Dictator 3 - War Poll!

[curtsibling]

Hi there!

Just a quick poll, to help me decide on what kind of playing style should be used for my WW2 Scenario, Dictator 3.

This will determine if diplomacy or limited contact is allowed between civs, or if there is to be just full scale war, till the death!

I have these styles in mind.

1. Fully historical alliances - no diplomacy.

2. Fully historical alliances - open diplomacy.

3. Every civ for themselves - no diplomacy.

4. Every civ for themselves - open diplomacy.

5. Anything goes after 1940 - open diplomacy.

No diplomacy would mean that war is permanent, once it begins.

Diplomacy opens up the cunning tricks and traps of alliances, etc.

Also an 'Axis vs Allies' fixed alliance structure would mean teamwork and big battles.

The ablility to do anything after 1940, would open up many an interesting battle.

So it's up to you all.
I want to get this baby done soon, and I want to make sure I am giving you all the scenario you want.
I also want to make just one file, not a confusing array of civ scenarios for the one theme.

A MP and SP version might be possible however.

Vote and let me know!

Cheers!

[rmsharpe]

I'd say a version with completely open diplomacy, including being able to attack the neutrals!

The American Empire must expand to Canada and Mexico! Viva America!

[curtsibling]

Damn right!

Same goes for Great Britain!

We're taking back those 13 colonies!

[rmsharpe]

Give me Churchill over Roosevelt any day of the week.

[Lft Marks]

i didnt vote because i have a diffrent idea, if u'll permit me..........
how about having america as the "anomaly", (kus we all no hitler wud have attacked the glorious USSR eventually, being the fascist pig-dog that he is) and having an event that causes them to come into the war on someones side? either axis or allied?
Perhaps something to do with the soviet union? maybe IF japan attacks the ussr an the ussr takes a certain city, americas troops are mobilized to prevent the spread of communism an thus on the side of the fascists?
i may jus be being arrogant and difficult to please however

[yaroslav]

I'd say open diplomacy for both a change and historic reasons... How close was UK to enter in war against soviets by helping Finland?? Had the US' house and senate moved on war against German (and not only Japan) if German wouldn't have declared war on US? Those are questions hard to answer...

[Arthedain]

why not make a bat-file so we can have the two upper versions?

[:) Smiley]

The idea of events based limited diplomacy sounds good

[POTUS]

I like the idea of events causing war. Maybe, if Germany sinks a British ship, America attacks Germany for sinking a ship carrying Americans, i.e. WWI.

[curtsibling]

Thanks, chaps!

I will take all these ideas into consideration...

I'll give it a few more days yet...

[Cifer Almasy]

I agree with Yaroslav and Potus!
I think event-based diplomacy is the best solution (not for MP of course!!!). The idea of an Anti-Communism Alliance between the USA and Germany or the question what would have happened if Hitler hadnt declared war on the USA, really is interesting.
Some other idea: Imagine Germany had invented the Nuke. Perhaps the USA would have tried to sign a non-agression pact, i.e.
Give the what" if´s a lot of space and PLEASE give the "evil" civs ability to attack the Neutrals!

One minor thing: Have you thought about your city sizes, Curt? Hold them low and you wont have to create #50 Food- giving terrains any more!

And last but not least:
If you send me thefile, please give me a .ZIP ! (Not a .dat)

Thanks in advance,
Bye,

Cifer

[academia]

My vote goes for fully historical alliances - open diplomacy.

Recreate the original ww2 situations with all the alliances. But after that, the players should be able to choose their own path.
However, i wouldn´t like to see a Nazi Germany-USSR alliance... that´s impossible.
You should establish some limits...

[Henrik]

Recreate the original ww2 situations with all the alliances. But after that, the players should be able to choose their own path.

[curtsibling]

Things seem to be almost neck and neck between historical alliances, with open or closed diplomacy.

As I only have limited events space, it will have to be a total close down or a total free reign.

Events based diplo would be good, but with limited space, some things might be tricky to implement.

Remember the Barbarossa problem?

One one hand, I would have to close diplomacy to ensure that all civs kept to the alliances till they are to be broken.

With open diplomacy the alliances will end after a turn or two.

But to give partial closed diplomacy, it will take events space.

This is the dilemma that faces me...

[Case]

I voted for open democracy. It's always a lot more interesting then when restrictions are placed on diplomatic options.