Thoughts on Diplomacy

[Denizar]

I think there is a lot that can be done to improve this area of the game. The agents are usually used for one or two purposes and not much. I had many ideas but some that come to my mind at the moment are:

The surrender of cities. Historically this is a very usual outcome of war. A city that is besieged should be able to surrender itself without your orders. The chances of a surrender should depend on the enemies strength, or cruelty maybe. For example alexander the great had to defeat one army at halicarnassus lets say, and later executed all who resisted his rule and who created unrest, this made his influence on the people grow, making other cities in Anatolia surrender to him without a fight. This would definately increase the quality of the game.

Spies garrisoned in cities only let you know about a certain number of things. However, I always thought that having a permanent spy in the enemy capital for instance should give you other information, about the economy of that faction or their family tree things like that...

I will write more later, but not to be able to things how they actually happened in history really bugs me. Eg. When I was playing he Alexander:Total War game, I spent a lot of time sieging all the cities in Anatolia one by one, then Middle east ... What actually happened was once Alexander defeated Darius, most of the Persian people did not resist him. They surrendered without a fight. Or at least when Alexander's army approached them.