It shouldn't be pointless, because once we will have PBEM support -> huge/epic MP games will be hosted with 16+ players, just like in Doms3.

PS. AM I the only one who finds the "Diplomatic Capital" naming weird for a resource type?..because this is a tradeable resource now afterall.

I think the best way to make them useful in human vs human games would be to allow the player with the most Diplomacy Points to use them to affect the costs and consumption of resources in the game. Making buildings and items cheaper for him and his allies but making cost more for any players not allied with him. It's a pretty simple modifier to put in actually. The thing is it would need to be tested to see if it was any "Fun" like that for multiplayer and right now they simply don't have the time to test it before launch (I would guess).

For single player, they're already very useful and a pretty cool idea.

Rock On!!!

P.S. How about Technological, Magical, and Economic Capitals?

:karma: Idea for how to use in Single Player :karma:

Diplomatic Capital could be required for certain in-game actions, available through the Diplomacy tree, much like mana is required for casting magic.  These actions could be magic-like in effect, or they could be more overtly diplomatic.  For example, a player could do a Trade Embargo (reduce the enemy's income from caravans), Import Tax (decrease opponent's income from caravans while increasing your own), or they could raise volunteer militias (sort of like ringing the town bell in Warcraft 3) for city defense or zerg-swarming.  Players would want to earn and trade for it, so they could fully exploit the Diplomacy tree, which would have real teeth after this.

The problem with diplomatic capital in human games is that its a spendable resource, and it has to be something you can't exploit.

Idea: you can use it to force a cease-fire between the spending player and a player he is at war with. For each consecutive turn, the amount spent doubles (ex:5-10-20-40), and the original value is affected by the population of the enemy. Cease-fire prevents all battles, but not crossing borders.

Idea2: You can use it to temporarily disable movement of enemy armies. Value spent doubles each turn, original value affected by original cost of units, and doubled for each hero in the army.

I don't like these ideas. Using a resource type to force human players to do something...especially if they cannot even "counter" it? Sounds weird to me.

I think that the diplo points should act like a "normal"/ordinary resource type in MP games, and that's all. You could use it for trading, just like you use the mats/iron etc. Sure it's kinda nonsensical to trade diplo points for iron, but at least it won't imbalance the MP games.

it would just not make sense

unless it has some realy GOOD use who on earth would trade it?

in fact another concept in trading even with ai should the be the "need" of the good

its not like ai should trade everything just cause its the right amount, they should trade what they do need first of all

Wel yeah, but it would be "balanced" at least...

If every diplo capital point was worth, say, 10 gold, it could be a useful 'bartering' resource in mp i imagine.

Player A: I want 5 material.

Player B: I have plenty of everything your wussy empire has! And I am crawling in gold!

Player A: Here, have some diplomatic capital. My wussy empire is friend to all!

Player B: 'cor blimey guvnor! If that ain't the fairest deal in the whole of Christendom!

I'm absolutely tired of reading people talking like if Multiplayer had the SAME importance as singleplayer when it has NEVER been the case. Try Pong, it's so simple and equal for both factions that balance is perfect and works fine in single player and multiplayer.

Diplomatic Capital?  Very nice potential there.

sure sure, any useless thing is balanced

like putting a option to create a monster who eat your own empire

sure it woudl be balanced cause no one would do it

yeah agree

multiplayer should be the ONLY game in the world!

why would you want to help your enemy?

The issue with diplo capital doing a whole lot more, or heck the trying to make a diplomatic approach work in human only games, is mostly balance.

You have a tech path that is balanced to be perfectly fine against computers, allowing you to get stuff... and then in multiplayer nothing of the tree works except for the stuff you can "force". So in the end, it's either so weak that no one in his right mind would go very far in that path except for caravans and certain agreements in games with just humans, or it's so strong that it becomes cheesy to use in games with any amount of computers.

It's ok for diplomatic capital to function mostly only against the AI, but the one function it should have in MP is to force a peace with another player. This would enable players to actually play (and WIN!) the game in peaceful manner via a diplomatic route, even against human players.

If you want to force peace with a human/AI player, it should cost you X diplomatic capital per turn, depending on how weak your kingdom is compared to the opposing kingdom. Hence, if you are able to generate tons of diplomatic capital, you can essentially prevent the opponent from going to war with you ever (naturally this would mean that you are somehow a VERY strong diplomatic kingdom.

Then, when you are in peace with all kingdoms (forced or not), you are shown a number of diplomatic capital required to sign an alliance with all kingdoms you don't already have one with. This would lead to the diplomatic victory.

It doesn't have to do anything more than this with human players - bartering should be between two humans, it's more fun when you aren't forced to do anything. But forcing peace is something that should be an option to very diplomatically rich kingdoms. Otherwise you always have to kill all human players before you can even dream of a diplomatic victory in the game.

I've said it before,  but Diplomatic Capital should be tied into the Dynasty system.  I'm not sure what you have planned for dynasties right now.  But in the past you mentioned how AI would handle kingdoms turning over land, responding to alliegences and such based on marraiges and family relations.   Honestly, I feel Diplomatic capital is so powerful there's no reason to bother with dynasties at the moment...

But if DC was only aquired through marriages and family ties.... well then there ya go.  Not only does it give you barginning strength for the AI but now Players in Multiplayer have cause to use it too.  Since having shared dynasties gives other benifits, such as champions, and inheritance insurence.  You could also do as someone else mentioned and hardcode the percieved values so that they work the same in MP or SP... but that can feel a little lame. 

