Suggestion: Diplomacy screen w/new specialist

Strategy, feedback, or anything SUBTERFUGE-related

  • Hello, loving the game so far, But even just 2 days into my first game I'm seeing a limitation to the game so heavily dependent on Diplomacy.

    Why dont we have a formal diplomacy screen? So my idea is this. Have a screen where you can see formal alliances/acts/aid agreements or whatever. On top of this have the ability to make your alliances/acts/aid agreements or whatever private and hidden. Example. Player A+C have a formal alliance that is public and a plan to attack player B, a weaker player. However Player A + B have a secret alliance where A is going to backstab C.

    Now, I know all this diplomacy could be done over just chat, but if they were to gives incentives to using the in game diplomacy options(such as seeing allies scheduled moves, shared generator resources etc) then people would be more likely to put it 'in writing'.

    Add to this a new Specialist. The Envoy. The Envoy, if he manages to get to a players capitol is able to see one time that players secret treaties they may have. Maybe there would be a way to make a stealth sub or something that can carry them there, that can be countered by another specialist or something.

    Anyway, just a rough idea I had that I think would add a fun dynamic to the game!
    flukanuck
     
    Posts: 2
    Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 10:02 pm


  • I think a large part of the diplomacy of the game is that you don't know who you can trust. Adding this feature would really mess things up. I can't see anyone putting formally that they are with someone, because that would also show their enemies who you are with.
    Loki: I have an army!
    Tony Stark: We have a Discord.

    Earth's Mightiest Discord Server!

    A new challenger appears! Come join the revolution!

    P.S. Those are actually 3 different links!
    User avatar
    mathwhiz9
     
    Posts: 3340
    Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2015 7:22 pm
    Location: The Great White North


  • But hence why you have the private and public treaties. I feel like it could open up a whole lot of other options for betrayal!
    flukanuck
     
    Posts: 2
    Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 10:02 pm


  • I personally would never agree to a formal public treaty. I think it would polarize all the other players. They would see me as a larger threat and be less likely to engage in diplomacy.
    "You want to believe that there’s one relationship in life that’s beyond betrayal. A relationship that’s beyond that kind of hurt. And there isn’t."
    -Caleb Carr
    User avatar
    v3xt
     
    Posts: 426
    Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 8:38 pm


  • This could work, but is probably too much of a pain for the Devs to implement. Also, there is the concept of social momentum, which is that you don't want to change something too drastically as that would disrupt the 'momentum' of the players. See, right now, and since the release of the game, there hasn't been such a thing. This is well past the time for changing things like this, which would have been more suited to the beta testing phase of the game (see the first forum where the Devs have posted their updates during beta testing). The idea of momentum is probably why we're all going to reject this idea now, unfortunately :(
    Kings aren't OP

    "Imagination is more important than knowledge"
    ----Albert Einstein
    User avatar
    tw2000
     
    Posts: 1135
    Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 3:52 pm
    Location: New Zealand



Return to General




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests