Re: Diplomacy

Okay, I object :-)

I do agree that having to establish an embassy with a
diplomat before conducting any diplomacy is a major
pain.  However, I don't like the idea that just
because one person sent around a trireme many
centuries ago, he can do all the diplomacy he wants. 
(Think of Leif Ericson and the Native Americans
exchanging technology in 1400.) Rather, I would prefer
that diplomacy requires either an embassy or *being
in* contact, i.e., having a unit adjacent to a unit of
the target country.

In general, I say whenever something can drastically
affect gameplay, make it a server variable (e.g.
diplomacyoncontact/embassyoncontact = [0,1]) so the
people playing the game can choose which behavior they
want.

Of course, I'm not doing the coding, so feel free to
ignore me.

++JohnWheeler

--- "Per I. Mathisen" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> I suggest we change the condition for conducting
> diplomacy from having an
> embassy (as now) to merely having made contact.
> 
> This will be a big change of gameplay; but that is
> also the only good
> reason I can see against it.
> 
> Reasons for:
>   - It was this way in Civ2 (duh).
>   - Diplomats less important.
>   - No longer have to micromanage a diplomat into
> the land of each enemy
> to do diplomacy with him.
>   - It will be very hard to get diplomats to
> establish embassies with AIs
> (and players) with autoattack.
>   - AI diplomacy (coming soon) is much more fun this
> way.
> 
> If nobody objects, I'll put this change into the AI
> diplomacy patch (two
> lines of code change).
> 
>   - Per
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com