creating world wide alliances

[TheCyab6a]

id like to see the ability to create a organization like NATO or the CSTO by starting it and then being able to invite other nations to it. i believe you can do that in masters of the world but my time on that game is verry limited

[dax1]

or a single nation can make request for access in alliance and members vote for accept new ally or not!

[Aragos]

This is what I greatly prefer over the SRCW Sphere system.

If I want to play a Dictatorship USA bent on world conquest, I should be able to set up my own Alliance system. Same with a peaceful, democratic USSR. Without necessarily being tied to the historical reality.

[Kristijonas]

The totally worst thing in my opinion is that there will be spheres even in 2020. Whether there will be more than 2 or they will be dinamic - remains to be answered.

[Aragos]

The totally worst thing in my opinion is that there will be spheres even in 2020. Whether there will be more than 2 or they will be dinamic - remains to be answered.

I could live with "dynamic" (e.g., the actual leader changes based on economic, military, etc. strength), but that isn't possible with the current system.

I'd prefer ditching it all together and going back to diplomacy as it was in SR2020.

[Kristijonas]

Agreed, sir. But that's not going to happen. Battlegoat has other plans than the whims of their players!

[Balthagor]

...But that's not going to happen...

Well, this is convenient. Could you let me know what other design decisions we are going to make? It could save a lot of time...

There was discussion in studio just yesterday on this very topic. I already brought it to David's attention, he and I had some discussion on it. I agree that it is important that the feel of the Global Crisis map in Ultimate, on the diplomatic front, be more in line with what existing in SR2020 than what exists for SR1936, although we'd like the '36 era content to keep the newer design. We are working to fit this square peg in a round hole in the best possible way.

To what degree will we compromise on the implementation? Until we encounter all the implementation barriers, no one knows.

[Aragos]

Balt, thanks for the response.

Sarcasm aside ( ), I'd prefer a diplo/alliance system that is less wedded to the SRCW model. It worked great for SRCW--the history up to 1949 had already been written (e.g., two power blocs facing each other). Outside of that? IMHO it is a bit ahistorical and can lead to some later game play issues. For example, the USA could become a dictatorship...but still be the Blue leader.

If there was a way to turn it off in game setup, that would work.

SR36 sort of kept the SRCW system--and while it functions within the game, it is a bit odd at times. When Paradox did this with HOI, it basically took the poli/diplo system from the old board wargame World In Flames (the Days of Decision module/add-on) and used a 'triangular' system (democracy/communism/fascism). That is why their system work(s)--they stole it from a system that worked

[Rosalis]

Better to steal something good then create something bad. Even worse hold on to something bad for so long. Nothing done to the actual suggestions of users.