What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!

Mortifer · #1 September 21st, 2003, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by cpbeller:
I too thought that there should be diplomacy (alliance making), but then I got to thinking...with every nation being led by a Pretender to Godhood, and only one can become God, then that does make it a holy war....there is no room for alliances....

Really if you think about it, it does make sense....I wouldn't make an alliance with someone I KNEW wanted me dead....sure, the "alliance of common enemies" may be valid, but still....when that person wants me dead, no matter what...and then throw in the affects of religion....it makes sense that there is only total war....

The mixing of religion with alliances shouldn't work...and in multiplayer, you can make your alliances...just nothing formal...

I do not agree. In civ3 for example, you are trying to get AI allies to accomplish your goals. [Either conquer all of them, or diplo victory.]
Here you should be able to make alliances, also the AI should be able to make AI-AI alliances, that would make the game lot more interesting.

QuarianRex · #2 September 21st, 2003, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mortifer:
I do not agree. In civ3 for example, you are trying to get AI allies to accomplish your goals. [Either conquer all of them, or diplo victory.]
Here you should be able to make alliances, also the AI should be able to make AI-AI alliances, that would make the game lot more interesting.

Yes but in civ3 you have the chioce of conquering or diplomacy. In Dominions you don't, and in fact you shouldn't. Diplomacy in Dom is hobbled by the addition of dominion. If you can make treaties with other pretenders then they can potentially spread their divine influence through your lands without you being able to do anything (and vice-versa). This can weaken your troops morale, weaken both your prophet and pretender, and generally make you easier to slaughter. It's even worse when your neighbor has an incompatible dominion (abysia and caelum, ermor amd anyone...) and can turn a supposedly benign peace treaty into an offensive weapon.

If you are in a race for godhood you are not willing to risk subVersion of you divinity. For any reason. Ergo, no diplomacy.

PDF · #3 September 21st, 2003, 08:22 PM

I think that a minimal dose of diplomacy would be nice, all those reasons some of you invent against "any" diplomacy aren't that convincing..
What for example would do a sensible god

against Ermorian threat ? Ally with some other to deal with it...
If this in turn cause new problems, he can always change side and declare war on his former ally !

MythicalMino · #4 September 21st, 2003, 09:36 PM

but we are talking about a game of world-wide holy war....if every nation in the world (real-life world) was so invested in a particular religion (ex, every nation in the world an opposing nature of Muslim and Jewish), you would not see them joining forces in any way....both religions are so excluding of other religions (like the religions of Dominions), that they don't allow (true and trustful) alliances with one another.

Even within their own religious nations, there is constant war....the Shiites vs. the Sunni, Turkey (I believe) vs. the Kurds....in the Old Testament of the Bible, the two Kingdoms of Jews vs. each other....

That is why I can believe in the Dominions world with no true Diplomacy....

Now, I understand you will not agree with me....but this is what my thoughts on it are....i love diplomacy (working models in a games vs. the AI), but in Dominions, it just makes sense to me that there is none...

Mortifer · #5 September 21st, 2003, 10:31 PM

Well, Holy War or not, you guys dont get the point.
Just because the concept of the game is about a war, there should be dimplomacy. Gods, warlords, emperors, who cares?!
Diplomacy does make a lot of sense in all strategy/war games, regardless of the concept. Since we have territories to conquer here, diplomacy could be a nice addition.......
I am sure that lot players would agree with me.

MythicalMino · #6 September 21st, 2003, 10:37 PM

but why change the concept? that is my point...I think illwinter has done a superb job in making this game....diplomacy or not....sure, it would be nice if there was diplomacy in the game....but I don't think it has to have it to be successful....that is my point....and, the no-diplomacy "fits" in the game....that is why I think it still works....

a game of civ3 should have it...but not dominions doesn't need it....

who knows...perhaps if illwinter makes more money with this one, they can add some diplomacy in the next installment, if they decide that they want it....but...again, this game works without it....and it makes sense with the concept...

you say "holy war or not, the game needs diplomacy", i disagree...it is a game of holy war....therefore, the game doesn't need diplomacy....

And I really would hate illwinter to change the "concept" just to put in a diplomacy model....I really like the religious theme in the game....

Kristoffer O · #7 September 22nd, 2003, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by cpbeller:
but why change the concept? that is my point...I think illwinter has done a superb job in making this game....diplomacy or not....sure, it would be nice if there was diplomacy in the game....but I don't think it has to have it to be successful....that is my point....and, the no-diplomacy "fits" in the game....that is why I think it still works....

a game of civ3 should have it...but not dominions doesn't need it....

who knows...perhaps if illwinter makes more money with this one, they can add some diplomacy in the next installment, if they decide that they want it....but...again, this game works without it....and it makes sense with the concept...

you say "holy war or not, the game needs diplomacy", i disagree...it is a game of holy war....therefore, the game doesn't need diplomacy....

And I really would hate illwinter to change the "concept" just to put in a diplomacy model....I really like the religious theme in the game....

The concept will not change, but the concept doesn't exclude diplomacy. You have it in multiplayer. If I may indulge myself:

Most religions are peaceful and do not indulge in holy wars. However if the faith is threatened they might react (the followers at least). Just as if someone attacked your house.

Religion has been used to legitimate hostilities, but is rarely the underlying reason of a war. Greed, megalomania and fear of your neighbor are.

In a fantasy world the God is not as aloof as gods of this world. Perhaps the point of faith is lost when you can actually see your god, but fear or loyalty in a manifest god should be enough to gather armies intent on conquering the lands of heathens if this was the outspoken will of said god.

In general, diplomacy is a means to an end. You could argue, as M. does, that Gods should use it as well as humans. I agree. In multiplayer this is often the case. Dominions was designed as a MP game and this is the main reason there is no SP diplomacy. I have never played civ 3, nor any SP game of diplomacy for that matter in a very long time. The most recent one that I can remember is MOO2 and I was not very impressed.

In Dominions there is peace until war breaks out. Eventually hostilities cease. You can not know if your enemy is at peace with you, but this is as it should be. If your enemy said that you were friends it would take some time for you to trust him. No removed 'war' tag on his forehead so to speak.

We have given diplomacy some short thoughts, but felt that other matters were more interesting. If we come up with some good solutions we might add it in a later patch, but as I said, we have no real experience of how a good diplomacy game should work.

I prefer the simple and uncertain war/truce/peace situation of Dominions to a stupid diplomatic AI that you can fool or abuse. If there is diplomacy you must feel that it is a person you negotiate with. Otherwise it gets annoying and the game gets boring pretty quickly.