Diplomacy

[SumthingObscure]

I could totally have missed something earlier, and be asking the same question… BUT, to what extent will diplomacy play a role in this first release? I totally understand the idea that people 10,000 years ago didn’t really want to talk to outsiders for fear of, well, conflict. This said, I do know there will be primitive combat in the form a raids, and limited trading. So I guess what I’m asking is, is that more or less it, or am did I miss something (I can be quite aloof sometimes)?

I totally get that you won’t be able to program a fully flawless Latin league type diplomacy system in the beta access, or maybe even a first release, BUT… I have a couple ideas, that I think could be cool and might add some interesting strategy components to the game:

• Tribal assimilation (nothing sinister)
  This just kind of means two tribes joining together to increase their numbers for survival. I feel like as the game progresses, in the early stages this would be easier to do and have some good benefits, but it would mean that you would have to provide more food for the newcomers. In the middle and late stage of the game it might be harder because the new tribe already has a set of beliefs and ideologies that might conflict with yours. But, if you can manage to have a tribe merger in the late stages of the game it would have a huge payoff.

• Trading
  I know for sure I heard this on the forum somewhere, but it’s 100% worth reiterating. In the early Neolithic period, groups of people traded things like small amounts of foods, and things like tools (I read that on Wikipedia, so don’t quote me on that). I feel like in the early releases of the game, trading shouldn’t be a vital strategy component, but it should have some role (but I don’t want to tell you guys how to make your game).

• Raiding / conflict
  Like with trading, I know I saw this on the forum, and totally think it deserves credit. Conflict is one of the oldest human past times, and I think it should have a part in the game. I also know you guys (Uncasual games) said it would have a part in the game. My idea is that conflict shouldn’t be a go to strategy at any point in the game, and that there is always a way to defuse tension. This said, I 100% think conflict should play a role, and be rewarded to a certain extent, but it should be as rewarding as characteristic diplomacy in the form of trading.

So, in conclusion, I just want to say that what you guys are doing is awesome. Again, I don’t want to sound like your younger brother telling you how to do something that you’ve been doing longer than they’ve been alive (me being the younger brother). This said, I feel like diplomacy is an incredibly important part of all grand strategy games, and should make an important appearance in this game.
I think you guys are doing great work and will continue to support you even after AC.

• John

[Gal2]

Hi John, and thank you for your feedback!
These are very interesting ideas, some of which have been discussed indeed! All your propositions make sense, and although we cannot disclose much as of now, we certainly hope we can bring fun complexity to diplomatic proceedings.
And as an archaeologist, I can say your three points are very much accurate!

[Elfryc]

Hey also, and welcome here!

Aside of saying I like your ideas, just a few things as you’re fairly new here.

Probably you’ve found that by now, but lot of things have been discussed already. If you look with such words as “trade” or “diplomacy” in the search bar, you should find enough things to read to keep you busy until the 16th of July. Obviously, don’t hesitate to comment there (or here) whenever you want to. And don’t be shy to say when you don’t agree. Debates and discussions are what make things spicy and interesting.

Also, don’t be shy about posting your ideas. I’m quite sure the devs, even if keeping discreet, read quite a lot of what’s written on the forum, pick up what seems feasible and interesting and goes well with their vision.
And, one way or another, I’m pretty sure they want to know what players really want and hope for when backing their game.

Regarding the “younger bother” part: I really don’t think you should worry about younger/older and such stuff. As far as I know there are no such things here. You’re a backer, like everyone else here. Granted, there are different types of backers, from citizens to divinities, but as far as I know a backer is still a backer, doing according to his taste and financial means. So really, no worry.

Last thing about what seems to be “shyness”: I remember some time ago some people wrote there was too much history/archaeology discussions on the forum (“that’s far too serious!”), instead of gameplay, military stuff and such cool things.
I remember I felt bad by then, as I’m pretty sure I’m almost always in the former topics, but as I told back then don’t worry about such considerations: someone who want a cool game is not a rival for anyone who want a game based on serious archaeological considerations.
I think back then I took the exemple of warfare: fighting with all of your 10 men is probably more stressing (and so, fun) than when having 10K men under your command. Each death makes 10% losses, which is quite drastic when you have a whole tribe to manage after the fight.
So, as you see, there are no reason to be shy: whatever the topic you want to suggest or write about, just do