Ok, so this has probably been mentioned SO many times before, but I thought I would bring it up one more time.
I am a huge fan of diplomacy games, specifically Game of Thrones diplomacy games. I create them, so I know a lot about how much this would change diplomacy games. We diplomacy game creators and players need an option for diplomacy game mode. It wouldn't be just a simple check box with whether or not you want to play diplomacy or not, but a drop down with MANY options. You could choose if you want war declaration allowed or not, alliances to be public and a whole new chat for if you are in an alliance with a group of people. It would be so helpful, and I could go on and on about the different options that should be available, but honestly, I want to hear what you guys have to say about this. What options for customization do you want to see. Hey, if we get enough comments, maybe Fizzer will see this thread and check it out. Let's get the ideas flowing, people, and let's get the diplomacy game mode added in a future update of Warlight!

Oh, and it's supposed to be "Mode" in the title, not "Mod"
lol

I 100% believe this more than the bible...

But.. This game wasn't originally built for Diplomacy games.. I think this is the best platform for it base off.. But people will diss it.

I understand that, but honestly, how is it going to affect players who don't play diplomacy games anyways. A reason some people don't play diplomacy games is because people ruin them when they break the rules. With an actual game mode, there would be no rule-breaking

I know... If there was a proper-game mode.. I would be hooked on it.

The issue is that it requires a lot of work on Fizzer's part. I suspect he'd have to even rework some core game mechanics.

Yeah, I guess so. I can't really blame him, as he is a lot more experienced in programming this monstrosity of a game than I could ever hope to be. I am just hoping that maybe when he does update 4.0, where he makes a lot of big changes, this new game mode could be one of those bug changes.

Sounds like a great idea. My only problem is with how people might maybe abuse those settings to maybe make a game lopsided.

The players can always look at all the settings before they join, so if the game is unfair, the players will see that and decline the game

I'd love to see Fizzer make an update on Diplomacy games, however I just don't see such a thing happening.

any of the rules turning on, would obviously add a diplomacy tag to the game.. so it would be more difficult for people to make lopsided games posing as real games..
and... if the game is designed to be based off of the game "diplomacy".. honestly.. half of the options people want for the games kind of go against the spirit of the game, Imho..
the insecurity of the 'alliances/war declarations' was a part of what made the game interesting..
just the problem warlight poses over the actual diplomacy game.. is the fact that armies can be so mobile and sudden..


But i suspect you simply mean a game where you guys talk and communicate and whatnot, using single territory bonus maps.. and want to be able to ensure some security in your secret truces, beyond simply words, because war is like that.

Diplomacy games on Warlight are fine as they are right now. Having game mechanics that force people to chiverously honor alliances and nobility declare war takes away what makes a diplomacy game interesting. The OC says he likes to play game of thrones diplomacies, then he should know best that in the Game of Thrones people aren't all honorable and part of what makes diplomacies thrilling and intense are the secret plotting, betrayals, and intrigue. Last time I checked Walder Frey didn't declare war on Robb Stark before killing him at his own wedding.

If it's not broken, don't fucking fix it.

(just a sidenote, it wasn't his own wedding)

Above ^^^

So true.

Making special "Diplomacy rules" just forces you to play in a stilted game mode which removes the true virtue of Diplomacy play.

Pull yourself together and try a real Diplomacy game! You don't need special rules for that. (And the special rules would just cheapen your game.)

That is why there would be more cutomizable options. If the host wants alliances to have the ability to be broken, then he can allow that. Although those who create modern diplomacies might like the idea of having alliances be honored.

I was, some time ago, a strong proponent of "enforced" diplomacy agreements. There is a very strong appeal to the idea; I think it draws to all of us very strongly, satisfying a basic human desire for clear lines of "good and evil", "friend and foe", and a certain clarity which is very tempting.

I have spent a LOT of time in discussions, experiments, and studying game theory. I'm now firmly convinced that firm diplomatic agreements, while tremendously appealing to the beginner, actually produce an inferior form of play and are far more susceptible to various "unfun" developments. This is made even worse by the nature of Fog, which most Warlight games have. There are simply too many ways for the game to degenerate into forms which are, simply, less fun and less interesting.

So I'm firmly convinced that making "enforceable peace agreements" is the wrong way to go. It cheapens the game and simplifies strategy, as well as opening the door to many more ways to ruin games for people.

If it was only an option of having different possibilities for games, that's one thing. But here you are asking the creators of a free game to invest a great deal of effort into developing a new game form (which would be fairly complex to implement), taking time and effort away from other ways they could make the game better and more flexible.

This wouldn't be a huge tragedy, except that I think that, over time, people will see the flaws in this kind of stilted gameplay and come over to the more strategically-rich, realistic, nuanced, and strategic form of game that "real" diplomacy creates. In other words, it will be a colossal waste of time: you're asking someone to put an incredible amount of work into something which will make games *worse*.

If the feature existed already, I would still argue for removing it (although I do believe in the freedom to choose, and if people don't see my point of view, they're welcome to stick with their preferences, of course). However, here you are asking for something quite unreasonable, I feel.

I don't know how many people will agree with me, but Diplomacy players have been around for about 50 years, and they've tried EVERYTHING. There is a very good reason that no "unbreakable agreement" version of the game is widely played: it is a flawed concept, from the point of view of game design.

I think you misunderstand my point here. It would not just be a "unbreakable agreement" option. As a player of ASOIAF diplomacy games, I know from experience it would take the fun out of it. The unbreakable agreement would just be an extra feature chosen to be implemented into the game by the host. And I don't consider myself a beginner at diplomacy games. I have been playing them for a LONG time. And I create them. I have worked with well known Game of Thrones diplomacy game creators, as well as well known GoT diplo players. What I was trying to explain in this thread is something that would be hard for players to understand if they have not played a few diplomacy games with me, as they know how I like to create diplomacy games.

Here are a couple of other discussions on this topic you might find interesting:

https://www.warlight.net/Forum/101473-prime-example-diplo-game-overrun-pes?Offset=0

https://www.warlight.net/Forum/92041-diplomancy

I've explained my point of view pretty thoroughly in those threads, as well. It's certainly a fascinating topic!

You know what I think would help Diplomacy games the most?

1. The ability to change your name.

So, instead of being WarlightPlayer1, you could be FRANCE (WarlightPlayer1).

Or perhaps FRANCE (ALLIES) [WarlightPlayer1].

Which you could change to FRANCE (AXIS) if you officially change sides.

2. A better messaging system. Particularly so you can setup a group chat for your "alliance" or faction. (The Google+ paradigm would work well for this, but I have no idea if that's outside the scope of the Warlight code, of course.)

That's a great idea. Both of them. It would be a lot nicer to have your name be the country, city, or whatever that you are roleplaying in the game. It would make the whole thing run smoother.