Settlement Transferred!!!! Are you kidding?

[BuzzSaw]

In what reality is this a good mechanic. Someone actually sat down and thought to themselves, you know what would be a really good, lets make it so that the AI can just randomly without warning transfer one of your settlements. Apparently any settlement to. What's more, they don't even tell you who's doing it other than its one of the feckin Tzeentch clans. Only option I can see is wipe all of them out which I would if they were right beside me but they are not.

Sorry for the rant but its frickin annoying. Anyone know a way in which this can be stopped?

[matlajs]

Professor H. Farnsworth původně napsal:

matlajs původně napsal:

I have actually other issue with this and with change of ways overall.
For 1. It should have diplomatic impact. Right now AI does that mindlessly because it doesn't realise it is something wrong. But aswell as AI wouldn't go to raid my territory if I was in power ranking on top, they shouldn't provoke with this either.

Also I don't like the price of many other changes o.w. like those which break alliances or furnace a war between factions. Their conditions are just mad and can't be met. Also given, that breaking a war between 2 order factions would lead into ceasefire after 10 turns and alliance right after, since they tend to love each other and ignore even in war.

Madonna mia....
"iT iS wRoNg FoR tEh Ai To UsE tHiS". No it's not. You wouldn't bat an eye swapping a settlement, breaking up alliances and having factions declare war on each other nilly willy. It is what Tzeentch is all about - whether it is the AI or the player. Should it have diplomatic consequences, probably. It usually does have consequences.

I've successfully broken up alliances, I broke up the Empire and Kislevs military alliance and then I had them declare war on each other the next turn. Went swell. Empire tried to reach me and got annihilated by Kislev going through their lands which served to weaken both Kislev and the Empire.
For you see. If you can spread enough corruption in their territory (which is fairly easy ones portals pop in to say hi) then these things become very cheap to use, not to mention that a perfectly balanced Tzeentch faction can rake in hundreds of tomes a turn just by having the right buildings.
Pop down them portals and watch your Changing of the Ways get cheap.

Haven't said a single word against what you wrote. I don't mind them to do it, although i would also appreciate to know which faction did it.

For breaking alliances/making war - I would really like to use that , but they are insanely expensive and I play with rifts off. Also it is a preview of sort how this gonna work in IE without rifts - too expensive. Rather use long cooldown than this- like clan eshin perhaps.

[matlajs]

Ainess původně napsal:

matlajs původně napsal:

Ok i mean they wouldn't do it back in wh2 and certainly not while there is at least something sitting in my city while being above them in power ranking. In wh3 they swapp a city because it causes nothing in terms of diplo. points.
In short they wouldn't dare to piss off someone who could mathematically wipe them out. They had some self preservation.

Uhm, no, they did not lol. I would get raided by every lowly ♥♥♥♥ on the map when being 100x stronger than them back in TW2. The AI´s lack of care for whether they piss you off and get themselves wiped out is very much on brand.

Don't know how much you have played that but we certainly do have very different experience.

[Sauske]

matlajs původně napsal:

Ainess původně napsal:

Uhm, no, they did not lol. I would get raided by every lowly ♥♥♥♥ on the map when being 100x stronger than them back in TW2. The AI´s lack of care for whether they piss you off and get themselves wiped out is very much on brand.

Don't know how much you have played that but we certainly do have very different experience.

I have 2500 hours in TW2. The new "get the ♥♥♥♥ off my lawn" button was implemented exactly because of this. The AI was braindead, suicidal, and would drag you down diplomatically with their stupidity. And it still kinda is, but now we have a button for it.

[matlajs]

Ainess původně napsal:

matlajs původně napsal:

Don't know how much you have played that but we certainly do have very different experience.

I have 2500 hours in TW2. The new "get the ♥♥♥♥ off my lawn" button was implemented exactly because of this. The AI was braindead, suicidal, and would drag you down diplomatically with their stupidity. And it still kinda is, but now we have a button for it.

Can't remember a single time where a faction I had at least 1 pact with and + relationships did that.

You had to be very bad neighbour and let wrong guys alive.

[Sauske]

matlajs původně napsal:

Ainess původně napsal:

I have 2500 hours in TW2. The new "get the ♥♥♥♥ off my lawn" button was implemented exactly because of this. The AI was braindead, suicidal, and would drag you down diplomatically with their stupidity. And it still kinda is, but now we have a button for it.

Can't remember a single time where a faction I had at least 1 pact with and + relationships did that.

