|
|
Post by Thortilla on Nov 23, 2021 16:11:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Navia Lanoira on Nov 23, 2021 17:41:21 GMT
Ahh yes, HOI4 but hexed , if im correct tho
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Nov 23, 2021 18:46:29 GMT
Ahh yes, HOI4 but hexed , if im correct tho But, I like it. All diplomacy systems in ET games have been pretty dumb so far. In WC4 for example, all nations that are not neutral are friendly or agressive from the start, despite the game says they join the war only like 5 turns later. |
|
|
|
Post by Darth Nihilus on Nov 23, 2021 18:59:04 GMT
I wonder if other countries will bribe you to increase relations, cause that would make it a lot more dynamic than if you were the only one that could send resources
|
|
|
|
Post by zink on Nov 24, 2021 0:51:45 GMT
Honestly any addition to the diplomacy system is exciting
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2021 2:20:53 GMT
Honestly any addition to the diplomacy system is exciting The only diplomacy other nations would receive from me is a declaration of war  . That said, the conquest must at least be sufficiently hard for us to make use of diplomacy. If not, then war. The exceptions is for farming resources to speed up the conquest, or for those try hard speedrunners like stoic definitely not me. |
|
|
|
Post by Navia Lanoira on Nov 24, 2021 4:34:50 GMT
Honestly any addition to the diplomacy system is exciting The only diplomacy other nations would receive from me is a declaration of war . That said, the conquest must at least be sufficiently hard for us to make use of diplomacy. If not, then war. The exceptions is for farming resources to speed up the conquest, or for those try hard speedrunners like stoic definitely not me. hmmmmmmm......... btw for me i think it will be very hard to increase relations of other angry nations. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2021 4:42:52 GMT
The only diplomacy other nations would receive from me is a declaration of war . That said, the conquest must at least be sufficiently hard for us to make use of diplomacy. If not, then war. The exceptions is for farming resources to speed up the conquest, or for those try hard speedrunners like stoic definitely not me. hmmmmmmm......... btw for me i think it will be very hard to increase relations of other angry nations. Good. That reduces the only course of action to be destroying them  . |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Nov 24, 2021 9:12:48 GMT
I really hope they will make these conquests challenging. Otherwise diplomacy doesn't have any significant meaning or probably any meaning at all. If you can do it with brute force - then to hell with diplomacy. My favourite conquest before hard mode EW6 1914/1917 conquests were released was EW6 1815 conquest. You simply can't complete it under 30 turns if you don't use diplomacy. But if, on the other hand, you can just smash Rome in 10 turns or less playing as Carthage like in GCR, - why on earth do we need diplomacy at all?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Nov 24, 2021 13:24:31 GMT
I really hope they will make these conquests challenging. Otherwise diplomacy doesn't have any significant meaning or probably any meaning at all. If you can do it with brute force - then to hell with diplomacy. My favourite conquest before hard mode EW6 1914/1917 conquests were released was EW6 1815 conquest. You simply can't complete it under 30 turns if you don't use diplomacy. But if, on the other hand, you can just smash Rome in 10 turns or less playing as Carthage like in GCR, - why on earth do we need diplomacy at all? I mean, I would personally prefer diplomacy to brute force in GCR, EW6. Especially as a smaller country. I think GCR had the best diplomatic system, what with the taxmen, the lack of the surrender (that was a bad addition IMO), and the true neutrals. I always spent way more on diplomacy than actual combat then. |
|
|
|
Post by AlterFritz on Nov 24, 2021 19:02:09 GMT
I really hope they will make these conquests challenging. Otherwise diplomacy doesn't have any significant meaning or probably any meaning at all. If you can do it with brute force - then to hell with diplomacy. My favourite conquest before hard mode EW6 1914/1917 conquests were released was EW6 1815 conquest. You simply can't complete it under 30 turns if you don't use diplomacy. But if, on the other hand, you can just smash Rome in 10 turns or less playing as Carthage like in GCR, - why on earth do we need diplomacy at all? I mean, I would personally prefer diplomacy to brute force in GCR, EW6. Especially as a smaller country. I think GCR had the best diplomatic system, what with the taxmen, the lack of the surrender (that was a bad addition IMO), and the true neutrals. I always spent way more on diplomacy than actual combat then. Why do you think surrender was an bad addition? I think it has been one of the greater things to make late conquest less annoying. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Nov 24, 2021 19:26:59 GMT
I mean, I would personally prefer diplomacy to brute force in GCR, EW6. Especially as a smaller country. I think GCR had the best diplomatic system, what with the taxmen, the lack of the surrender (that was a bad addition IMO), and the true neutrals. I always spent way more on diplomacy than actual combat then. Why do you think surrender was an bad addition? I think it has been one of the greater things to make late conquest less annoying. It was the main thing that made me stop buying units in the game. I would place one or two gens, diplomatize, and then just stockpile resources for a surrender, building light infantry in cities as a garrison. I rarely built units in conquests anyway, but that was the death of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Darth Nihilus on Nov 24, 2021 19:32:38 GMT
It was the main thing that made me stop buying units in the game. I would place one or two gens, diplomatize, and then just stockpile resources for a surrender, building light infantry in cities as a garrison. I rarely built units in conquests anyway, but that was the death of it. I think there's a tough balance that needs to be kept between realism and "strategy game" warfare. Cause on one hand, real life politics are about 90% diplomacy, but that wouldn't be very fun to play out, and on the other hand, strategy game warfare is really fun, but isn't super realistic. I think if diplomacy were involved we as players should be able to control how much diplomacy we want in our play through, but as a baseline if a country loses its capital it should surrender. |
|
. That said, the conquest must at least be sufficiently hard for us to make use of diplomacy. If not, then war. The exceptions is for farming resources to speed up the conquest, or for those try hard speedrunners like 
. 
