Game Diplomacy vs Real Diplomacy

[Armageddon]

I like that Last idea. It basically is what I am looking for. Up until the 20th century, wars were fought almost exclusively with the goal of obtaining new territories. After a war, a few provinces would be exchanged and things would settle down, with trade and diplomacy resuming. Some territories changed hands in this manner so often (Alsace-Lorraine is a perfect example) that even to this day they lack a real national identity, having been swapped about so often.

Modern conflicts tend to focus more on purely economical concessions because most nations have found that conquest is too costly, and not nearly as profitible as trade. If a power can force an enemy into a subservient position, keeping it as a market for goods, then it has created a far more profitible position than if it had simply rolled in and taken over.

------------------
--Armageddon
"Ernest Hemmingway once wrote, 'The world is a fine place, and worth fighting for.' I agree with the later."

Morgan Freeman
Seven