Dumb Diplomacy: I think I may have discovered the solution.

[Joe Pike]

I think it would make more sense, be more historically correct, and make for a more challenging campaign to actually script certain alliances, depending on which faction the player has chosen. When playing France, for example, Portugal, Britain, and Austria could begin the game in a permanent alliance. By 1710, or when France controls x number of territories, the Ottomans and Prussians could join the alliance, and at 1720, or when the French control (x +10) regions, the Russians would join the coalition.

If the player is playing as the Russians, then the Ottoman Empire would begin in a permanent alliance with Britain and at certain dates, number of regions controlled by the player, or another trigger, the French or even the Austrians join the alliance. This would make for a more realistic campaign, as various large countries gradually joined together to oppose a strong, expanding empire, rather than fritter away their efforts in petty squabbles that leave them weakened. Permanent alliances would also increase trade profit for the AI.

It wouldn't be necessary to have all the countries gang up on the player, but I would rather, as Frederick of Prussia, fight a large campaign against a powerful alliance than spend my time and the better part of my national treasury each turn repairing a whorehouse that a Westphalian cavalry company burnt, or a spinning jenny vandalized by a roaming Lithuanian infantry company, the way I am currently.

[Didz]

I think it would make more sense, be more historically correct, and make for a more challenging campaign to actually script certain alliances, depending on which faction the player has chosen. When playing France, for example, Portugal, Britain, and Austria could begin the game in a permanent alliance. By 1710, or when France controls x number of territories, the Ottomans and Prussians could join the alliance, and at 1720, or when the French control (x +10) regions, the Russians would join the coalition.

My personal preference would be for each faction to be given a clear set of goals which it must try to achieve, and against which it measures its success. Those goals would vary and be dependant upon the 'Head of State' at the time, therefore changes in government or ruler could see nations change their stance significantly, even their state religion.

The Alliances formed should be determined by the needs of the state, as assessed by a properly crafted diplomacy engine working on the principle that as a faction it must constantly seek victory through diplomacy rather than through war.

In effect, the game should adhere to the principle that 'A successful nation should first secure victory, and only then go to war'.

More importantly each faction needs to be provided with a 'How goes the war?' routine that monitors how they are doing and allows them to make sensible diplomatic proposals, alliances and trade deals that reflect whether they are winning or losing. The current endless war scenario is just a joke.

Finally, the benefits of Trade need to be mutual, not one sided, both parties should gain benefit and both should be equally keen to maintain that trade and keep the trade lanes open so long as they are happy to provide their trade partner with the same benefit they enjoy. As a consequence trade agreements would have both political and military implications, not just financial ones and their significance in the geo-political landscape would be more accurate. e.g. Selling guns to the Indian's has always been a bad idea, not a quick way of raising income for the treasury.

If CA bother to sort this out then we might begin to see the makings of a decent strategy game emerge rather than just a platform for a bit of eye candy.