One thing I never liked about the diplomacy measure was that trespassing will apply if you are standing in a region that is captured over your end turn. You will instantly be pinged by the conquering faction, despite it not being your fault they captured a region you stood in. Never felt fair to me
That does suck, but it's even worse when you sack or raze a settlement, and your character auto-runs 50 miles away into another faction's territory. Sometimes I can select them quickly and hit backspace to stop them, but not always. And if you ever hit R to fast forward campaign movement or simply by accident, you'll never be able to do that again. Also, if you weren't thinking when you traded a settlement to another faction and one of your armies is currently standing in that territory, you take a trespassing penalty even after you just gave them a huge gift of land.
I find the auto-retreat after razing or sacking to be annoying, as well. Sometiems you just stand there afterwards, but sometimes your army moves a good distance backwards, which screws with progress But that's not a diplomatic issue except in the context mentioned before
Trading Settlements is a huge Diplomacy perk. It's often dictated where my offensives are going, trying to take unfinished pieces of provinces for allies.
Only just figured this out recently. Mildly averse to it because settlements are econ, but I'll lean into it more in future I think. Could we get a similar video on vassalization as well? Especially for those factions where it isn't as central like Vamps.
@@johnj.spurgin7037 I've often traded settlements for eachother trying to capture settlements specifically so I could trade them to allies to complete provinces (ideally letting them complete some of theirs).
@@johnj.spurgin7037 It has real benefits depending on who and where your enemies are. Personally the best thing to do is only get settlements that are green for you build up an ally on a side that favors different terrain and use them to block the enemy. In an MP campaign I'm playing Kroq-Gar, who I'm playing, is the number 1 power. I've barely been attacked cause I've propped up allies. Conversly my buddy playing Thogrim had been attacked on every side because the enemy touches all his borders. I'm at war with far more factions then he is. I join wars as a diplomatic bonus as well.
You forgot to mention the most important parts about Defensive/Military Alliances: If a faction you have a defensive alliance with is attacked, they'll ask you for help just as you can ask them when you get attacked, respectively, Military Alliance partners will also ask you to go to war with the factions that they declare war on. If you don't come to your partners aid and decline their requests it may lead to them canceling the alliance and your reliability takes a hit. And low reliability will seriously hinder your diplomatic efforts all around. So be careful just who to have a Defensive/Military alliance with. They could drag you into a lot of wars you really don't want to wage, especially since player bias is still a thing (if a bit better that it was) and factions that are far away might suddenly start sending armies your way. Another part about these alliances: When you have these allies you can build an outpost in one of their settlements. These outposts can be upgraded up to tier 3. These will add three units to the settlements garrison and enable you to recruit some units of your ally. Every army of yours can have a maximum of four ally units, and they can be really helpful. For example, in my current dwarf campaign I have a military alliance with Reikland (Empire) and a defensive alliance with the Ice Court (Kislev). Outposts in defensive allies settlements can only be built to tier 1, while outposts with military alliance factions can be upgraded to tier 3. At tier one, I can recruit up to four units per army/ two units per turn that the settlement in which the outpost is situated can produce. At tier 2 and 3, I can recruit any unit that the ally has in his global recruit. So in this case, because I have a tier 2 outpost at Ubersreik, I can recruit 4 of all units that Reikland has available, and that means any and all units. So in my case I can get some cavalary to complement my stunties, or bolster my artillery even more with Hellfire Rocket Artillery... At the same time, I have a tier 1 outpost at Kislev, which lets me recruit every unit that the Ice Court can produce in Kislev. So my armies could have two Hellfire Rockets and two Bear Rider Cavalry units. So alliances have become a lot more helpful than they were in WH2 because the additional units you can get can really make a difference, however they may still pull you into a downwards spiral of war if you're not careful.
This is exactly why I tend to avoid military alliances early, even later on if I'm going to go onto one I'll try and make sure I have no current wars and wait for my ally to start wars that I get dragged into. Nothing worse than being in 2 wars, then your ally drags you into another 2
Jeah, sadly the tomb king only give you 4 free skeletons if you are not a tomb king as well. I wished the offered you they units for a bit higher upkeep (to pay the lich priest to keep them together).
Funfact: The Tombkings have a trait called something like "Absolute Power" or so... so they don't mind you being the strongest mofo on the map, whilst other factions do dislike you for that.
Minor correction: if I'm not mistaken the projected attitude isn't usually reached by the next turn, but rather gradually progressed towards. (Not sure about the exact mechanics, but I've heard it moves faster the larger the difference is)
Yeah it's very confusing how much it will go up every turn. I asked this many times but no one knows how it works while it's quite important imo. I have no evidence for this but I think it also depends on faction/race and what yours are. The dwarves at least in WH2 seemed to take a lot longer to actually reach the projected attitude even when the difference was 0>200 or so.
3K had the oversight where any deal would update your relations aka just keep gifting 1 gold to cheese diplomacy Not sure that works in WH as well since it's kinda the same game
After growing a large empire, eventually many factions around you will declare war on you. It's very annoying when you want to expand in a certain direction, but you have to waste your armies' time to defend against factions you don't want to fight. It helps to befriend factions at those borders by gifting them nearby settlements (or just money) so they can act as a punching bag from any other threats in that region
A better option is to have a vassal as a buffer state. Just don't pull them into your war on the other side of your empire and they will keep their armies at home defending your flank.
What really sucks is when some faction you want to potentionally ally with takes enemy settlement you are already heading to. Then they hate you for tresspassing their territory even though it wasn't theirs before you ended your turn.
I didn't even particullary want that settlement. But I thought I can get enough relations for trade agreement if I destroy their enemies. They cancelled nonagression pack instead. That backfired spectacularly.
In Wh2 you could make fast friends with a faction by spamming agent actions against mutual unfriendly faction. Playing as an Empire you could make friends with Orion by smashing Clan Spitel's buildings and stealing their technology turn after turn eventually making a non-agression pact before he goes on a Wild Hunt all the while leveling up your Battle Nuns and Wizards. I wonder if it's still true in Wh3.
I know heroes get huge penalties to success chance after carrying out a successful action. Actions against their enemies still affect relations though. You could probably still do it, it’d just take twice as long.
It works! My friend played Vlad and he convinced the entire empire and even Kislev that he was their friend, by repeatedly sacking that other castle templehof faction. Got an alliance and everything.
Yes, but I think the effect is individually reduced. Also, the "exhausted" effect that debuffs action success chance is only for wound/assassinate actions I THINK.
I like how diplomacy has improved in WHTW 3. Allies are actually usefull now and I find myself fighting to add to their territory in order to get more powerful buffer states. The only thing that's still weird is that it's basically impossible to ever make peace with anyone you're at war with without beating them and sieging their last settlement.
N'kari who was 3rd strongest declared war against one of my Vassals (playing Archaon, Strength rank 1) 3 turns later with nothing happening they asked for peace. I had similar things happen several times, allies who love me declare war on my vassal and then shortly after ask for peace.
in my current empire total war playthru (normal) i got a white peace with sweden simply by destroying one of their 2 stacks and severly damagind the other , the ai respects strength and as long as they have the power to ˝bargain˝ they will do so , turns out the empire diplomacy isnt so bad.... lol
@@boomerix I've had similar experiences, due to alliances or vassals I get dragged into wars with factions halfway across the map and within 3-5 turns they're begging for peace despite me having done absolutely nothing (and generally they're not doing too badly in their wars with my allies, often in a stalemate (though I suppose my ability to tip the balance is a valid reason for them to want me out of the war)) usually I reject this until about 10 turns after war was declared (otherwise you get reliability problems) and then see how things are going before settling on either making peace or continuing a way that I'm not even fighting.
total war doesnt mean waging wanton wars all over the globe , it actually means that a nation is willing to use EVERY SINGLE RESOURCE at its disposal to gain victory over its opponent
The is also some evil skill in diplomacy he didn’t mention: 1. trade off settlement that you going to lose to your ally/neutral faction so you will not lose a lot of money 2. if you want to go war with someone, you can try to diplomatic ask them(or their ally) to break all treaties so you don’t have to fight all at once, and most time it’s free 3. there is way to go around those diplomat penalty, just trespass+raid there land hero act on them so they will declare war on you, so you can make peace take their last money and get declare war in few turns 4. when an Ai faction is going down, they will pay a lot for ally, take that money and watch them die next turn 5. You don’t have to declare war for free, if the target has any enemy, ask them to pay for your declare war
@@joshuahaynes1026 The AI also tries to haggle a lot if they offer you money for something. Do a counteroffer, remove the money and hit balance deal to get a tiny bit of extra gold lol
Playing a tall Wood Elf campaign right now with Durthu as head of the Old World Treaty Organization (OWTO). Just running around occupying territories and giving them to the nearest High Elf, Imperial, or Tomb King heh. No Dawi in the OWTO though, Belegar made the mistake of taking out Orion so his lands belong to Gelt and the rest of the dwarfs were eradicated by Greenskins. Diplomacy is fun in this game, especially as WE!
@@joshuahaynes1026 Yes indeed! I find it pretty fun, and allies make excellent padding around your trees. Makes it so you can develop and save the world while not being too concerned with running it, especially as Durthu as his army's immune to attrition so you can push into pretty unfriendly territory and just give it to your friends to deal with.
I'm very surprised you didn't mention the danger of being too friendly, during your "dodgy pacts" section. Having more than one military alliance with super powers that share a border, can be absolutely dreadful in the late game. As an example: in my last Avelorn game, I worked very VERY hard to forge military alliances with Lothern and Yvresse. Together the three of us saved Ulthuan and united the continent, BUT THEN Yvresse declared war on Lothern, for absolutely no reason. I was forced to break one of my two alliances, plunging my reliability and causing my other ally to break their alliance with me, because I could no longer be trusted. ABSOLUTE NONSENSE! And all Eltharion kept going on about was "the defense of Tor Yvresse" as he plunged the continent into a bloody massacre.
Funny u say that because I was doing a Tyrion campaign and Yvresse and Avelorn declared war and I Simped. But I was a bit upset that I had to betray Yvresse.
In my current Malus campaign, I needed to be at war with Couronne for one of Tz'arkan's whispers. So I asked Be'lakor if I could join his war, got 600 gold to boot and avoided also being at war with the Fay.
Its also good not to ally too many different fractions as you get a dicey dilemma when your two allies declare war on each other and you loose whichever way you go.. 🙃
Nice video! Really helpful! I have always just gone into things gung ho not thinking about the larger implications of deals and I can see now how that has been hurting me in the late game. Keep up the good work!
I’ve found the less treaties the better. You really only need 1-3 good allies. Factions aren’t guaranteed to attack you even if you decline peace treaties or non-aggression pacts. I only take defensive alliances or military alliances if I’m fairly confident that we will have shared enemies in the long run. Otherwise I get dragged into wars I don’t want to wage unnecessarily.
Naah, strongly disagree here. It all depends entirely on which faction you are playing. As WoC the more vassals you have the better. Keeps them from getting to the point where they consider themselves strong enough to have ago at you. Or generally with Order factions it's best to have as many friends as possible since none of them will ever backstab you. It all comes down to preferance I think.
@@MaSOneTwo fair point, there are a lot of ways to handle diplomacy across campaigns. I don’t love the diplomacy aspect too much so I try to keep it super simplified for my play throughs so I can do what I want without worrying about surprise attacks caused via bad diplomacy management.
@@MaSOneTwo That seems theorycrafting to me. I once gave the Norscan tribe that is the "starting vassal", I don't recall their name and wiki isn't up to date yet, of Vilitech all of their own lands plus the entire Grand Cathay. They had 40 settlements, they never broke from me. Same for a Sigvald playthrough where I vassalized Mung by removing Valkia, then I gave them all their regions (including the non-capital Dark fortress), plus half of Naggarond. 30 Regions, high power ranking. Didn't break from me in another 50 turns. they never became really strong though, no matter how big I made them. They never had a Strength rating befitting their number of settlements.
@@fahrradmittelfranken8207 well, YMMV, we've seen very different experiences across all three games reported by different people and hugely depending on difficulty. Your experience is as valid as mine but please refrain from calling something theory crafting just because it doesn't align with your experience. That's just a bad look.
@@MaSOneTwo The real reason you want many small vassals instead of a few large ones is base income. The AI doesn't really know how to take advantage of faction wide bonuses anyway.
This video ringed a question in my mind. In Total War: Warhammer I, 2 of my vassals engaged war with each other. I had the choice siding with the one was attacked, with the attacker or staying out from their conflict. How my choice changing my reliability?
Military alliances are dangerous because the ai can drag you into wars you may want nothing to do with. They’ve even declared war on your vassals making you break one or the other. That was the case a lot in warhammer 2 at least, I’m noticing a massive improvement in the diplomacy in warhammer 3. I haven’t yet noticed ally’s declaring war on vassals. There are greater alliegence/outpost rewards for taking it to a full military alliance ..... I still get nervous doing this because the ai can easily just blow shit up for you in a military alliance declaring war on some nation you had no intention on facing either at the moment or potentially for the entire campaign. Uncertainty makes the game fun though, adds to a real feel of a real world. Great video breaking down the fundamentals
One thing I wish that TW games would bring back is treating trespass as an act of war. Back in Empire (and I think Shogun 2?), you couldn't just walk through anybody territory unless you got permission. This makes sense because never has anybody not treated a foreign army in their land as anything but an act of war.
Another thing to take into account Your allies disposition towards your other allies and what does the pact requires you to do. Example: I one campaign I had a military alliance with Bretonia and the wood elves. We where fighting chaos all Good no problems. Then chaos is gone... and the wood elves declared war on bretonia so I was forced to betrayl one of them and that takes a diplomatic penalty and can draw other factios to war with you that previously had no quarrel with you.
The one thing thats great about trading settlements is that you can do it as part of a peace treaty. If you are afraid of a big faction right next to your border, you can snipe 1-2 of their valuable settlements (that you can reach in one turn) and then offer them a peace treaty in exchange for their settlement (and maybe even some money). You now have that front secured for 10-20 turns and even got some cash out of it. If you got another settlement too, you can then sell it for a crapton of money to further build up your empire.
Total war logic: those guys just invaded 20 countries in one turn with 20 fully stacked tier 100 armies....hmm....i hate them end our trade agreements with them and ally with their enemies
And if you're playing Skaven you don't really need to learn diplomacy because pretty much everyone will declare war on you...mostly before you've even encountered them.
@@Goatboy451 Minor beastmen factions, yes, but if you play Ikit Claw you generally have until the humans on either side of you are dead until the undead and beastmen declare war on you, and then all humans and elves immediately declare war too with the dwarfs following soon after.
I would also add: be carefull who you ally with Alliance with a trigger happy yahoo who kills on sight or with a beta punching bag can get you draged into unnecessary wars and snowball really fast
Just don't get into a military alliance, take a defensive one. This way even if you do get dragged into a defensive war, they'll probably focus on them first before going after you.
I wish they would add a bit more nuance to some of this. Like if you don't have a nonaggression pact and you start amassing armies near a neutral border that will also affect your standing, maybe even in certain cases. Your army compositions and the manner in which you win battles could be affecting your relations with other factions like if you use a lot of newfangled, technologies or magic dwarves don't like you as much, or if you use a lot of ranged, maybe ungrim specifically doesn't like you, idk it just feels kind of gamey right now and easily manipulated.
I'll be honest, I only use diplomacy to hit that "balance offer" option to siphon some money from a potential ally. Especially useful when they are almost dead and desperate for friends but not at war with a main faction.
7:00: Ah yes, that's definitely something I didn't consider... although it also is beneficial to be able to annoy people people by signing contracts with their enemies.
One thing I've discovered, if you are trading settlements you can also get gold out of your AI Friends by hitting the balance deal button, the higher the deal likelihood the more you will get. I made 30k trading cities to Morathi one turn because I took them during a dawi crisis only to stop grombidal's advance. Afterwards Morathi bought everything back at Dreadfleet rates.
One thing to keep in mind is that the AI does in fact have a treasury and you can deplete it if you drain them of all their cash with diplomatic pacts.
There should be an added function or event to mediate for peace between 2 allied factions. Also waiting for LL representatives for Ellyrion, Tiranoc, Cothique and Chrace.
Something I’ve always wondered is if you give them a Gift, does that actually give that faction that money to spend, or is it purely for diplomacy? In a few campaigns, there have been allies who were losing a war against a stronger enemy. I would give my ally money so that they can raise more troops and hopefully prolong their lifespan before they lose the war and then that enemy is on my doorstep. Just wondering if all of that money I give them is going to good use, or if I’ve just been throwing my money away. I only do this when I’m not earning enough income to raise a new army of my own
I'm doing this actually. I'm playing Lizardmen and Wood elves north of me are at war but with a small army. I can't reach then without annihilating 3 other factions so I'm sending almost 15000 every 2 or 3 turns in hopes they build up their army to take out the enemies or hold out long enough til I reach them.
Trading settlements is iseful in a lot of ways , i use it to gain agreements , money , i also use it to drag someone into a war ( take an important city from your ennemy , then give it to it's neighbor will often work)
Any advice on how to build up towards confederations? Should we be making defensive and military alliance with fractions we plan to confederate, does that help or hinder us?
is it my impression, or has it become very difficult to confederate between the old factions? I have noticed that I rarely manage to confederate and I see that even factions not controlled by the player almost never make confederations. (excluding those with forced confederation, such as orcs)
@@lucasbeck1391 i reached minus 2000 with my enemies in a valkia campaign, i was at war with like every faction they liked, and either vassalized or had an agreemwnt with every faction they liked.
@@lucasbeck1391 i thought about how i shouldnt accidentally write "like" instead of "hate" at the end while writing this comment, BUT I STILL MESSED IT UP AAAAHHH
In the example of trespassing against Karak Azul, why does it say "Deteriorating"? The relationship is still "increasing" by 7 points, meaning next turn it will be 9 + 7 = 16. 16 is more than the previous 9, so why deteriorating?
I think my biggest noob mistake is the not cancelling deals before attacking someone occupying a victory goal after chaos has died down. Like I'm going back through WH:TW 1 right now for achievement sweeps and wanted to just get the border princes out of the way, they don't have any allies so no one would miss them, but a lot of people would get angry if I just outright declared war.
I love this game but the diplomacy isnt great. A lot of my games you get to around turn 10 and half your neighbours just declare war on you. Playing as Teclis and kicking Kairos all over the shop, Oxylotl decided to ignore his 3 chaos neighbours and declare war on me who was happily allied and working alongside his fellow lizards. And Empire? Oooft having the various elector counts ignore the Orcs, vamps and Chaos armies rampaging through their lands to declare war on me (Franz or Gelt), is a tough one to take. Like i say i love this game but i find i often dont do alliances now as i hate being dragged into wars and taking a reliability hit.
What i notice alot is when i get a defensive or militairy alliance with a faction is that they go way down in armies. like they conquered half the world first and after the alliance they just dont make any armies anymore and just decay :S.
Great points however I have a very different take. I play on the hardest settings and I find it nearly impossible to keep potential allies alive constantly because I can't field enough armies to cover them and continue growing (think empire playing as Gelt, Dwarfs etc etc) However by keeping a high reliability and offering to make war with the enemies of my friends for trade agreements etc I very quickly unite anyone on the same good/evil spectrum and can focus on expanding and defending for the good of my alliance... Great video
I tend to try and maintain as many nonaggression and trade agreements as possible but never go further in case my friends go to war with each other that way I have to fight the least possible number of enemies and make the most possible trade money
I don't know if it's a bug or what but something weird happened to me today. Playing as Wulfric I had the daemon prince as a deffensive ally. Archaeon atacks him so I go smash his face and I'm doing a stellar job at it. Suddenly the daemon prince cancels our alliance. I check our relations and I'm suddenly at -100... for attacking archaon... whos at war with him... who he hates at -240... I'm sorry but what in nurgle's green crap just happened!?
@@HariF94 Imma give you the answer to all your problems. Take a useless settlement next to a powerful faction near you that you want to not sacrifice to your dark gods. Gift them that settlement. They may not give you shit for it, you may even have to actually pay them to accept it, but then they get a massive bonus to relation with you thanks to "gifts given". I allied Festus and Valkia by turn 20 and te daemon prince around 30. The true way to have a powertrip with norsca is allying the orcs, since they are currently hyper dominant on thke campaign map. Following this method I allied Azhag by gifting him some random ostermark settlement and sincr he's buddys with Mr. Ironhide now we have a literal alliance of evil. I'm on turn 100 something, about to have all possible favor bonuses with an income of about 50.000 per turn just having fun raiding like a mad man.
Idk if it was planned or already In a separate video but did he mention outposts? Would be a good thing to mention. Unless I wasn’t paying attention lol
I made the mistake of upgrading my DA with Volkmar to a MA in my last place as Repanse de Lyonesse (because I wanted to ally recruit some decent infantry) and the guy declared War on pretty much everyone over the next 20 turns. I did beat them all though because of the empire infantry. my main gripe with diplomacy is how little the AI values declaring war on their enemy in a trade. Especially if their enemy has a higher strength rank. Imo this should be much more favorable when it comes to NAP, TAs or MA treaties, i.e. anything that is actually free to sign. If. for example, Border Princes is at war with disciples of the maw and losing (as pretty much every time), they should be delighted if I offered to declare war on the ogres and give me the MA I would need to actually fight that war.
I don't know if it still counts but previously if you want to confederate a faction in the future it's best not to go further than defensive alliance, because in a military alliance your strength adds to theirs making it harder to confederate. Additionally I'd be careful with declaring wars, as I believe the more wars you are in the more likely factions are to declare war on you and it can really snowball.
Hey Zerk. Did you consider making new army guides for factions from WH2, since there were changes in WH3? I love the formula and hope you will release it one day :D
Make friend with Cathay(south) I think is the best option.. most time you have to fight chaos in north(they will trespass your land to go over Cathay), greenskin at west(never ally with them they are the only few factions don’t trade, no trade=no money) do a non aggressive to the undead until you have extra army to take care of them
another thing is that you have baseincome, if you confederate an AI you wont get that baseincome, but the AI built the armies around that income. thats why its easy to go into negative income if you think confederating to early is a good idea. you cant just delete all those armies you got, cause you got much more territory to cover and defend now. thats especially true, when you play miao ying and you think about confederating the celestial loyalists i think they were called (black/yellow flag). cause if you do, you got a tough time beating the dark elves, skaven and orcs. so you rather make an archer army and keep it close to the northeast settlement from them and help em defend against the dark elves, while taking out the orcs and after that skaven with miao ying.
I'm playing as clan Eshin at the moment and have had a defensive alliance with Lokhir Fellheart for like 50+ turns. My relations with them are sitting at 273 and yet they won't give me a full military alliance unless I give them a huge amount of money or multiple settlements. We have Cathay split down the middle with him in the east and me in the west... All he does is shadow my armies and swoops in every chance he gets to steal settlements I'm trying to take. 😡
I recently finished a Eshin (long and ultimate) campaign. I killed the Lokhir early on because they would always revert back to disliking me over time. Nothing I did would make him remain on good terms. Once I got rid of him it was way easier to finish off Cathay. Vilitch was a way better ally. I temporarily allied with the Jiangshi Rebels which worked for a while but they eventually ended up viewing me as a strategic threat. Later on most chaos factions allied with me and so I didn’t have to worry about any threats from the north/ north west.
Ive never used diplomacy in this game and I blame civilization for it. In the older civ games the diplomacy basically means nothing, a faction could be friendly one turn and decide to go to war with you the next. So I never put any effort into it, mostly just read the offers sent to me by other factions.
The problem is that the ai will declare war on the player to slow them down (NERF them) and so the player has to split their armies instead of ROFL stomping one enemy with 2-3 armies turn after turn.
In empire total war i loved austria becouse if you didnt know anything about diplomacy you could easily start on a 3v1 war against PLC otomans and prusia Thats one of the few campaings where i had found that diplomacy isnt an option but a need to avoid that and i love it due to that
empire total war is very a game of geopolitics , for example it took me 5 years to start a war against poland and another 3 years to capture east prussia while i fended off the initial onslaught and then gathered forces for the attack , oh and also scaring saxony into peace (capturing saxony early on just opens you up for more issues with bavaria and austria)
Why does CA keep making victory conditions on factions that are naturally friendly with? I'm trying to keep trade and allies with Cathay but my victory conditions have 3 Cathay settlements.
Asking for money with that little balancing scales button is a great idea if you want some extra income while being friends, as that's not penalized in terms of how much you get out of them diplomatically. However, do be aware that you might bleed a faction dry financially if you keep asking for money for agreements -- this might be fine. If I'm playing as Sisters of Twilight and Averland wants to give me 1800g for a nonaggression pact, neat. If they go bankrupt and die to vampires, well, sounds like their problem. However, if I'm playing Avelorn and want to confederate Teclis, I do need to ensure he lives long enough for that to happen, so taking all of his money might cause him to get wiped out by Tzeentch (or Oxyotl in my most recent campaign.)
The penalties for breaking a pact are huge. In high dificulties you will be unreliable for the entire game and forget about making pacts beyong non-agression because there is a penalty of -50 or something like that with everyone.
Nah man. Even if you break every possible pact with a faction it's something like 30 turns and you'll be very reliable again. Obviously how much you go into the negatives is not capped so if you do it many times then sure it is possible to be a persona non grata the entire campaign.
u sure u dont reach friendly at 15? and trusted friends at 150? at least in WH2... also, r u sure it applies in the next turn?? for me in WH2 it changes really slowly. seems more changing slowly in a way that it will reach that number in around 10 turns.
Alternatively, play as Skaven : The entire world, IS, against you. You sign a non-aggression pact with a Skaven faction you just met, and they declare war on you during the endturn... Makes everything simpler, really, yes-yes !
bonus : if you want to confederate, don't make military alliance and only go too defensive alliance, because if you go on military alliance the confederation will take sensitively longer. i don't know what is the logic behind it, but it's here. maybe because it means you think of them as equal ? i don't know but it make confederate a lot harder than it should be for order factions.
@@shadow_king12344 well i still have more difficulty with confederation when i go to alliance so i don' t know why, didn't happend one time but on every campain i do soooooo
@@Yourantsally It wasn't a thing in WH2 either. People just suck at confederating so they make up excuses that push away responsibility from themselves.
do dislike if you are an evil faction and you threaten you still get a massive negative diplomacy action. it's not you are bacstabbing you are just ruthless there is a difference
One thing I never liked about the diplomacy measure was that trespassing will apply if you are standing in a region that is captured over your end turn. You will instantly be pinged by the conquering faction, despite it not being your fault they captured a region you stood in. Never felt fair to me
Yeah there should be like a 3 turn cool down after a region is captured before it counts as trespassing.
That does suck, but it's even worse when you sack or raze a settlement, and your character auto-runs 50 miles away into another faction's territory. Sometimes I can select them quickly and hit backspace to stop them, but not always. And if you ever hit R to fast forward campaign movement or simply by accident, you'll never be able to do that again. Also, if you weren't thinking when you traded a settlement to another faction and one of your armies is currently standing in that territory, you take a trespassing penalty even after you just gave them a huge gift of land.
I find the auto-retreat after razing or sacking to be annoying, as well. Sometiems you just stand there afterwards, but sometimes your army moves a good distance backwards, which screws with progress
But that's not a diplomatic issue except in the context mentioned before
@@yobogoya4367 You just gave me multiple controls I didn’t know existed, thanks.
Even better, your Karl Franz and you return a territory to an elector and get pinged for being there.
Trading Settlements is a huge Diplomacy perk. It's often dictated where my offensives are going, trying to take unfinished pieces of provinces for allies.
trading settlements really helps getting you where you need to go with diplomacy
Only just figured this out recently. Mildly averse to it because settlements are econ, but I'll lean into it more in future I think.
Could we get a similar video on vassalization as well? Especially for those factions where it isn't as central like Vamps.
@@johnj.spurgin7037 I've often traded settlements for eachother trying to capture settlements specifically so I could trade them to allies to complete provinces (ideally letting them complete some of theirs).
@@johnj.spurgin7037 It has real benefits depending on who and where your enemies are. Personally the best thing to do is only get settlements that are green for you build up an ally on a side that favors different terrain and use them to block the enemy. In an MP campaign I'm playing Kroq-Gar, who I'm playing, is the number 1 power. I've barely been attacked cause I've propped up allies. Conversly my buddy playing Thogrim had been attacked on every side because the enemy touches all his borders. I'm at war with far more factions then he is. I join wars as a diplomatic bonus as well.
Is the trade settlements only a Warhammer 3 option? I can't find it in WH2
You forgot to mention the most important parts about Defensive/Military Alliances:
If a faction you have a defensive alliance with is attacked, they'll ask you for help just as you can ask them when you get attacked,
respectively, Military Alliance partners will also ask you to go to war with the factions that they declare war on.
If you don't come to your partners aid and decline their requests it may lead to them canceling the alliance and your reliability takes a hit. And low reliability will seriously hinder your diplomatic efforts all around. So be careful just who to have a Defensive/Military alliance with. They could drag you into a lot of wars you really don't want to wage, especially since player bias is still a thing (if a bit better that it was) and factions that are far away might suddenly start sending armies your way.
Another part about these alliances:
When you have these allies you can build an outpost in one of their settlements. These outposts can be upgraded up to tier 3. These will add three units to the settlements garrison and enable you to recruit some units of your ally. Every army of yours can have a maximum of four ally units, and they can be really helpful. For example, in my current dwarf campaign I have a military alliance with Reikland (Empire) and a defensive alliance with the Ice Court (Kislev). Outposts in defensive allies settlements can only be built to tier 1, while outposts with military alliance factions can be upgraded to tier 3. At tier one, I can recruit up to four units per army/ two units per turn that the settlement in which the outpost is situated can produce. At tier 2 and 3, I can recruit any unit that the ally has in his global recruit. So in this case, because I have a tier 2 outpost at Ubersreik, I can recruit 4 of all units that Reikland has available, and that means any and all units. So in my case I can get some cavalary to complement my stunties, or bolster my artillery even more with Hellfire Rocket Artillery... At the same time, I have a tier 1 outpost at Kislev, which lets me recruit every unit that the Ice Court can produce in Kislev. So my armies could have two Hellfire Rockets and two Bear Rider Cavalry units.
So alliances have become a lot more helpful than they were in WH2 because the additional units you can get can really make a difference, however they may still pull you into a downwards spiral of war if you're not careful.
Oh god that sounds absolutely busted in co-op campaigns, because you won't be as beholden to the AI in terms of factions.
Dude, these outpost allies are so god damn dope. Playing as the empire in an honorable playthrough
that's implied by the name of the treaty "DEFENCIVE ALLIANCE" it does not need to be mentioned or explained.
This is exactly why I tend to avoid military alliances early, even later on if I'm going to go onto one I'll try and make sure I have no current wars and wait for my ally to start wars that I get dragged into.
Nothing worse than being in 2 wars, then your ally drags you into another 2
Jeah, sadly the tomb king only give you 4 free skeletons if you are not a tomb king as well.
I wished the offered you they units for a bit higher upkeep (to pay the lich priest to keep them together).
Funfact:
The Tombkings have a trait called something like "Absolute Power" or so... so they don't mind you being the strongest mofo on the map, whilst other factions do dislike you for that.
Hmmm explains why my best tarde partners as skaven are tk lol
That’s why they always ask for trade and military access randomly!!!!! Didn’t know that!
Minor correction: if I'm not mistaken the projected attitude isn't usually reached by the next turn, but rather gradually progressed towards. (Not sure about the exact mechanics, but I've heard it moves faster the larger the difference is)
Yes it shows where attitude will end eventually, not next turn.
It usually takes 5 turns since most gifts given only last 5 turns before decaying again
Yeah it's very confusing how much it will go up every turn. I asked this many times but no one knows how it works while it's quite important imo. I have no evidence for this but I think it also depends on faction/race and what yours are. The dwarves at least in WH2 seemed to take a lot longer to actually reach the projected attitude even when the difference was 0>200 or so.
3K had the oversight where any deal would update your relations aka just keep gifting 1 gold to cheese diplomacy
Not sure that works in WH as well since it's kinda the same game
After growing a large empire, eventually many factions around you will declare war on you. It's very annoying when you want to expand in a certain direction, but you have to waste your armies' time to defend against factions you don't want to fight. It helps to befriend factions at those borders by gifting them nearby settlements (or just money) so they can act as a punching bag from any other threats in that region
A better option is to have a vassal as a buffer state. Just don't pull them into your war on the other side of your empire and they will keep their armies at home defending your flank.
@@boomerix thats why i kept saxony alive for 23 years in empire total war as prussia , it kept nuisances like bavaria and austra at bay
Take land of faction A until you delete them, sell to nearby faction B. Repeat with faction B and C next.
What really sucks is when some faction you want to potentionally ally with takes enemy settlement you are already heading to. Then they hate you for tresspassing their territory even though it wasn't theirs before you ended your turn.
I didn't even particullary want that settlement. But I thought I can get enough relations for trade agreement if I destroy their enemies. They cancelled nonagression pack instead. That backfired spectacularly.
Any idea if there's a mod to fix that? Seems like it's a common complaint
Step 1: make treaties with the other dwarfs
Step 2: hoard gold
step 3: Slay anything whitout a beard
you missed the most important step...
*Steps a toe into Dwarf territory.*
That's goin in the book.
In Wh2 you could make fast friends with a faction by spamming agent actions against mutual unfriendly faction. Playing as an Empire you could make friends with Orion by smashing Clan Spitel's buildings and stealing their technology turn after turn eventually making a non-agression pact before he goes on a Wild Hunt all the while leveling up your Battle Nuns and Wizards.
I wonder if it's still true in Wh3.
Lol, battle nuns
I know heroes get huge penalties to success chance after carrying out a successful action. Actions against their enemies still affect relations though. You could probably still do it, it’d just take twice as long.
It works! My friend played Vlad and he convinced the entire empire and even Kislev that he was their friend, by repeatedly sacking that other castle templehof faction. Got an alliance and everything.
@@OtterMusician exhaustion penalty only applies to wound or assassinate target. Basically targeting other heroes.
Yes, but I think the effect is individually reduced.
Also, the "exhausted" effect that debuffs action success chance is only for wound/assassinate actions I THINK.
I like how diplomacy has improved in WHTW 3. Allies are actually usefull now and I find myself fighting to add to their territory in order to get more powerful buffer states.
The only thing that's still weird is that it's basically impossible to ever make peace with anyone you're at war with without beating them and sieging their last settlement.
N'kari who was 3rd strongest declared war against one of my Vassals (playing Archaon, Strength rank 1) 3 turns later with nothing happening they asked for peace.
I had similar things happen several times, allies who love me declare war on my vassal and then shortly after ask for peace.
@@boomerix that's funny! What difficulty lvl was this?
@@lb2791 Normal I think
in my current empire total war playthru (normal) i got a white peace with sweden simply by destroying one of their 2 stacks and severly damagind the other , the ai respects strength and as long as they have the power to ˝bargain˝ they will do so , turns out the empire diplomacy isnt so bad.... lol
@@boomerix I've had similar experiences, due to alliances or vassals I get dragged into wars with factions halfway across the map and within 3-5 turns they're begging for peace despite me having done absolutely nothing (and generally they're not doing too badly in their wars with my allies, often in a stalemate (though I suppose my ability to tip the balance is a valid reason for them to want me out of the war)) usually I reject this until about 10 turns after war was declared (otherwise you get reliability problems) and then see how things are going before settling on either making peace or continuing a way that I'm not even fighting.
I wish there was a sever diplomatic ties option to stop enemies from asking for peace every turn.
lol
There is a mod for this, decline diplomacy
The only diplomacy in Total War you need is "Declare War".
Its not called Total friendship is it.
Watch someone will make a mod that changes the title just to mess with you.
@@SmokeDrake "You are now unable to declare war"
@@xyro3633 "You are now able to declare Friendship."
I want money!
@@andregon4366 No
Peace always screws me over in the long term
Total peace peacehammer
Duh, the game is called total war
@@fedyx1544 no it's not
@@duckterdoland3881 🤓
total war doesnt mean waging wanton wars all over the globe , it actually means that a nation is willing to use EVERY SINGLE RESOURCE at its disposal to gain victory over its opponent
The is also some evil skill in diplomacy he didn’t mention:
1. trade off settlement that you going to lose to your ally/neutral faction so you will not lose a lot of money
2. if you want to go war with someone, you can try to diplomatic ask them(or their ally) to break all treaties so you don’t have to fight all at once, and most time it’s free
3. there is way to go around those diplomat penalty, just trespass+raid there land hero act on them so they will declare war on you, so you can make peace take their last money and get declare war in few turns
4. when an Ai faction is going down, they will pay a lot for ally, take that money and watch them die next turn
5. You don’t have to declare war for free, if the target has any enemy, ask them to pay for your declare war
Wow thank you for valuable advice
Don't forget to hit balance deal on the trade settlements, depending on who you are trading with you can make a lot in the real estate market
@@joshuahaynes1026 The AI also tries to haggle a lot if they offer you money for something. Do a counteroffer, remove the money and hit balance deal to get a tiny bit of extra gold lol
@@joshuahaynes1026 that’s not evil enough so I didn’t mention lol
Cao Cao approves
Playing a tall Wood Elf campaign right now with Durthu as head of the Old World Treaty Organization (OWTO). Just running around occupying territories and giving them to the nearest High Elf, Imperial, or Tomb King heh. No Dawi in the OWTO though, Belegar made the mistake of taking out Orion so his lands belong to Gelt and the rest of the dwarfs were eradicated by Greenskins. Diplomacy is fun in this game, especially as WE!
Heh, you mean the Old World Tree-ty Organization?
I hadn't thought about how much trading settlements opened up for factions like the wood elves. I might have to do durthu again.
@@helphelpzombiesatemybrain8871 Hah! Yes exactly!
@@joshuahaynes1026 Yes indeed! I find it pretty fun, and allies make excellent padding around your trees. Makes it so you can develop and save the world while not being too concerned with running it, especially as Durthu as his army's immune to attrition so you can push into pretty unfriendly territory and just give it to your friends to deal with.
I'm very surprised you didn't mention the danger of being too friendly, during your "dodgy pacts" section. Having more than one military alliance with super powers that share a border, can be absolutely dreadful in the late game.
As an example: in my last Avelorn game, I worked very VERY hard to forge military alliances with Lothern and Yvresse. Together the three of us saved Ulthuan and united the continent, BUT THEN Yvresse declared war on Lothern, for absolutely no reason. I was forced to break one of my two alliances, plunging my reliability and causing my other ally to break their alliance with me, because I could no longer be trusted. ABSOLUTE NONSENSE! And all Eltharion kept going on about was "the defense of Tor Yvresse" as he plunged the continent into a bloody massacre.
Funny u say that because I was doing a Tyrion campaign and Yvresse and Avelorn declared war and I Simped. But I was a bit upset that I had to betray Yvresse.
Well, yes, you need to use influence for HE to unite them.
Always side with the defender and you wont have this problem. Only make defensive alliances if you don't want to have to make that choice.
In my current Malus campaign, I needed to be at war with Couronne for one of Tz'arkan's whispers. So I asked Be'lakor if I could join his war, got 600 gold to boot and avoided also being at war with the Fay.
Its also good not to ally too many different fractions as you get a dicey dilemma when your two allies declare war on each other and you loose whichever way you go.. 🙃
That's a myth. You will never lose reliability if you side with the DEFENDER
Always side with the defender and you wont lose reliability.
Nice video! Really helpful! I have always just gone into things gung ho not thinking about the larger implications of deals and I can see now how that has been hurting me in the late game. Keep up the good work!
I’ve found the less treaties the better. You really only need 1-3 good allies. Factions aren’t guaranteed to attack you even if you decline peace treaties or non-aggression pacts. I only take defensive alliances or military alliances if I’m fairly confident that we will have shared enemies in the long run. Otherwise I get dragged into wars I don’t want to wage unnecessarily.
Naah, strongly disagree here. It all depends entirely on which faction you are playing. As WoC the more vassals you have the better. Keeps them from getting to the point where they consider themselves strong enough to have ago at you. Or generally with Order factions it's best to have as many friends as possible since none of them will ever backstab you. It all comes down to preferance I think.
@@MaSOneTwo fair point, there are a lot of ways to handle diplomacy across campaigns. I don’t love the diplomacy aspect too much so I try to keep it super simplified for my play throughs so I can do what I want without worrying about surprise attacks caused via bad diplomacy management.
@@MaSOneTwo That seems theorycrafting to me. I once gave the Norscan tribe that is the "starting vassal", I don't recall their name and wiki isn't up to date yet, of Vilitech all of their own lands plus the entire Grand Cathay. They had 40 settlements, they never broke from me.
Same for a Sigvald playthrough where I vassalized Mung by removing Valkia, then I gave them all their regions (including the non-capital Dark fortress), plus half of Naggarond. 30 Regions, high power ranking. Didn't break from me in another 50 turns.
they never became really strong though, no matter how big I made them. They never had a Strength rating befitting their number of settlements.
@@fahrradmittelfranken8207 well, YMMV, we've seen very different experiences across all three games reported by different people and hugely depending on difficulty. Your experience is as valid as mine but please refrain from calling something theory crafting just because it doesn't align with your experience. That's just a bad look.
@@MaSOneTwo The real reason you want many small vassals instead of a few large ones is base income. The AI doesn't really know how to take advantage of faction wide bonuses anyway.
This video ringed a question in my mind. In Total War: Warhammer I, 2 of my vassals engaged war with each other. I had the choice siding with the one was attacked, with the attacker or staying out from their conflict. How my choice changing my reliability?
Military alliances are dangerous because the ai can drag you into wars you may want nothing to do with. They’ve even declared war on your vassals making you break one or the other. That was the case a lot in warhammer 2 at least, I’m noticing a massive improvement in the diplomacy in warhammer 3. I haven’t yet noticed ally’s declaring war on vassals. There are greater alliegence/outpost rewards for taking it to a full military alliance ..... I still get nervous doing this because the ai can easily just blow shit up for you in a military alliance declaring war on some nation you had no intention on facing either at the moment or potentially for the entire campaign.
Uncertainty makes the game fun though, adds to a real feel of a real world.
Great video breaking down the fundamentals
11:10 Error: *No true Skaven player ever makes diplomacy in the first place.*
One thing I wish that TW games would bring back is treating trespass as an act of war. Back in Empire (and I think Shogun 2?), you couldn't just walk through anybody territory unless you got permission. This makes sense because never has anybody not treated a foreign army in their land as anything but an act of war.
Another thing to take into account
Your allies disposition towards your other allies and what does the pact requires you to do.
Example: I one campaign I had a military alliance with Bretonia and the wood elves. We where fighting chaos all Good no problems.
Then chaos is gone... and the wood elves declared war on bretonia so I was forced to betrayl one of them and that takes a diplomatic penalty and can draw other factios to war with you that previously had no quarrel with you.
The one thing thats great about trading settlements is that you can do it as part of a peace treaty.
If you are afraid of a big faction right next to your border, you can snipe 1-2 of their valuable settlements (that you can reach in one turn) and then offer them a peace treaty in exchange for their settlement (and maybe even some money). You now have that front secured for 10-20 turns and even got some cash out of it.
If you got another settlement too, you can then sell it for a crapton of money to further build up your empire.
Total war logic: those guys just invaded 20 countries in one turn with 20 fully stacked tier 100 armies....hmm....i hate them end our trade agreements with them and ally with their enemies
This was a fantastic video! Definitely helped my knowledge on the diplomacy system.
And if you're playing Skaven you don't really need to learn diplomacy because pretty much everyone will declare war on you...mostly before you've even encountered them.
Beastmen & Skaven can be friends. 😀
@@Goatboy451 Minor beastmen factions, yes, but if you play Ikit Claw you generally have until the humans on either side of you are dead until the undead and beastmen declare war on you, and then all humans and elves immediately declare war too with the dwarfs following soon after.
I would also add: be carefull who you ally with
Alliance with a trigger happy yahoo who kills on sight or with a beta punching bag can get you draged into unnecessary wars and snowball really fast
Just don't get into a military alliance, take a defensive one. This way even if you do get dragged into a defensive war, they'll probably focus on them first before going after you.
I wish they would add a bit more nuance to some of this. Like if you don't have a nonaggression pact and you start amassing armies near a neutral border that will also affect your standing, maybe even in certain cases. Your army compositions and the manner in which you win battles could be affecting your relations with other factions like if you use a lot of newfangled, technologies or magic dwarves don't like you as much, or if you use a lot of ranged, maybe ungrim specifically doesn't like you, idk it just feels kind of gamey right now and easily manipulated.
The AI does factor this into how likely they are to make pacts with you/where they will move their armies.
I'll be honest, I only use diplomacy to hit that "balance offer" option to siphon some money from a potential ally. Especially useful when they are almost dead and desperate for friends but not at war with a main faction.
7:00: Ah yes, that's definitely something I didn't consider... although it also is beneficial to be able to annoy people people by signing contracts with their enemies.
One thing I've discovered, if you are trading settlements you can also get gold out of your AI Friends by hitting the balance deal button, the higher the deal likelihood the more you will get. I made 30k trading cities to Morathi one turn because I took them during a dawi crisis only to stop grombidal's advance. Afterwards Morathi bought everything back at Dreadfleet rates.
One thing to keep in mind is that the AI does in fact have a treasury and you can deplete it if you drain them of all their cash with diplomatic pacts.
"Try not to backstab people, even if you are a Skaven."
Rat boi: You say funny words, magic man. Squeak.
There should be an added function or event to mediate for peace between 2 allied factions. Also waiting for LL representatives for Ellyrion, Tiranoc, Cothique and Chrace.
Something I’ve always wondered is if you give them a Gift, does that actually give that faction that money to spend, or is it purely for diplomacy? In a few campaigns, there have been allies who were losing a war against a stronger enemy. I would give my ally money so that they can raise more troops and hopefully prolong their lifespan before they lose the war and then that enemy is on my doorstep. Just wondering if all of that money I give them is going to good use, or if I’ve just been throwing my money away. I only do this when I’m not earning enough income to raise a new army of my own
Yes the AI has a treasury it uses. Whether or not it uses it well is another discussion.
I'm doing this actually. I'm playing Lizardmen and Wood elves north of me are at war but with a small army. I can't reach then without annihilating 3 other factions so I'm sending almost 15000 every 2 or 3 turns in hopes they build up their army to take out the enemies or hold out long enough til I reach them.
Trading settlements is iseful in a lot of ways , i use it to gain agreements , money , i also use it to drag someone into a war ( take an important city from your ennemy , then give it to it's neighbor will often work)
The hardest part is checking if you anger some of your allies especially as a new player.
Any advice on how to build up towards confederations? Should we be making defensive and military alliance with fractions we plan to confederate, does that help or hinder us?
Based on my experience, I've found it less likely that a defensive/military ally will confederate with me than a non-ally.
@@Goatboy451 That just means your experiences don't match up with reality.
is it my impression, or has it become very difficult to confederate between the old factions? I have noticed that I rarely manage to confederate and I see that even factions not controlled by the player almost never make confederations. (excluding those with forced confederation, such as orcs)
Very useful video. And when you reach the threshold of -2530 like in my Slaanesh campaign with people I never thought. What kind of attitude is it?
Please list every modifier
We need to know
@@lucasbeck1391 i reached minus 2000 with my enemies in a valkia campaign, i was at war with like every faction they liked, and either vassalized or had an agreemwnt with every faction they liked.
@@veryoriginalname2515 you meant didnt like at the end right?
@@lucasbeck1391 i thought about how i shouldnt accidentally write "like" instead of "hate" at the end while writing this comment, BUT I STILL MESSED IT UP AAAAHHH
After that it resets to max positive relations!
"perhaps a snickers and some bodywash" I almost peed myself.
In the example of trespassing against Karak Azul, why does it say "Deteriorating"? The relationship is still "increasing" by 7 points, meaning next turn it will be 9 + 7 = 16. 16 is more than the previous 9, so why deteriorating?
I think my biggest noob mistake is the not cancelling deals before attacking someone occupying a victory goal after chaos has died down. Like I'm going back through WH:TW 1 right now for achievement sweeps and wanted to just get the border princes out of the way, they don't have any allies so no one would miss them, but a lot of people would get angry if I just outright declared war.
I love this game but the diplomacy isnt great. A lot of my games you get to around turn 10 and half your neighbours just declare war on you. Playing as Teclis and kicking Kairos all over the shop, Oxylotl decided to ignore his 3 chaos neighbours and declare war on me who was happily allied and working alongside his fellow lizards. And Empire? Oooft having the various elector counts ignore the Orcs, vamps and Chaos armies rampaging through their lands to declare war on me (Franz or Gelt), is a tough one to take. Like i say i love this game but i find i often dont do alliances now as i hate being dragged into wars and taking a reliability hit.
I agree, I'd like to see a "more pressing matters" modifier that makes the relationship deteriorate less if they have enemies between you and them
I honestly paused at 02:25 hoping to find that cool hat mod. Ah well, a man can dream.
The real problem here is trying to woo a French person with body wash.
What i notice alot is when i get a defensive or militairy alliance with a faction is that they go way down in armies. like they conquered half the world first and after the alliance they just dont make any armies anymore and just decay :S.
Great points however I have a very different take. I play on the hardest settings and I find it nearly impossible to keep potential allies alive constantly because I can't field enough armies to cover them and continue growing (think empire playing as Gelt, Dwarfs etc etc) However by keeping a high reliability and offering to make war with the enemies of my friends for trade agreements etc I very quickly unite anyone on the same good/evil spectrum and can focus on expanding and defending for the good of my alliance... Great video
Zerkovich's cool hat keeps me coming back
I tend to try and maintain as many nonaggression and trade agreements as possible
but never go further in case my friends go to war with each other
that way I have to fight the least possible number of enemies and make the most possible trade money
I don't know if it's a bug or what but something weird happened to me today. Playing as Wulfric I had the daemon prince as a deffensive ally. Archaeon atacks him so I go smash his face and I'm doing a stellar job at it. Suddenly the daemon prince cancels our alliance. I check our relations and I'm suddenly at -100... for attacking archaon... whos at war with him... who he hates at -240... I'm sorry but what in nurgle's green crap just happened!?
that surely sounds like a bug
Possibly Archaon vassalised him. Check if they are actually still at war?
Maybe archeon made him his vassal ? Hence he declared war on your right after you attacked archeon.
im surprised u got a deffensive alliance with anyone as norsca. if i play him im in war with evryone at turn 10
@@HariF94 Imma give you the answer to all your problems. Take a useless settlement next to a powerful faction near you that you want to not sacrifice to your dark gods. Gift them that settlement. They may not give you shit for it, you may even have to actually pay them to accept it, but then they get a massive bonus to relation with you thanks to "gifts given". I allied Festus and Valkia by turn 20 and te daemon prince around 30. The true way to have a powertrip with norsca is allying the orcs, since they are currently hyper dominant on thke campaign map. Following this method I allied Azhag by gifting him some random ostermark settlement and sincr he's buddys with Mr. Ironhide now we have a literal alliance of evil. I'm on turn 100 something, about to have all possible favor bonuses with an income of about 50.000 per turn just having fun raiding like a mad man.
Idk if it was planned or already In a separate video but did he mention outposts? Would be a good thing to mention. Unless I wasn’t paying attention lol
I made the mistake of upgrading my DA with Volkmar to a MA in my last place as Repanse de Lyonesse (because I wanted to ally recruit some decent infantry) and the guy declared War on pretty much everyone over the next 20 turns.
I did beat them all though because of the empire infantry.
my main gripe with diplomacy is how little the AI values declaring war on their enemy in a trade. Especially if their enemy has a higher strength rank. Imo this should be much more favorable when it comes to NAP, TAs or MA treaties, i.e. anything that is actually free to sign. If. for example, Border Princes is at war with disciples of the maw and losing (as pretty much every time), they should be delighted if I offered to declare war on the ogres and give me the MA I would need to actually fight that war.
I don't know if it still counts but previously if you want to confederate a faction in the future it's best not to go further than defensive alliance, because in a military alliance your strength adds to theirs making it harder to confederate.
Additionally I'd be careful with declaring wars, as I believe the more wars you are in the more likely factions are to declare war on you and it can really snowball.
" ...confederate a faction..." - This is hogwash and pretty much always has been.
alliances are often a disadvantage in my experience. 1: become allies, 2: ally declare war on a bunch of factions dragging you into a ton of wars
In my experience it often was: 1) become defensive allies; 2) everyone starts to declare war on them, but don't give a f about them and goes on you.
