I'm all for formalizing the range of diplo suggestions in actual words, so that people can send them directly rather through the resource screen. As long as we stick to specific schema for offers and asks, it won't add any heavy burden on the players' time and would make the whole experience a bit more pleasant. It's less of an issue for small games, around 7 players say, as there the geopolitical situation is stark enough for avenues of cooperation to be self-evident, but for 10+ I think it's really necessary. It also bugs me to no end to have the loans as rigid as they are under the current system.
If we are not formalizing diplo, that is we don't even concede the ability to say "Fish for 12 turns", then countdowns should definitely be banned, as they say precisely that. There's no point in half-assing around here, it's practically words anyway. The resource cypher is a bit more fun, so I can see keeping that.
The danger of full-diplo is not just the time spent writing long letters back and forth. The bigger danger is that most full-diplo games end up with a near-permanent state of worldwide NAPs, such that war is generally telegraphed too far in advance for any element of surprise.
With the world mostly locked in NAP agreements, anyone you aren't NAP'ed with gets a fortified border. This further decreases the payoff of an attack, especially relative to the rest of the world who is building their way to space peacefully.
Boring!
I played one full-diplo game, not interested in playing another. I think we've found a pretty good balance here, actually. I agree with Bob, don't change it.
(April 17th, 2014, 19:59)Ceiliazul Wrote: The danger of full-diplo is not just the time spent writing long letters back and forth. The bigger danger is that most full-diplo games end up with a near-permanent state of worldwide NAPs, such that war is generally telegraphed too far in advance for any element of surprise.
With the world mostly locked in NAP agreements, anyone you aren't NAP'ed with gets a fortified border. This further decreases the payoff of an attack, especially relative to the rest of the world who is building their way to space peacefully.
Boring!
I played one full-diplo game, not interested in playing another. I think we've found a pretty good balance here, actually. I agree with Bob, don't change it.
Pretty much agree with Ceiliazul. Except, I wouldn't mind tipping things even farther away from NAPs. To me that's the appeal of playing Always War, or banning (game-enforced) peace treaties.
I think the number of turns of enforced peace should be a separate line in diplo offers. Although I can see the case for making this line always be zero, as well.
As an aside, there is a tag in the XML that alters the length of peace treaties. However, changing that tag to 0, so there is no enforced peace is effectively the same thing as only allowing ceasefires (which is basically one of Seven's ideas). Personally I think that playing with this is better than having those 10 turns enforced peace deals where people use them for NAP purposes, even though I think it will lead to more pressure on players. There are then advantages in that players can't use the 10 turns enforced peace to snipe cities on the cheap. Still, not a change that is 100% good because in war it would make ending it somewhat more difficult to judge; then enforced peace is useful on occasion at the end of a real war.
I'd generally prefer to play without those countdowns rather than with them, but we've already seen times when people have done countdowns and then backed out of the "deal" so perhaps players should put less onto those propositions than they are doing. Still, not like there is anyway to really enforce this sort of change in game.
