Well, I prefer SP, so I think diplomacy is an area which could use major improvements. (Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that there will be MP support, but I don't get time to play MP games much - the joy of SP is you can play a few turns at a time with long gaps.)Implode wrote:Yeah I rather have been doing that... a couple of folks have helped me check into things that aren't clear from the strategy guide. And very interested to hear input on diplomacy (since its an area I've pretty much got zero interest in and so have no preset ideas about how it should work).srw46 wrote:Perhaps you could make a thread asking for specific things to be stress tested or receive feedback on.
First, I hope you will have the AIs treating each other the same as they treat the human player(s). In the original they just seem to ignore each other. In particular, they should trade with each other (money and spells), and even make NAPs/alliances with each other if the situation demands (or declare war if necessary). In the original game they all ended up declaring war on the human player, but without any kind of co-ordination. I hope your AI will be superior, so that two or more allied enemies will be a real challenge for a human player. Also, the AI should be more prepared to ally *with* a human player if it can benefit from doing so (e.g. protection, if the human is stronger, or tribute, if weaker).
I would like to see all the original options implemented: declare war/sue for peace, non-agression pact, alliance, spell trading, give or demand money. I'd like to see a monetary value put on spells so you can buy or sell them even if you don't have any spells to offer in exchange (this would dramatically increase the viability of no-book wizards). I'd also like to see the option to hand over or demand control of individual cities. It would be nice if you could set up regular trade agreements like MoO (I can't remember if you can do this in MoM) - or you could implement trade routes instead, or regular tributes (where the money only goes one way).
It would be very nice if the relations with AI wizards could be enumerated (0= total war, 100= total alliance/vassalage), with an estimated value of each transaction shown (you could make these inaccurate if you wanted to keep us guessing). Things like giving away a city would have huge value (up to +50, say, based on the max pop of the city, not current pop, with bonuses for gold, mithril, nightshade etc.). Agreeing to an uneven trade (e.g. trading a low level spell for a high level spell) would also affect relations (positively if you gave away the high level spell).
Finally, I would really really like to see borders implemented, with diplo actions to propose a border and accept/reject a proposed border. Moving a visible military unit (ie. not a trade caravan, if you implement trade routes) across an agreed border would automatically break a NAP (and give casus belli, if you wanted to implement that) - or at least lower relations a bit. But you could send invisible units to scout enemy cities and armies etc.
If you didn't want to let us specify borders manually you could implement "influence" like Civ3/Civ4, whereby each city "owns" squares around it depending on its size (one extra square radius per 5 pop or something), and these areas of influence define your borders.
Well, if you find the time I think it would be well worth posting an exhaustive list of features you intend to implement. It would stop people pestering for a particular thing (they could just check that it's on the list), and it would stimulate thought and debate about new features. (It would be helpful if the list was divided into those features found in the original MoM, and those which aren't.)Yeah I'm very glad that people aren't doing that... the stuff on the "to do" list isn't supposed to be a complete list, I'm well aware of 100s of things that don't work simply because I've not written them yet (especially skills like breath attacks, first strike, etc.)... the things I bother to list on the "to do" list are things that are a bit less obvious and so I might forget about otherwise. e.g. if when writing something I take a shortcut in how I write it or hard code the way it works, then I'll make a note that it needs reworking later.srw46 wrote:It's not going to be usefull to inform you of 101 things that need doing when you probably already know about them.
Best of luck - happy to help if you need anything specific (do you want a manual for the game, eventually?)