@Ryat: Booyah for you sir!
Edit: lmao @ the 'posts by' from this guy.
i love the way he fights with Annatar: "Disagree all you want, you are still wrong, and my way is perfect" - Darksxx
lol, i havent heard arguments like that since what? the second grade? considering this guy supposedly has a 15-16 yr old child (as mentioned in one of his other posts), and therefore an 'adult', i am really surprised at the way he interacts with people.
anyway, on to my own thoughts.
Diplomacy isnt a bad idea. first, im sure there is more to it that just new ways to make alliances. for instance, on the Vanilla box, it said one way to 'win' (or at least cripple the enemy) was to undercut his economy by offering your resources at a lower price...
now, ive never been able to use that effectively... i dont think anyone does. but it makes sense, and if there was a more clear-cut way of using the economy to destroy an enemy, if would add another dimension to the game. TEC would have another weapon, just like Advent have culture and Vasari have phase manipulation (not perfect comparisons/similies, but close enough)
another thing is to make pirates more useful... for instance, having pirates breach enemy lines and take out a superweapon or two, or some mil labs or a fleet production planet or so, maybe even acting in concert with your own forces... maybe defending a planet of yours that is under attack, (or not, just holding the line while your fleet does other things), or aiding in combat against a larger fleet...
and then, there is always the most simple and blunt answer. if you have more control over your allies, you can co-ordinate better. as it is, you can never really co-ordinate massive battles with your allies either you or them go charging in and the other one follows... maybe... if you can organise to have two large fleets attack a heavily fortified and defended system, you have all the more chance of winning. atm, you cant even micro-manage an allies fleet within a grav well, because the AI responds with "we dont want to attack our allies" (although they as you to do it all the time)
all in all, im willing to see what Diplomacy brings. I do agree that the central core of Sins is to fight, but Sins is also RT4X... and without Diplomacy, it just remains a standard RTS. i do agree that without intelligent players (Human or AI), much of Diplomacy could be overlooked (for instance, making an ally believe you are allied with him against player 3, but then you and Player 3 turning on your previous ally and wiping him out, etc etc), but then things like tech trading and more... sophisticated or elegant trade routes would bring a dimension to Sins that i love to play with... even if there is no campaign i can make my own story about protecting my trade routes, or sending an envoy to a neutral/hostile empire...
and finally... Darksxx, you are an ass. seriously, you come, you critisise with no proof, backup or support, and then you lash out when everyone gives their opinion... you did it with your post about splitting the Empire Tree as well... you are acting like a child
honestly, considering you should be an adult, you should be ashamed of yourself.
just wait until the X-Pack comes out, you have no stake in how Ironclad is run nor their potential success/failure, and therefore no say in major things like what to do with an X-Pack, especially considering Diplomacy has been in the works for at least 8 months, if not more. AND, the way in which you have conducted yourself here, means you should have no say in how even the little things turn out. but... you know, free speech and all...
just wait till the damn thing comes out, you may even finding yourself liking it. if you dont, go play Command and Conquer.
Seriously, you should be ashamed of yourself