I'm starting to get a little worried about the economics and

[Hellfish6]

How about if there was a warning system invoved in diplomacy? Like you'd get a message at the beginning of a turn from your foreign ministry saying

"Our relationship with COUNTRY X is begining to deteriorate because they (insert issue here: do not like our warmongering, do not think they are being treated fairly, etc.). If this continues, we will lose their support."

That way, we'll know that something isn't right and what we find out may or may not be the actual problem, but at least we'll have something to work with besides simpyl having an alliance broken for no apparent reason.

[BattleGoat]

That's pretty much exactly what is planned! It's nice when the suggestions are already implemented... It makes us more confident in the game

[Hellfish6]

Wow. What do you guys need us for, anyways??

Now.. when can you let us beta test all these cool things?????

[BattleGoat]

We will be expanding the beta testing soon. There are still design issues that we want incorporated before we go to a larger group.

[XeroMan]

Well, bringing up MOO2 again, it was cool how random events could tip a computer player against you or for you. A diplomatic marriage (between a meklon and a human???) or an inadvertant insult could really make things interesting.
Also, in Pax Imperia, I noticed that the computer would be a faithful ally, unless you tempted it by leaving your border with it lightly defended. Then it would try a smash and grab.
All in all, it comes down to expediency. If the cost/benifit works out favourably, then keep the treaty. Modified by any special events and or hatreds....(or as a Canadian, everyone loves us)

[Head_Case]

One of my all-time favorite games was a board game called Diplomacy. The game simulated the diplomacy going on in Europe just prior to WWI. It was played by up to 7 players and all negotiations and treaties were kept secret between the parties involved unless they chose to let everyone know. This game was one of the most cutthroat games I've ever played (you didn't want to play with friends because by game end they were no longer friends).

In ALL current multiplayer strategy games, all treaties of mutual support between two countries are broadcast to everyone playing so there is no surprise that attacking one will bring down the wrath of the other. My suggestion is to allow for silent treaties or at least silence on the terms of the treaties in multiplayer games. Broadcast that country X met with country Y for discussions, but the substance of their discussions should not be broadcast unless the parties agree to it. This will make for some very interesting surprises.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Head_Case on 2002-11-05 07:15 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Head_Case on 2002-11-05 07:16 ]</font>

[Balthagor]

I had been tinkering with an idea of taking this one step farther and allowing the player to keep certain negotiations secret from it's population. There are times where you're people might not be happy to find out you're dealing in arms with a certain player so you count on your Gov. agencies to keep the population uninformed. This would also allow for covert ops to find out these back room agreements and publicize them to the region to hit your opponents domestic approval rating. But this is still being discussed.

[tkobo]

Secret treaties sounds like a great idea.
I wasnt aware that every treaty you made was viewable by your public,if so secret treaties are a must.

[Reddemon]

That is a a excellent ideal. You know and I know the real world has many kept secrets so why not in the game also.


DEMON OUT

[3iff]

Excellent idea...(I also used to play Diplomacy). I'm sure many governments make arms deals and trade agreements, conveniently forgetting to tell the public.

It would also be a nasty surprise to attack one nation and find one or two others leap to their defence...more work for our secret services I think!