Because it would be a much finer place if the Sovereigns could just all be good chaps, drink tea and have a bit of a gossip for 1000 turns.

Rather just make marriages between kingdoms and children born from such marriages one additional way of gaining diplomatic capital.

There's loads of ways it could be used in multiplayer.

It could be used for "out of character" human to human trades/diplomatic actions.

For example setting up a trade as a Kingdom with an Empire could cost X points.

Breaking a treaty prematurely could cost X points.

Declare war Kingdom  vs Kingdom or Empire vs Empire could costs X points.

All tech trading could have an inbuilt point cost to prevent it becoming abused as it often does.

Infomation gathering - they could be used as a form of espionage points.

Even setup a Kingdom or Empire council (kinda of like a UN in Civ) and have the points count as votes (or bids) for various resolutions.

I would like to say that I'm a big fan of the DC mechanic so far, and I would definitely second that it should be able to be used against human players (in SP and MP) to force treaties.

Personally, I don't see that the use of DC against another player to "force a peace" requires too much of a stretch of the imagination.  In monarchies or empires, the sovereign rarely rules unimpeded.  Typically, they are surrounded by powerful families that are kept barely under control by the sovereign.  The use of DC to force a peace on another player could represent the assembly of a coalition of forces within his government to force him to back down.  I like this idea a lot.  In fact, it adds another dimension to preparation for war: you need to trade for DC with other players to build up a stockpile if you wish to prevent the use of DC against you... to prevent mutiny in your own empire.

Some posters have expressed great distaste for this kind of "diplomatic rape" mechanism in the game.  But, really, is it any different from "military rape?"  Why is wreaking mayhem and death in another player's kingdom far more honorable than that player being able to manipulate another kingdom into calling off the war?  Why should soft-power have less legitimacy?  Seems to me that use of DC against human players to lock down their militaries should fit perfectly in this game, and makes the diplomacy tree start to shine as a first-rate path.  And, spells that influence the creation and manipulation of DC become that much more important to attain.   

I also like the ideas from the poster above that in order to break a treaty, you need to spend DC.  Not enough DC to pay the cost means no breakage of the treaty.  DC could, in that case, represent the level of control you have over your own government.  And, DC doesn't necessarily mean positive diplomacy.  It could also mean threats and intimidation in the case of the empire player.  Such a player might be able to acquire DC through the use of very nasty prisons, praetorian guards, etc.  Control is the name of the game for the empire.

I'm not a big fan of having a trading tax in the game. Also, declaring war should never cost any diplomatic capital - it's a one-sided decision. Breaking treaties prematurely perhaps, but I don't know if it's good that treaties can be broken prematurely at all. If you can't trust that a treaty that's supposed to last for 10 turns suddenly doesn't, it makes things a bit too unstable.

Espionage would be alright, though does espionage really fit into the world of Elemental? Same thing for the council thing.

These are one of the few kind of things that I can think of DC to be used in multiplayer, but I still feel like forcing a peace treaty is the only thing that's sensible and most important of all fun for MP. It allows for a different kind of playing strategy for those who don't want to conquest. The other stuff mostly just limits gameplay options (except the espionage part, but again espionage feels more like something to have in GalCiv or present day settings).

Also, you want to keep the DC system as simple as possible, so that people actually understand what it is for and how to use it in MP. A system that works something like

BaseForcePeaceCost * (EnemyMilitaryPower^x / (YourMilitaryPower^y * YourDiploTechLevel)) = ForcePeaceCost

would be simple enough for anyone to understand - the more powerful a military might you are, the harder it is for anyone to force peace upon you. Also, the stronger of a military might you are, the less it costs for you to force peace. This would help wrap up the game quicker too - if you have conquered most of the world, you can just force a peace and an alliance with rest of the Kingdoms and Empires and win with a diplomatic victory.

It doesn't really have to be that more complex in MP to be rewarding and worth pursuing. With the AI it can work all sorts of wonders and make AI diplomacy much more interesting. But with humans I want trading and normal diplomacy to be with two human beings making conscious choices. I don't want to be forced to trade techs or lose resources via trade even though I full well know it hurts me.

EDIT: ... and I also wouldn't want to be unable do trade techs or trade with another player even though we share a border because of DC.

Yeah, sure, just have one set of troops and techs and all race and faction is would be just fluff and color and backstory.

Yeah, it'd be balanced...but would it be fun?

Heck, why not just have 1 kind of unit in the game. Perfect balance, no?

I admit I don't play a lot of multiplayer - but when I do play for the few RTS I have, I wouldn't want everyone to just be running around the same troops just of different model and color and name - but really they are all the same.

Sounds boring.

I think the only real problem with DC is that it's actually a tangible, trade-value resource.

If it were intangible like the expression "political capital" that presidents "get" when they have such strong support of the people - then I think it would be a lot easier to visualize ideas for. But since it's basically another kind of money but with no value behind it (what is 1 DC actually worth) it gets hard.

This sounds good for all games. Those with more diplomatic capital can exert their hegemony on the rest of the world, thus affecting economies and such, creating inflation and winning the minds of others' populaces. Civs with less diplomatic capital could have a more costly time trying to wage war as it becomes expensive due to the economic and cultural influences that come with it.

What is diplomatic capital an abstraction of? Political clout/influence?