Diplomacy games are fun, but the biggest problem with it that people can violate the rules easily, the only penalty is the PE status wich works or not.
With some simple feature a talented programmer like Fizzer can make the main diplomacy rules available as diplomacy settings.
Only need the diplomacy mode with war declaration and alliance settings and a simple table about diplomatic relations.

1.
Diplomacy mode - Turn on the other diplomacy settings

2.
Declaration settings - Activate the "declare war" button
- People can not attack other players until they use the declaration button on them
- Declaration is public, the contested player get an instant message about who declared war on him
- Perhaps an automatic note generated in public chat too in every case of war declaration
- Optional delay setting for war declaration requirement (attack available only 0-1-2-3 turns after the public declaration with button)
- End war possibility with another button wich send a peace treaty to the enemy if he accept the war status ends, if he refuse it continues.

3.
- Alliance settings - Activate the "alliance" button
- Like the "declare war" button just people can choose ally instead of enemy with this.
- Send an alliance request for another player if he accept the alliance is signed and public, if he refuse they stay neutral
- Allies with signed alliance can transfer to each other like in team games
- Maybe an automatic note generated in public chat too in every case of sign an alliance, and break up alliances are public as well
- Optional delay setting for alliance break up (declare war possibility on former allies available only 0-1-2-3 turns after exit from alliance)

4.
- Public diplomatic relations table
- A common table with the players on x and y axis
- Shows the public relations between the players (neutral, allied, or hostile)
- A simple and transparent wiev about wars and alliances

I think diplo games can be more fun with diplo settings instead of diplo rules. A few buttons and a simple table can not be barrier for a coder genius. Im affraid that this feature would be popular if there were something like this.

Rather than pandering to a small subset of the game it would make more sense to devote limited resources and time to matters that affect the entire population of the game.

hey nooby your opinion is wrong. diplo games are for wimps and they are definitely not fun. you belong in the back of the bus, diplo player.

Betrayal is part of diplomacy, this would take that aspect of the game away.
So disagreed.

What's stopping a dedicated Diplomacy group from making their own "chart"? Open up a wiki page, or even a forum thread, and track all this stuff. You can even have great fun doing it "in character" (and errors can be a great part of that fun).

I have a lot of experience playing the board game Diplomacy. One of the things that makes the game work - and, indeed, is absolutely NECESSARY to the game - is that treaties and alliances are NOT binding. When you make an alliance with someone, they can violate it at any time (as can you). That's where the juice in the game comes from, that's where the fun is. Just like real-world diplomacy.

Mechanize these relationships and you stifle the game (indeed, you rob of it everything which makes it work, and introduce all sorts of new problems).

Breaking a treaty and attacking a neighbour (and dealing with the political fallout of that action) should always be part of the game, should always be a possible move. Anything else is immature play by people who don't have the guts for real, actual diplomacy, and prefer a stifled mode of play.

I agree, but just in declarations, to avoid PEs and so. Alliances, although not honorable, could be broken, as in real life.

One setting I would add is, in diplomacy settings, the possibility to win without voting to end if only allies left in the game.

Anyway, it's just a suggestion, as diplos right now are well, but this way could be even better.

I think Fizzer agrees with Sharpe in policy. I mean, really, diplomacy players at most make up 40% players.

lol.

no. diplos make up a large part of players.

consider that 1 out of say 20 real time games is diplo. but 1 out of every 7 multiday games is a diplo. but diplos have about average 3 to even 6 times as many players as non diplos.
so: average
1/7 and 1/20 to 1/13.

multiply 1/13 by 4.5
you have minimum 33% of players.

thats just people who regularly play diplos.

also- there are many diplo focused clans, as many as there are span clans and 1v1/2v2/3v3/ focused clans. and before levels were added, the primary reason to buy premium membership was to unlock creating custom scenario diplos.

^ Double -edged blade. Membership also offered luck scroll. 26 player games were also cool. Diplomacy and other scenarios in general used to be so valued, now they're reduced to dirt.

true.
there are so many bad scenarios...

making it worse are people puposefully give themselves ridiculously OP slots.

really, that should be a punishable offense.

I'd like a diplomacy setting -- but to be effective it need a non-player "moderator"/"dungeon master" who has privileges to "enforce" the rules.

Being able to transfer troops to your allies in diplomacy games would be extremely useful, in my opinion.

In response to M. Poireau,
"Breaking a treaty and attacking a neighbour (and dealing with the political fallout of that action) should always be part of the game, should always be a possible move. Anything else is immature play by people who don't have the guts for real, actual diplomacy, and prefer a stifled mode of play."

This could still be done with these settings, you would just have to hit the declare war button first. Thus, being in an alliance doesn't actually make it harder to declare war on someone. Most diplomacy games have rules about declaring before attacking anyways, so surprise attacks against your allies pretty much can't happen already.

To each his own, I suppose. I find that a bit weaksauce. You want to forcibly remove a very real and effective strategy from the game? I think the possibility of those tactics being in play enriches the game - not only from a theoretical perspective, but from a game design standpoint, as well.

Being aware of the possibility of a surprise attack asks you to constantly make strategic decisions about troop allocation. You have to gauge how much you trust any given ally, and deploy armies accordingly - deploy too many, and you're less effective on other fronts, but deploy too few and you may tempt him into backstabbing you. That dance becomes a very interesting calculation, and leaves more room for different tactics and strategies.

This isn't something I'm throwing out "off the cuff". I've played years of games like Diplomacy and I have carried out a lot of analysis. All of it, in the end, has convinced me that, however counterintuitive it may seem, the possibility of betrayal is precisely what makes those games engaging, dynamic, and requiring of skill. "Unbreakable" alliances allow tactics which are so powerful that they dominate all other strategies and, ultimately, sap the game of its vitality.

It's kind of like designing a game with a strategy which is better than all others: over time, all the players learn that strategy, and then the game stops evolving.

I know very well why people want those rules to be there - it's less scary, and it absolves them of responsibility. I used to argue for the inclusion of such rules myself. But there are fundamental game design issues which make such rules ultimately impoverishing to the game, if you look enough far ahead.

We can say that rule braking is part of the diplomacy games. If Fizzer add a new feature by these settings there are still possible play diplo with only brakeable rules. Diplo settings would be just an option. And betrayal would be still possible with these settings, just the rule braking would be impossible.

And transfer to ally would be possible only with these diplo settings not with diplo rules.

vote for the new features then
http://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warlight-features?query=diplomacy

points #1&2? +1.

The others? not a fan, because in real life, as well as diplomacy, betrayal happens all the time.

can i just say i think there is a problem with diplomacy games, and that is the lack of variety. i mean i have just seen three European diplos set in 2015. i like the historic ones and future ones as they give a different viewpoint than the average one

While I like this idea, it wont go through. Too many players oppose Diplomacy.

I kind of like it... but it should be keep limited. Fizzer should just apply the peace treaty idea and make it an option to have all players at peace at the start of the game. That would basically be diplo "mode".

> can i just say i think there is a problem with diplomacy games, and that is the lack of variety. i mean i have just seen three European diplos set in 2015. i like the historic ones and future ones as they give a different viewpoint than the average one

I have been trying to make more historic diplomacy games to add to the mix, but I didn't even think of future ones! Now I shall start creating those too. Thank you SteenB11, and hooray for diversity!