A lot of the issues with diplomacy stem from the reliability system, which seems to only affect the player, making diplomacy frustrating. It leads to problems like random war declarations, difficulties managing allies and vassals, and various bugs that lower the player's reliability, hindering interactions with the AI. This is especially problematic for Slaanesh, whose playstyle incentivizes gifting and spreading cults among allies.

So, what is the consensus on this issue?

​

TainBoCuailinge#8335 wrote:

It needs to stay to discourage players from just gaming diplomacy as they did in the TWs that didn't have it. Dumbing the game down further is out of the question.

Skaven and GS should however have no reliability rating because everyone knows they will not honor their word if they can help it. But that should mean practically no one but other Skaven or GS should make treaties with them.

Unfortunatelly right now you can game it by selling wars and settlements to AI. I do think realibity should be remove it or added to the AI aswell, or maybe a more profound rework to diplomacy to allow more options specially for destruction factions.

​

dogoska#1535 wrote:
Unfortunatelly right now you can game it by selling wars and settlements to AI.

That's a problem with settlement trading in particular and therefore no reason to ditch reliability altogether.

No system should only effect players and not the AI.

Is this the "reliable" rating that each faction has? The title of this thread is really confusing.

​

TainBoCuailinge#8335 wrote:

It needs to stay to discourage players from just gaming diplomacy as they did in the TWs that didn't have it. Dumbing the game down further is out of the question.

Skaven and GS should however have no reliability rating because everyone knows they will not honor their word if they can help it. But that should mean practically no one but other Skaven or GS should make treaties with them.

It seems contradictory to me that you are arguing game mechanics first with one hand and immersion first with the other.

I agree that some factions wouldn't realistically use reliability - however, a nuanced and loreful implementation of the system would be quite different for other races too.  (A lot of them would probably not care if you double-crossed a race they're ideologically opposed to, for instance.)

But your "dumbing the game down further is out of the question" argument is in direct contradiction to "cut a mechanic that makes the game harder from two factions which are already simple and powerful".  I'm not even sure what you think should happen at this point.

​

Steelclaw#6359 wrote:

But your "dumbing the game down further is out of the question" argument is in direct contradiction to "cut a mechanic that makes the game harder from two factions which are already simple and powerful".  I'm not even sure what you think should happen at this point.

What's so hard to understand here? Skaven and GS do not have reliability, but they also do not get to make treaties with factions not of their own race because no one trusts them but at the same time members of those races also don't care if you break your word because they already expect your to do just that anyway.

 I would in fact make that even more radical and not allow most diplomacy outside of basic war and peace between factions of different alignments. No one in the Empire would ever make treaties with Archaon or Skarbrand after all.

​

TainBoCuailinge#8335 wrote:

What's so hard to understand here? Skaven and GS do not have reliability, but they also do not get to make treaties with factions not of their own race because no one trusts them but at the same time members of those races also don't care if you break your word because they already expect your to do just that anyway.

 I would in fact make that even more radical and not allow most diplomacy outside of basic war and peace between factions of different alignments. No one in the Empire would ever make treaties with Archaon or Skarbrand after all.

Ah, my apologies, I took "practically nobody would ever make treaties with them" as a statement of lore justifying lack of reliability in-game rather than a direct gameplay suggestion, hence my confusion.

I'm torn between supporting removal of cross-faction diplomacy and being reminded that some factions do "betray" their alignment, particularly Order ones going over to Disorder or Chaos.  The tendency for that not to happen (and consequences of your fellows hating you) is kinda already accounted for with diplomatic penalties.

​

Ingr8#8085 wrote:

Is this the "reliable" rating that each faction has? The title of this thread is really confusing.

Reability is the mechanic that stops the player from attacking during a non-agression pact, or, declare war after 10 turns after breaking the pact. It only affects the player and some AI factions will break NAP and declare war on the same turn (orcs and beastman come to mind).

TainBoCuailinge#8335 wrote:
 I would in fact make that even more radical and not allow most diplomacy outside of basic war and peace between factions of different alignments. No one in the Empire would ever make treaties with Archaon or Skarbrand after all.

When a group of people are backed into a corner, they've done things - in real life history no less - more extreme than making treaties with enemy factions. 

I don't agree with this sentiment at all. It's certainly not a preference, but out of necessity? Absolutely. 

It is fine as is but not great and needs to be improved upon. Maybe with one reliability rating per "alignment" group ? So one for Order, one for Chaos and one for Destruction ?

So that when you betray or threaten Ogres as the Empire you don't penalties to your diplomacy with HE and Dwarfs.

​

Mastigos#4130 wrote:
When a group of people are backed into a corner, they've done things - in real life history no less - more extreme than making treaties with enemy factions. 

Dwarfs will never ally with Skaven or Greenskins (or Chaos Dwarfs). Lizardmen will never ally with Chaos or undead. Skaven will never ally with anyone without already planning betrayal (and everyone knows this) and Greenskins only care about fighting. Even in End Times Grimgor didn't give a shit about the world ending but about Archaon supposedly bragging to be an 'arder guy than him. He had gladly obliterated Cathay before that.

So, NOPE! Not in Warhammer.

​

TainBoCuailinge#8335 wrote:
Dwarfs will never ally with Skaven or Greenskins (or Chaos Dwarfs).

Never say never.  Chaos Dwarfs were dwarfs once, and they chose to reject the Ancestor-Gods turn to Hashut, which is more extreme than allying with either of those, IMO.  It's rare and takes exceptional circumstances, but almost everyone has a breaking point.

TainBoCuailinge#8335 wrote:
Lizardmen will never ally with Chaos or undead.

This is probably also not true.  Slann were too afraid to read Oxyotl's mind after he spent all that time in the Realms of Chaos.  That implies self-awareness that it's possible for them to be driven mad by Chaos.

TainBoCuailinge#8335 wrote:
Skaven will never ally with anyone without already planning betrayal (and everyone knows this)

Absolutely true, but not necessarily an obstacle if you're also plotting to betray them first.  This is a mindset which makes sense for several non-Skaven factions to take with them (and we are already well aware that Skaven and WoC are capable of working together).

TainBoCuailinge#8335 wrote:
and Greenskins only care about fighting.

Not strictly true - while they all love fighting and proving themselves, they're capable of having goals outside of that.  K8P is a decent example of this - the fighting is still valued greatly but it's not being done purely for its own sake.  The fact that they are capable of joining forces with other Greenskins for the sake of getting a bigger fight or winning whatever prize they're after is solid evidence that it's possible for them to ally temporarily outside of their own kind, even if it's exceptionally rare.

What you're saying is generally true but asserting it as an "always" blanket statement is not correct.