Limited diplo system

[Bigger]

And I have never been accused of being a math need before, so thanks.

As someone who is actually pretty good at diplo I'd say my main distastes are 1. The time investment and 2. Almost every diplo game becomes primarily about the diplo situation rather than the game of civ. also, there are far more instances of diplo games ending in hard feelings than not - I think AW games probably have the best record for avoiding them.

These are all pretty good points. Although you are quite aware that AI-diplo can cause hurt feelings in its own unique way .

[Viqsi]

Civ4 was never designed to be played in a way where you had unlimited words to say - full diplo fundamentally changes the game.

Arguably the same is true of playing multiplayer at all. We're playing with/against people, not super-special more-advanced AIs, and that has a very significant fundamental impact on what one's strategies are, how one plans, and overall how the game is played. For example, that's how you get from the Fast Worker being "very useful" in SP to "borderline-OP best UU in the game" in MP, and it's how religion becomes just a source of happy and culture in MP rather than a major element in how you relate to your neighbors in SP.

[Krill]

Civ4 was never designed to be played in a way where you had unlimited words to say - full diplo fundamentally changes the game.

Arguably the same is true of playing multiplayer at all. We're playing with/against people, not super-special more-advanced AIs, and that has a very significant fundamental impact on what one's strategies are, how one plans, and overall how the game is played. For example, that's how you get from the Fast Worker being "very useful" in SP to "borderline-OP best UU in the game" in MP, and it's how religion becomes just a source of happy and culture in MP rather than a major element in how you relate to your neighbors in SP.

No. CIV was designed with multiplayer given as much importance as single player.

[Bigger]

Civ4 was never designed to be played in a way where you had unlimited words to say - full diplo fundamentally changes the game.

this would be more valid if itg weren't possible to talk to other humans in game (trade window or otherwise). Unlimited words, even, if you are patient enough.

[Catwalk]

Whatever the intended design was, it's up to us to figure out how to have the most fun with it. There have been more experiments too, such as diplo through in-game chat only I believe?

[scooter]

Civ4 was never designed to be played in a way where you had unlimited words to say - full diplo fundamentally changes the game.

this would be more valid if itg weren't possible to talk to other humans in game (trade window or otherwise). Unlimited words, even, if you are patient enough.

The chat window was there for online MP, where there's a short turn timer to prevent you from talking much.

[Qgqqqqq]

FYI, im not opposed to diplo, I just think AI handles it better, and so would rather go the whole way with full as opposed to this.

I'm not following, are you advocating AI or full diplo?

Both...and neither.
Basically im saying if i had the time (and inclination) for diplo then id go full, if not AI would be the way id go (no NAPs!).

That said i like the idea oflimitingduration

[Catwalk]

I assume based on your answer that you don't have the time and inclination for full diplo. What makes AI diplo more fun to you than the limited diplo proposal?

[Viqsi]

Civ4 was never designed to be played in a way where you had unlimited words to say - full diplo fundamentally changes the game.

Arguably the same is true of playing multiplayer at all. We're playing with/against people, not super-special more-advanced AIs, and that has a very significant fundamental impact on what one's strategies are, how one plans, and overall how the game is played. For example, that's how you get from the Fast Worker being "very useful" in SP to "borderline-OP best UU in the game" in MP, and it's how religion becomes just a source of happy and culture in MP rather than a major element in how you relate to your neighbors in SP.

No. CIV was designed with multiplayer given as much importance as single player.

That just makes it feasible and realistic, though. That does not mean it's played the same way, with the same options.

Having other people involved in any such game gives you more options. If, say, I'm playing Left 4 Dead with bots, I can't easily pick a specific area and defend it, as the bots are all doing their own thing and I can't tell them to sit down and shut up. With people, we can coordinate plans and equipment and thereby maximize our advantage.

Heck, in Civ4 there's options available to you in SP that are unavailable in MP, diplo-wise. For example, you can go through about ten or twenty different proposals and counterproposals in the space of about five minutes without damaging relations and turn things to your advantage that way ("just how much will he give me for ending this war?"). But people - we people - don't operate that way, and it's not natural for us to operate that way, and it's arguably disrespectful to expect us to operate that way. Unlike AIs, human beings are irrational creatures.

[Mardoc]

I guess the main thing that has me confused is why? Why did you draw the lines where you did, for permitted/illegal? And especially, why do you leave the consequences as 'reputation'? It just feels like a list of rules, without an overarching purpose. I don't see what the problem is that it's solving, and therefore I don't really see how to evaluate the proposal either.

You mix together pieces that seem to have different rationales; why include NAPs but not screenshots, except when making border deals or discussing a broken deal, for example? Why 'can require declare war, but not that the war actually go hot'? Etc.