BGForums

I am not going to totally disagree with that line of reasoning. Making a deal sweet can indeed seal it.

However, national interests are at stake too. NATO has not hung around for 50 years just because someone is handing out goodies. The Warsaw pact collapsed despite the fact that someone was handing out goodies (albeit, 2nd rate goodies).

My issue here is simple, the way diplomacy works in the WWIII scenario for 2010 really detracts from the game; it is not neutral; it does not add to it. The diplomatic model is contrived in the sense that its sole purpose is to start getting countries shooting at each other -- while it gives the impression that many other options are avialable.

The diplomatic model is an example of a feature set that has tons of promise, meaningful detail, and the possibility to catapult the game to a higher level -- but just as the journey is 90% complete, a hard turn sends the whole lot into a ditch. There are ways to make diplomacy "work," but the lengths one has to go to -- the rationalizations that are needed -- are absurd.

As I said, I really look forward to a updates to this part of the game for 2020. It could really be awesome.

Regards,
Feltan

Well, as weve heard many times now, its a war game.

The whole goal of its design is to make us fight wars.

Hence no way to "defeat" another region in a non-unification game,without crushing it militarily.Yet.

Making it so diplomacy worked the way we want, which would really fit an empire building game more than a war game,wont matter if we have to declare war and crush every region to win anyway.

So, the improvements we both seem to want, require other improvements to make them work.

I "think" a way to politically annex another region is a must, and has to be part of any system thats aim is to improve the diplo system.

The spirit of the Supreme Ruler can easily be maintained, and diplomacy improved without threating that spirit, if one allows for an alliance victory instad of, or in addition to, a single country victory.

Such a concept would not be that difficult to implement. Furthermore, it would then behoove human controlled or AI nations to actually engage in diplomacy -> self-preservation is a strong motivator. Enough of Mexico declaring war on the US because the US has too many bases! Rather, an alliance of Central and South American countries acting as a bloc would make far more sense, and be far more challenging.

Regards,
Feltan

I don't have much to offer the discussion... yet... as we have not really devoted much time to the diplomatic engine so far, but we do have lots of notes and ideas we intend to consider. I myself like the idea of a more influential diplomatic system and I am a big supporter of none-military victory conditions, so when we do get to these discussions there will be at least one vote for this sort of game improvement. However, mine is not the final decision.

For the moment, diplomacy is what it is, and yes gifts of money, technologies and unit designs will improve relations with a region. Most AI's in SR2010 are of a "paranoid" slant, believing that the player is just looking for an opportunity to stab them in the back. It was modeled after George's playing style

Not just George's, heck almost all of us end up slaughtering our allies in the end, simply because we have to in order to "win".

Isnt there already an "allied victory" setting in multiplayer ?I havent played it, but i thought i heard there was one.

We are going way off topic now, but id like to see a "Rennaisance" victory condition also.
One in which, we not only could(had to) achieve an allied victory, but one in which we also had to push our allies into a period of stable advancement with certain milestones needing to be met not only by our own region, but by our allied regions also.

Again thank you all for this wonderful...wonderful debate regarding diplomacy! Almost everyone brought up a very individually unique point of view!

Tkobo, you have a very good in-depth look at things so is Il Duce, and everyone else, so cheers y'all

by the way, a new topic for an idea for SR2020 is released at the SR2020 general discussion, go ahead and have a nice read

Cheers,
NATOforces

Thanks.

I would suggest that you scan the forums, particularly this one on diplo, into the history of this.

A Balthagor mentioned, diplo is still very much under discussion by the goats, and a lot of people have made a lot of suggestions, most of them pretty good. You will find that the question comes down to whether SR2010 [and thus 2020] is more oriented for outright war activity, or whether the subtlety of diplo will become a game by itself. It is also important to remember that the game is based on reality only enough to make units 'familiar,' and the notion of it being any kind of sim [econ, diplo, empire-build, etc] is only incidental. Very important.

On the other hand, with a bit of imagination and some time to experiment [and I mean be really wacky about it] you can do a lot with the diplo that's there, as long as you don't try to do anything that's conventional. It's a game, and some of its rules and principles are pretty subtle.

BTW - as I suggested elsewhere, cash bribes seem [to me] to have only a limited value, but ongoing trade deals [and the building of trust and reliability through fulfillment] will have large influence. Save your games and try multiple solutions to various diplo poblems. You will be surprised at which solutions work. One thing that helps is to be sparing in your transactions - pace them. A sudden big flurry of diplo transactions is not a good thing, generally.

I suspect that diplo will change considerably, but I also suspect that this will only happen to the extent that it facilitates threatening postures or belaying actions - although as you will see in other posts, I personally favor a general extension of all types of treaties and interactions via State.

We shall see what the goats bring us.