You had to be very bad neighbour and let wrong guys alive.

Idk, did you ever play as Arkhan? You started out with a NaP with beastmen in your territory, which was scripted to have been created on that turn as well, meaning you would not be able to cancel it without diplomatic penalties for 10 turns, and the beastmen would be raiding you from the get-go pretty much.

Does a rogue army spawn in the middle of your vast empire? Immediately going to raid you, and if possible, take a settlement from you.

Neutral army that wants money or to prevent attrition by raiding you, despite you being many times more powerful? Sure thing, all the time.

[SpeaksTooFast]

matlajs původně napsal:

Can't remember a single time where a faction I had at least 1 pact with and + relationships did that.

You had to be very bad neighbour and let wrong guys alive.

I think it was border princes and I was playing Gelt but this was a while ago and I don't remember the exact factions. What I do remember it that within 2 turns of establishing non-aggression or trade deals they decided to start raiding me.

This meant that I had 8-9 turns of cooldown before I could even cancel the pact I just made without penalty.

It definitely was a thing that happened in game 2.

[matlajs]

Ainess původně napsal:

matlajs původně napsal:

Can't remember a single time where a faction I had at least 1 pact with and + relationships did that.

You had to be very bad neighbour and let wrong guys alive.

Idk, did you ever play as Arkhan? You started out with a NaP with beastmen in your territory, which was scripted to have been created on that turn as well, meaning you would not be able to cancel it without diplomatic penalties for 10 turns, and the beastmen would be raiding you from the get-go pretty much.

Does a rogue army spawn in the middle of your vast empire? Immediately going to raid you, and if possible, take a settlement from you.

Neutral army that wants money or to prevent attrition by raiding you, despite you being many times more powerful? Sure thing, all the time.

You are giving really bad example though. Never had a problem with beastmen raiding me as Arkhan but their corruption was a problem. Sometimes it took fairly long before Brets took them out. But they usually bounced to Baron Thegan who killed them in my games.

As for rogues, yes they had always different AI setting- more like guerilla anti goliath because you already started with penalty for being big.

My very original concern in context of this was, that most of settled factions weaker than a player with pacts in place and good relations didn't do that. Excluding rogues, beastmen and Norsca primates. There were some power distinction in which they didn't dare to cause aggression which would lead to - diplo. points.

Switch settlement doesn't cause that so it isn't even counted as aggression, which I don't agree with and imo could use a change.

[Professor H. Farnsworth]

matlajs původně napsal:

Ainess původně napsal:

Idk, did you ever play as Arkhan? You started out with a NaP with beastmen in your territory, which was scripted to have been created on that turn as well, meaning you would not be able to cancel it without diplomatic penalties for 10 turns, and the beastmen would be raiding you from the get-go pretty much.

Does a rogue army spawn in the middle of your vast empire? Immediately going to raid you, and if possible, take a settlement from you.

Neutral army that wants money or to prevent attrition by raiding you, despite you being many times more powerful? Sure thing, all the time.

You are giving really bad example though. Never had a problem with beastmen raiding me as Arkhan but their corruption was a problem. Sometimes it took fairly long before Brets took them out. But they usually bounced to Baron Thegan who killed them in my games.

As for rogues, yes they had always different AI setting- more like guerilla anti goliath because you already started with penalty for being big.

My very original concern in context of this was, that most of settled factions weaker than a player with pacts in place and good relations didn't do that. Excluding rogues, beastmen and Norsca primates. There were some power distinction in which they didn't dare to cause aggression which would lead to - diplo. points.

Switch settlement doesn't cause that so it isn't even counted as aggression, which I don't agree with and imo could use a change.

It was an excellent example, just because it doesn't agree with your perception, does not make it any less of an excellent example.

I can't count the amount of times that I have seen the AI raid through my territories.
They absolutely did, so acting as if it was non-existing is kidding yourself.

See, if Tzeentch factions swap your settlement as a player, most players respond immediately by declaring war on Tzeentch and then pummel them into oblivion - there's their consequence and if you swap their settlements often times you feel the consequence by meeting a faction that absolutely loathes you. There's your consequence.

Would it be nice if there were diplomatic consequences. I mean I guess so, but the AI don't give a flying duck about diplomatic consequences, so it wouldn't matter. It'd only be a penalty to players.

[matlajs]

Professor H. Farnsworth původně napsal:

matlajs původně napsal:

You are giving really bad example though. Never had a problem with beastmen raiding me as Arkhan but their corruption was a problem. Sometimes it took fairly long before Brets took them out. But they usually bounced to Baron Thegan who killed them in my games.

As for rogues, yes they had always different AI setting- more like guerilla anti goliath because you already started with penalty for being big.

My very original concern in context of this was, that most of settled factions weaker than a player with pacts in place and good relations didn't do that. Excluding rogues, beastmen and Norsca primates. There were some power distinction in which they didn't dare to cause aggression which would lead to - diplo. points.

Switch settlement doesn't cause that so it isn't even counted as aggression, which I don't agree with and imo could use a change.

It was an excellent example, just because it doesn't agree with your perception, does not make it any less of an excellent example.

I can't count the amount of times that I have seen the AI raid through my territories.
They absolutely did, so acting as if it was non-existing is kidding yourself.

See, if Tzeentch factions swap your settlement as a player, most players respond immediately by declaring war on Tzeentch and then pummel them into oblivion - there's their consequence and if you swap their settlements often times you feel the consequence by meeting a faction that absolutely loathes you. There's your consequence.

Would it be nice if there were diplomatic consequences. I mean I guess so, but the AI don't give a flying duck about diplomatic consequences, so it wouldn't matter. It'd only be a penalty to players.

Don't see for what it was perfect example. Because I was talking first and foremost about transferring settlement and about AI certainly do care about diplomatic relations(which this mechanic isn't affected by) with way stronger faction, with exception of braindead suicidal races which are preset to behave like that.

He started about some new mechanic allowing player to expell raiders and trespassers. Again - I have 3500hours in and remember, that factions which care about good diplomacy with you(put in a race yourselve) do neither of those.(OK trespassing was a bit too much for AI sometimes to get, especially when they pursued top priority target for them)

[Sauske]

matlajs původně napsal:

Professor H. Farnsworth původně napsal:

It was an excellent example, just because it doesn't agree with your perception, does not make it any less of an excellent example.

I can't count the amount of times that I have seen the AI raid through my territories.
They absolutely did, so acting as if it was non-existing is kidding yourself.

See, if Tzeentch factions swap your settlement as a player, most players respond immediately by declaring war on Tzeentch and then pummel them into oblivion - there's their consequence and if you swap their settlements often times you feel the consequence by meeting a faction that absolutely loathes you. There's your consequence.

Would it be nice if there were diplomatic consequences. I mean I guess so, but the AI don't give a flying duck about diplomatic consequences, so it wouldn't matter. It'd only be a penalty to players.

Don't see for what it was perfect example. Because I was talking first and foremost about transferring settlement and about AI certainly do care about diplomatic relations(which this mechanic isn't affected by) with way stronger faction, with exception of braindead suicidal races which are preset to behave like that.

He started about some new mechanic allowing player to expell raiders and trespassers. Again - I have 3500hours in and remember, that factions which care about good diplomacy with you(put in a race yourselve) do neither of those.(OK trespassing was a bit too much for AI sometimes to get, especially when they pursued top priority target for them)

Dunno what to tell you, man. I´ve had quite a few experiences with all kinds of other factions, evil, good, chaotic, orderly, friendly, neutral, hostile, and any and all of them would raid me when they felt like it despite my strength ranking being way above theirs. Even those that should be prevented from doing so diplomatically (it does lower your reliability rating, but the AI does not give a crap).

[matlajs]

Side note- I don't play legendary since that is not fun for me. So perhaps difficulty may play its role too.

[SpeaksTooFast]

matlajs původně napsal:

Side note- I don't play legendary since that is not fun for me. So perhaps difficulty may play its role too.

I rarely played legendary in game 2, VH/H was my sweet spot on that game. There are 3 of us telling you that it happened. Just because you didn't notice it does not mean it did not happen.

[dulany67]

matlajs původně napsal:

Side note- I don't play legendary since that is not fun for me. So perhaps difficulty may play its role too.

Don't worry, neither do all the people on here who say they do. The achievement for winning an legendary campaign stands at .9%.

[civking]

I have played all total war games since the first Shogun, and I think "faction halted" and " settlement transferred" are probably the most annoying mechanics ever


the good news is that there is already a mod out to disable them.

[Commisar Jon Fuklaw]

This thread makes me want to take 5 minutes to make a mod that lets Sniktch use his "lol ur ded, nuthin personnel kid" ability on player factions.