Game Diplomacy vs Real Diplomacy

[Talenn]

The real reason you see this is that the game does not model a 'civilian economy'. Traditionally, the this economy is hurt by going to war, but the military econ (and growth in general) is helped by it. After a time, the civilian econ must be allowed to be restored or else people become unhappy and support for the war is lost.

The only way it could really be implemented would be some sort of bonus for being at peace or some sort of penalty for being at war. Note that this would cause even more 'peace-mongering' than the game has now and I'm not really keen on that.

Unless conquest was more beneficial and more accessible, going to war with some associated penalty would not be the best of plans IMO. Again, this is just something that the engine is not really set up to do.

The MOO2 type engine allowed for the production of 'trade goods' which increased your cash flow. While at war, you needed to be producing ships etc so 'trade goods' went out the window. This led to at least a somewhat viable reason to try and end wars...to increase your cashflow.

Given the resource system in SE4, it would be problematic to introduce mechanics that would truly allow for limited wars. I'm not saying that it would not be possible or desirable, but its prolly a good part of the reason why you see the current system of 'wars to the death'.

Talenn

[Marty Ward]

Maybe a different status could be introduced, not war but confilct. Sort of a limited war. The AI would fight this type of war over a system that was not stategically important to it. If it lost or won there would be a high chance of peace being offered or accepted.