A diplomatic game flaw
Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2014 2:07 pm
We just encountered a situation in the game that is highly illogical and could be considered an abuse if there was any doubt that it was made deliberately. However, it isn't and we're stuck at something impossible. I won't discuss the exact situation because it's not clear-cut and it has its specifics, but offer a very similar and easily achieved one.
Suppose we have two neighbouring nations, A and B, who decide they don't want to go to war with each other and make peace. Also, they don't create an alliance because one or both of them are already in an alliance with third parties, making peace with everybody would require a massive exchange of diplomats etc. etc. Anyway, there is really no *need* for an alliance, simply, staying on good terms is enough.
Eventually, both players switch to democracy.
And then, at one point, a player C attacks them both. Now, with A and B being at peace, player A can't attack C's units in B's territory and, symetrically, player B can't attack C's units in A's territory. So, in 50% of the cases, C's units are 100% safe while they are free to attack everything in range.
Also, they can't drop peace because they are in Democracy and can't drop Democracy because it would make their nations a mess and vulnerable to subversion attacks which is something you don't want in the middle of the war. Also, they can't form an alliance because they have other allies without embassies with the other party (therefore, officially at "war"
I believe this shows how much the current diplomatic system is seriously flawed and should be fixed... somehow. Firstly, the default state of nations when they make contact sholdn't be "war", it should be "null". OR, being at war shouldn't prevent other people to make alliance. But I believe the first solution is much more logical and realistic.
Also, there should be more diplomatic stances. At least one more: allowing other people's units to enter your territory without having to create an alliance or go to war. Quite enough historic examples to justify this. Others come to mind, such as "vassalage", but that's not the topic here.
Suppose we have two neighbouring nations, A and B, who decide they don't want to go to war with each other and make peace. Also, they don't create an alliance because one or both of them are already in an alliance with third parties, making peace with everybody would require a massive exchange of diplomats etc. etc. Anyway, there is really no *need* for an alliance, simply, staying on good terms is enough.
Eventually, both players switch to democracy.
And then, at one point, a player C attacks them both. Now, with A and B being at peace, player A can't attack C's units in B's territory and, symetrically, player B can't attack C's units in A's territory. So, in 50% of the cases, C's units are 100% safe while they are free to attack everything in range.
Also, they can't drop peace because they are in Democracy and can't drop Democracy because it would make their nations a mess and vulnerable to subversion attacks which is something you don't want in the middle of the war. Also, they can't form an alliance because they have other allies without embassies with the other party (therefore, officially at "war"
I believe this shows how much the current diplomatic system is seriously flawed and should be fixed... somehow. Firstly, the default state of nations when they make contact sholdn't be "war", it should be "null". OR, being at war shouldn't prevent other people to make alliance. But I believe the first solution is much more logical and realistic.
Also, there should be more diplomatic stances. At least one more: allowing other people's units to enter your territory without having to create an alliance or go to war. Quite enough historic examples to justify this. Others come to mind, such as "vassalage", but that's not the topic here.