Me who's still in Warhammer 2 because my computer is so terrible it can't handle the upgrade
Hey Zerk. Did you consider making new army guides for factions from WH2, since there were changes in WH3? I love the formula and hope you will release it one day :D
Bro is saying “Make today harder so tmr can be easier” good knowledge
I'm playing Goldtooth and both Chaos and Order factions don't like me 😄 hoping this video helps
Make friend with Cathay(south) I think is the best option.. most time you have to fight chaos in north(they will trespass your land to go over Cathay), greenskin at west(never ally with them they are the only few factions don’t trade, no trade=no money) do a non aggressive to the undead until you have extra army to take care of them
another thing is that you have baseincome, if you confederate an AI you wont get that baseincome, but the AI built the armies around that income. thats why its easy to go into negative income if you think confederating to early is a good idea. you cant just delete all those armies you got, cause you got much more territory to cover and defend now.
thats especially true, when you play miao ying and you think about confederating the celestial loyalists i think they were called (black/yellow flag). cause if you do, you got a tough time beating the dark elves, skaven and orcs. so you rather make an archer army and keep it close to the northeast settlement from them and help em defend against the dark elves, while taking out the orcs and after that skaven with miao ying.
I'm playing as clan Eshin at the moment and have had a defensive alliance with Lokhir Fellheart for like 50+ turns. My relations with them are sitting at 273 and yet they won't give me a full military alliance unless I give them a huge amount of money or multiple settlements.
We have Cathay split down the middle with him in the east and me in the west... All he does is shadow my armies and swoops in every chance he gets to steal settlements I'm trying to take. 😡
I recently finished a Eshin (long and ultimate) campaign. I killed the Lokhir early on because they would always revert back to disliking me over time. Nothing I did would make him remain on good terms. Once I got rid of him it was way easier to finish off Cathay.
Vilitch was a way better ally. I temporarily allied with the Jiangshi Rebels which worked for a while but they eventually ended up viewing me as a strategic threat. Later on most chaos factions allied with me and so I didn’t have to worry about any threats from the north/ north west.
I was wondering why I suddenly get verry low reliability out of nowhere, hopefully this will answer
Ive never used diplomacy in this game and I blame civilization for it. In the older civ games the diplomacy basically means nothing, a faction could be friendly one turn and decide to go to war with you the next. So I never put any effort into it, mostly just read the offers sent to me by other factions.
FoR tHe AlGoRiThM
The problem is that the ai will declare war on the player to slow them down (NERF them) and so the player has to split their armies instead of ROFL stomping one enemy with 2-3 armies turn after turn.
Hahahahaha 4:19 "Don't come at us though.. bitch" :P
didnt expect that hahaha
In empire total war i loved austria becouse if you didnt know anything about diplomacy you could easily start on a 3v1 war against PLC otomans and prusia
Thats one of the few campaings where i had found that diplomacy isnt an option but a need to avoid that and i love it due to that
empire total war is very a game of geopolitics , for example it took me 5 years to start a war against poland and another 3 years to capture east prussia while i fended off the initial onslaught and then gathered forces for the attack , oh and also scaring saxony into peace (capturing saxony early on just opens you up for more issues with bavaria and austria)
Why does CA keep making victory conditions on factions that are naturally friendly with? I'm trying to keep trade and allies with Cathay but my victory conditions have 3 Cathay settlements.
If I remember correctly, it counts if you get an alliance with them, just not sure which one.
@@bamaj1275 Yeah, that'd a D move. To make allies then be forced to destroy them or take their settlements as victory conditions.
@@almostontimehero5415 No what he is saying the victory condition is fulfilled by allying. You don't need to kill them.
Trading settlements is an OP placeholder at the moment. They didnt even bother balancing it at all.
Asking for money with that little balancing scales button is a great idea if you want some extra income while being friends, as that's not penalized in terms of how much you get out of them diplomatically.
However, do be aware that you might bleed a faction dry financially if you keep asking for money for agreements -- this might be fine. If I'm playing as Sisters of Twilight and Averland wants to give me 1800g for a nonaggression pact, neat. If they go bankrupt and die to vampires, well, sounds like their problem.
However, if I'm playing Avelorn and want to confederate Teclis, I do need to ensure he lives long enough for that to happen, so taking all of his money might cause him to get wiped out by Tzeentch (or Oxyotl in my most recent campaign.)
The penalties for breaking a pact are huge. In high dificulties you will be unreliable for the entire game and forget about making pacts beyong non-agression because there is a penalty of -50 or something like that with everyone.
Nah man. Even if you break every possible pact with a faction it's something like 30 turns and you'll be very reliable again. Obviously how much you go into the negatives is not capped so if you do it many times then sure it is possible to be a persona non grata the entire campaign.
That absolute bastard line caught me off guard. Good laugh
About relability if it is very low a lot more factions are more likely to declare war on you.
Dont expect to have friends as Skarbrand.
u sure u dont reach friendly at 15? and trusted friends at 150? at least in WH2...
also, r u sure it applies in the next turn?? for me in WH2 it changes really slowly. seems more changing slowly in a way that it will reach that number in around 10 turns.
ZERK, do a alliance point and how it works video.
My takeaway from this: Don't bother!
WAR! BLOOD! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!
Hostile and Besties so funny
Excellent video
Alternatively, play as Skaven : The entire world, IS, against you. You sign a non-aggression pact with a Skaven faction you just met, and they declare war on you during the endturn...
Makes everything simpler, really, yes-yes !
alternatively to that, just play as Khorne. No non-aggression pacts, no backstabbing, just honest war, for the Blood God!
I thought -100 was Hostile and +100 was Best Friends
No you can have way more than that. I've seen -3500~ negative relations. Positive is slightly harder to push up.
FYI @Zerkovich, you said the word "Make" 4 times in the five seconds between 0:09 and 0:14
I heard that “best fwends” and immediately pushed on the like button
To be fair, that is a pretty baller hat. I would definitely go to war to get that hat.
i like to delcare war on factions that are about to be destroyed to get diplomacy benefits or ask for gifts of money
'Hey, we're not gona come at you, don't come at us though.. bitch'
TW diplomacy is so logical, if only the real life diplomacy was like it!
.......
Commenting from Western Balkans.
bonus : if you want to confederate, don't make military alliance and only go too defensive alliance, because if you go on military alliance the confederation will take sensitively longer. i don't know what is the logic behind it, but it's here. maybe because it means you think of them as equal ? i don't know but it make confederate a lot harder than it should be for order factions.
Thats not true. Millitary alliances dont decrease the confedaration
That was a thing in wh2, and it's not on wh3. Now it's actually a good thing because you can request their army, which decreases their strength rating
@@shadow_king12344 well i still have more difficulty with confederation when i go to alliance so i don' t know why, didn't happend one time but on every campain i do soooooo
@@Yourantsally It wasn't a thing in WH2 either. People just suck at confederating so they make up excuses that push away responsibility from themselves.
Sign alliances, beatmen declares war, ally got burn one city :(
I play chaos. Everyone hates me even other chaos factions
SKARBRAND DOESN'T UNDERSTAND ALLIES! SKARBRAND HATES DIPLOMACY!
well empire and vampire is complex history so you can figure that having a diplomatic of any kind
Vassals?
Confederation?
Outposts?
There is much more
do dislike if you are an evil faction and you threaten you still get a massive negative diplomacy action. it's not you are bacstabbing you are just ruthless there is a difference
Meanwhile playing daemon isn’t too far from being at war with everyone
NO PEACE JUST WAR!!!
Confederation calculations???
It's always been a mystery to me
Always play Kathay, cant wait for CA to repair confederation
Oh aversion is an every turn thing.