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.

[e digicons]:karma:[/e] Idea for how to use in Single Player [e digicons]:karma:[/e]

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.

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.

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

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.

yeah agree

multiplayer should be the ONLY game in the world!

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.

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. 

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

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'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).

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.

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