war, whilst I went into an endless glorious empire cycle that means I kept producing gold, manpower and metal at a rate that allows me to slowly buy all my neighbours' land without worrying about resistance from the population.

Buying regions does currently seem over-powered. It seems to value the offering based on the percentage of the buyer's current gold/manpower/metal rather than the strategic value of the region, it's current loyalty and it's current production capability.

Example: A border region, with a rebellious nature that isn't producing much wealth should have a lower price and a higher chance of sale compared to a stable, region in a province, that is knocking out lots of wealth and legacy.

EDIT:

I also agree that the value of the offer needs to be in consideration of the need for the resource. Why would a wealthy empire sell it's land for some gold? If it is struggling to pay its troops then it would consider it. If it needs manpower to help with a losing war, then it would consider it...
Gray Fox
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 654
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:02 am

Re: Total War

Post by Gray Fox »

When Rome gave me Italia Superior, I had offered them 6 times their total assets on hand, AND, 700 manpower, AND 500 metal AND 4 warbands. Rome was bleeding money, manpower and metal, they were Tier II and had one aging token. I posted that no one has asked what a trade actually is. You all seem to think that my ambassador wrote a check and stole a "core" province from the premier empire in the game. Rome was a mess. Maybe...I armed one faction in Rome that took over and the price tag was Italia Superior. Greed, politics, power and wealth makes this work throughout history. However, Pocus said he will make this more difficult, so thanks for your opinions.
For new players: Grand Strategy AAR and Steam Guide: Tips for new players
Samstra's Trade guide: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1805684085
david.brewster
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2020 2:44 pm

Re: Total War

Post by david.brewster »

Gray Fox wrote: Fri May 22, 2020 12:42 am When Rome gave me Italia Superior, I had offered them 6 times their total assets on hand, AND, 700 manpower, AND 500 metal AND 4 warbands. Rome was bleeding money, manpower and metal, they were Tier II and had one aging token. However, Pocus said he will make this more difficult, so thanks for your opinions.
Perhaps, in your case, Rome was in fact in dire trouble and needed your help. But mechanically you could have done the same thing even if Rome was doing fine. Like in my Achaia game, Macedon was richer then me, more stable, and had a better army, but I still just bought their regions one by one until I destroyed them.
Gray Fox wrote: Fri May 22, 2020 12:42 am I posted that no one has asked what a trade actually is. You all seem to think that my ambassador wrote a check and stole a "core" province from the premier empire in the game. Rome was a mess. Maybe...I armed one faction in Rome that took over and the price tag was Italia Superior. Greed, politics, power and wealth makes this work throughout history.
But mechanically, that is 100% what is happening. You wrote them a check and got a province. The game doesn't check anything else - there is no influence from parties, politics, or the overall situation of the country. If there is and I missed it, then the effect is so small that it is not noticeable. I understand that you are roleplaying and that is great - I try to do the same thing in my campaigns.

Here is something else that would make me much happier - make it so that you can only buy regions from a country that is decadent. I like the idea you have of region trading - it's like an old empire being picked apart by merchants. I just want that reflected in the game somehow, not just writing checks to get regions from anybody because the AI is too dumb.
Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory: Empires”