To Activision: here's what diplomacy really needs

[Dreadlord_DeGaulle]

In addition to focusing on minor , technical and rule issues , activision should consider starting to work on a patch for diplomacy .
And guys sorry to say, but there's a lot of work here .The good thing is that the diplomacy "screen" (does it deserve this term ?) is so simple and naked that it should be easy to add a few new features. Multiplayer is kinda ****ty right now because of severe gaps in the diplomacy menu.
So please !

- We want Alliances that actually mean something and that can be broken through diplomatic means : right now , alliance is pointless and dangerous , as breaking it implies a war with your former ally .

- We need to be able to trade - give away cities !!!!!! How should we set up a fair peace treaty when noone can give up a city ? What about cities you helped to liberate from X to give them back to Y ? There can be no diplomacy without a COMPLETE territory exchange system.

- This of course means there *should* be a kind of border , or at least , something that warns you when entering another civ's city radius.

- ?? can this be ? right now it's impossible to GIVE a UNIT to another player. Even Civnet had this option .Fix it please .

- Why can't allies put units in your cities ?(well that's a luck with the actual alliance sustem)Why can't allies stack up units together ? This is a must if we want real multiplayer military cooperation .

I could add dozens more .. Do Something
Don't let this game grow up with such SEVERE FLAWS . Give us SOmething good !

[Emporer]

I agree with almost all aspects of your argument. I want true alliances! Mabe 2 different kinds, one with military connections and one without. (that would be hard because who would control the shared unit). Yet it would be cool! I like the diplomacy screen as it is. Quick and efficeint, just more options needed. The border, I could go either way, if it slows down the game a whole lot, dont have it, but it would be nice
Thats my two cents, anymore opinions?

[DaGoNuS]

the co-op units could be operated in one of two ways...
1. one player decides to move and the other haqs to agree to it. Units are halfway between the 2 different military types of the allied civs gov'ts
2. Co-op units are funded by both and maneuvered by one allies "commander" and the troops hold the qualities of the opposing civilization. if u build the co-op units u can only use ur unit types and u use ur troops while the opponent gets command.

[Doubtme]

Agreed with all the suggestions here.

As for the shared units, I would see it like this:

Units are supported by the nation that builds them.

Command of units can be given to another player. These units are then considered shared.

They take on the characteristics of the nation which now commands them. This could be abused, but only with diffulcity. Perhaps shared units have to pay full and a half support cost (full by real owner, half by commander)?

Shared command can be broken at any time by either side.

Shared units cannot enter cities except to attack, or their own cities (and if stacked with native units, then obviously they can't enter either).

As an addition, nations in an alliance at a level which permits sharing, should have complete update of everything their allies see.

Doubtme

------------------
--------------------
My Fav Quotes:
"All empires fall. You just have to know where to push."
"Those who live by the sword tend to be shot by those of us who don't."
"Reality is for people who can't handle drugs."