[Septimius Severus]

Just a reminder that we are scheduled to resume our normal hosting schedule at or around 12:00 AM PST on Sunday 1/03 (midnight on Saturday). Currently there is one turn (Caelum) still oustanding for turn 30. Illuminated if you need more time let me or someone on your team know as soon as possible. The next turn may or may not host soon afterwards (depending upon where the clock was before we shut it down and how Gandalf is able to handle it).

I echo the previous poster's new year wishes and I wouldn't mind getting a fresh little debate going on the merits of diplomacy in team games and in FFA games as it applies to both. This is obviously something that probably won't be resolved anywhere, but I think ultimately it should probably be based on what all the players want in a particular game. Here's how I see the pro's and con's of allowing diplomacy in team and ffa games:

Cons:

1.Some argue that allowing diplomacy unbalances the game and can lead to ganging up on some teams/players.

2.Diplomacy can slow things down a bit, since ideally there would be no peace or lulls in the fighting due to alliances of some sort.

Pros:

1. Diplomacy is more realistic and closer to what one finds in the real world or even in a fantasy world such as Dom3, people are not machines after all and will do what they need to do.

2. Enforcing no diplomacy rules may be difficult, if two players or teams want to make an alliance, how is the admin to find out and enforce it if no one else finds out and the people involved don't tell?

3. Diplomacy can even the playing field between weaker/stronger teams/nations and also between less/more experienced teams/players and give the underdogs at least some hope.

4. Diplomacy is necessary because in reality, no game between humans can be perfectly balanced, there are just too many factors: skill level, game mechanics and national differences (as much as we try to do with mods and the like), leadership (for team games), experience, etc.

On the neutral front:

1. Since many victory conditions such as ours state that ultimately only one team/player can win, some say diplomacy may not really hurt since alliances are only supposed to be temporary in these types of games and therefore it does not matter.

Any opinions?