some thoughts on diplo

[Rasputin]

Just read Roberts lovely list of explanations and rules i nthe other thread and rather than clouding thst thread with my opnions i started this one.

Fristly. Well done robert for at least puttingin writing some of the stuff behind the genre.

Now my comments.

You speak of the players being able to change their style of play from for example, fully democratic leader to fascist dictator . I agree this is encouragedm but what should be mandatory when people do this in the STORY thread, they MUST change their civicstyle IN GAME to match.

There should be no allowance for a player to play a ROLE in the STORY Threads that does not match their INGAMGE character.

If you want a war as a fascist then be fascist , you tel lstorys of being a despot then be depsotic leader. Your story speaks of Religious Leaders then ensure your civics are focused on this too.

The second issue i have is the concept of limited war and it being an OOC vote to stop the war. I am firmly of the belief that any one in game that wants a war to stop should take action in game to stop the war, not just post in the organisation thread. If one civ is destroying another then do soemthign about it IN GAME. Allowing the Out of game rule to stop the wart allows nations to not be involved and jsut turn into builder nations. If no one comes to your aid IN GAME then the DIPLO community spirit is not alive.

DIPLO is notjust about game palying but about the community doign stuff together. Well it is to me.

The players ganging together to beat up the bully etc etc.

[Robert]

Regarding your first issue, I agree. That's why I suggested the "Role Playing" vote category. That vote depends on if the story of a player matches his gameplay.

Does he play the role he tells stories about.

[bamf226]

The limited war concept is there to keep people in the game and keep some semblance of balance. If civs are allowed to eliminate other civs, this turns into a regular multi-player game. If someone is hellbent on eliminating another player, it doesn't matter what you try to accomplish in game in terms of peace.

[Rasputin]

if your neighbour attqacks another neighbour and is hell bent on removing them it is upto you to attack the offneder.

If every other player intercedes then one nation is unlikely to cause a wipe out of another player. we are not talking using diplomacy we are talking taking war action.

It would mean all players need to stop jsut being a city builder but also build armies.

And reality is, that the player doing the attemtped wipeout jsut doesnt have the right attitude and there fore will not be invited to play next game.

[Rasputin]

Regarding your first issue, I agree. That's why I suggested the "Role Playing" vote category. That vote depends on if the story of a player matches his gameplay.

Does he play the role he tells stories about.

this is ok provided no in game score is allowed.

becaue some people jsut ignore the out of game voting and RP stuff .

[bamf226]

if your neighbour attqacks another neighbour and is hell bent on removing them it is upto you to attack the offneder.

Why? What if my diplo leader's attitude is not to be involved? Do I break character to preserve someone else? Doesn't make sense.

If every other player intercedes then one nation is unlikely to cause a wipe out of another player. we are not talking using diplomacy we are talking taking war action.

You can't expect people to become involved in a war just because someone is getting beat up. It makes no sense to be involved if there is nothing to gain from it.