I took some time to read the diplomacy plan and i want to quickly throw some things out there. i will flush them out when i have more time.

i've gone over phases in my main suggestion thread. https://steamhost.cn/steamcommunity_com/app/241000/discussions/0/1642039363005638330/

Diplomacy should fit into this. let me explain:

there were 3 primary groups that tribes fit into; let's say the Turkey area

1. subject of Rome. received semi autonomy and had Roman tech, but paid for it in gold, grain, and manpower.

2. enemy of Rome - tribes strong enough to seize and defend lands from a Roman response, but not strong enough to push further . they acted as kingdoms within Rome and both engaged in war and defended Rome, depending on the politics of the day.

3. nomad tribes - these were groups that would lease land from various local kingdoms. they would receive protection and access to resources for a fee and would be required to "re-up or move" after the year is up, depending on the politics of the day.

I think that once you achieve a certain degree of autonomy, say around turn 100, you should have to pick one of the 3 options. if you pick options 1 or 2, you immediately settle a kingdom in a spot within your current territory. if you choose option 3, you pack up and leave everything behind.

By establishing your pecking order in the world, this will create a path of diplomatic options for you to follow. It will also create a sense of progress for the player, which is a key to player engagement in 4x games.
_________________________________________________________________________

I don't think that minor tribes is a good idea. its too civ 5 and doesnt fit into this game. a better idea, and i flushed this out a bit too in my thread, is to expand the role of the individual families. create skill trees, growth paths, family sizes, and roles.

Potentially a family could grow large enough to where you could choose to kick them or they could leave due to unhappiness. They could become one of the neutral groups floating along the map and potentially a trading partner

_________________________________________________________________________

I don't like dipo points either. take anno 1800 for example; I don't need to conduct war because i can just buy everyone's stuff and live off the proceeds.

additionally, once you establish an excess of diplo points, it becomes a serious point of abuse.

a game like this needs more war, more war animations/ weapons options, and a push to engage. economy sims are boring.

_________________________________________________________________________

trade: the biggest point of diplomacy, recruitment, and war surrounded trade. tribes in Turkey needed access to a precious resource, grazing lands. this was because they maintained animals for food, clothing, tools, and other production materials. if you couldn't pull your weight, then another tribe would get assigned your lease

I outlined some trade ideas in my thread. the current trade system is lazy and inconsistent. A true set of trade options would include roaming traders of various sizes/types, competitor traders, and ally / Rome traders. it would also include local conditions, such as barbarian raiders, land/water trade routes offering different selections, and distance/terrain concerns.

_________________________________________________________________________

Finally i just want to say this. it annoys me for ppl to use terms like "AI." its not intelligence; it's just a dumb computer running scripts. spending too much time trying to make the computer smart will drive you crazy and you will fail.

don't make it overly complicated and don't hang your hat on this being "the feature" that separates this game from others.

I think you meant Civ 5 in regards to 'minors'. Civ 4 only really had 'barbarian' minors which you couldn't really interact with outside just 'conquering' them.

In any case, I'm not against the idea of having minors - that's a great way of getting some of the other actors from the fall of the Roman Empire into the game without having to design a faction out of them. The idea of using them to your own ends sort of makes sense too; maybe give the Saxons a bonus to it since this lines up historically well with their endeavors.

Main worry though is if there is enough room on the map to have them - right now I'm finding the game pretty balanced in terms of strategic room to move around in and such. If the minors are going to be added in then it won't be military roles that they will need to help satisfy...

another idea that would tie in nicely with trade and diplomacy would be to use the neutral groups as a quasi "minor" tribe, as well as disgruntled families.

generally what would happen in the old days was a tribe would fail, either through internal strife, failure to secure land, military defeat, or running out of food (winter). These members would scatter, some would become caravan traders, some integrate into other tribes, return to Rome, and some would become barbarians.

you could simulate this in the game; groups of neutrals and barbarians could appear on the map (let's say at the start of each new year) and you would have some interaction options with them including:
- lease them land /resources for a price
- trading (similar to caravan but smaller scale)
- capture them and integrate into our tribe
- ally with them.

The neutral / barbarian tribes would have to have some degree of functionality for this to happen. right now they are literally just place holders for the most part. neutrals would need a fort and some ability to use their families to generate resources. they would also need the ability to pack up and to capture resources.

LOL. Designer instead of do some work - just post fake news about work. Not do something, just type something.

Originally posted by Shico:

LOL. Designer instead of do some work - just post fake news about work. Not do something, just type something.

i don't agree that it's fake news. my personal opinion is that this project was beyond Jon's capabilities to accomplish. He didn't ask for enough money in 2013 to hire enough staff to put his vision into action; now there is no funding for the project.

I feel that Jon will achieve the diplomacy vision in some capacity at some point this year. He is not one to give up despite his many other flaws.