If this type of thing is being discussed elsewhere please direct me to the respective thread and delete this one (I apologize in advance if this is true).
My issue is diplomatic consistency, as it relates to the "Regional Summary". Especially in Shattered World. For example, in the US (50 states), it mentions that two "factions" (in a sense) arise amongst the 50 states and those factions are based on the issue of a new implementation of Manifest Destiny. It is stated that California, Texas, and Illinois lead the way as the pro-MD faction, while Michigan, Colorado, and Washington state are the leaders of the anti-MD, now in every game I play (almost every game, there was maybe two instances where this didn't happen) at some point California and Texas go to war with one another, and eventually Texas declares war on Illinois. Now, if you read each of 50 states' summary, it notes what position that state is taking towards the issue. Some are pro, some anti, and some neutral. With that in mind, why can't the game start with the "pro" side allied with one another, and similarly for the "anti" side, and leave the neutral to make up their minds? (or at least a lobby option so we can decide if we want the game that way or not) I mean if we are giving historical context to the shattered world, some things need to be consistent about it. Likewise, for example, it is stated in Alabama's regional summary that it is being pressured by Tennessee to grant access to the Gulf of Mexico, well perhaps they should go to war with one another very near the beginning of the game (regardless of WV, except maybe when it is set to none). This would add another level of challenges, for example, if you are a neutral state (in terms of the MD issue) and you side with either side, the other side's CB goes through the roof and soon after, unless the state (if it is a human player) can do some fast diplomacy, they are declared war upon, and subsequently the pro-alliance would declare war on the states within the anti-alliance.
I am a bit unique when I play this game, in that I like watching my allies succeed in their goals, for example in the game I am currently playing (once again as my home state of Mississippi), Texas is a powerhouse and only time I stepped in to help was when I could get a sizable chunk of territory out of the deal, however as I stated before CA and TX are at war with one another, and both of them are powerfull allies against Mexico, and I don't want to have to break off either alliance, and now that their borders touch (with CA taking most of Arizona and Texas taking most of New Mexico) they are in open conflict, which is interfering with our war with Mexico. I mean at least give the AI some logic about alliances for example if I am allied to both California and Texas then it should be logical that CA and TX would ally with one another, or as another example from the same game. North Carolina and Virginia are both allies with me, yet they are at war with one another (because each other's CBs maxed out because of declaring wars on regions that would declare war on their other allies), though I am leaning towards DOWing NC because they are really close to knocking out Virginia (because they are keeping the northern states from being able to reach me), although NC would still be my ally if I let it capture Virginia, I don't like it when my allies die, whether they be AI or human, and similarly (and perhaps ironically) I punished some of my allies for betraying other allies (even ones that they were also allied to!) by annexing them, but generally I like it when an alliance is stable, so to become a solid front against our enemies.
So long story short: A little diplomatic consistency with the historical context of the game and/or better AI logic in terms of alliances (If A is allied to B and C is allied to B then A and C must become allies) would make the game so much more realistic and challenging.
Edited: Now I know there some situations where nation A doesn't want to be an ally to nation C, but generally in the context of this game, that kind of thinking generally comes from a human player so that kind of logic would not be applied because it is overridden by the playing style (and logic) of the human player.