Greater Powers per se have nothing more to them than a Minor Holding (other than they are, indeed, much more powerful). I picked seven probably because it's the number of Great Powers existing in my favourite boardgame (Empires in Arms).I asked for the interface because in the mod there are values for the alignment of the greater powers, like France might be allied with Russia against England and Austria, and then there would be another axis with the remaining 3 powers allied or not. I suppose we can see a ledger with the classification of all countries, and the interface would just help to see the minor allies of a coalition.
Why wasn't Jerusalem in that list?
Hm. I mean, it was diminishing in importance by that period, I suppose.
Last edited by PenguinOverlord; 11-12-2010 at 06:50.
Very impressive. I see the interface has improved dramatically since the last time I saw it.
How will a player perceive other nations' standing? Just the plain status and ranking number, with the more detailed stats uncovered by spy missions?
Some of these factors effect things negatively right?
Like war exhaustion?... and does number of cultures give a bonus or a malus? because presumably ethnic homogeneity would give a (small) bonus.
This all looks very nice. Though I am a bit surprised by Karbala beating Jerusalem to the list. While I understand its significance to the Shiite peoples, I don't believe that it is any more holy than Najaf. Jerusalem, on the other hand, bore a religious significance to all Christian, Muslim, and Jewish peoples (though, admittedly, the Christians in particular were unlikely to be so attached to Jerusalem as the Shiites were and are their holy sites.)
Just a quick (and possibly unnecessary) comment: I'm not entirely sure I understand the title of this DD. While I've played MM for years and am thoroughly attached to it (and am keen to buy the game the day it comes out) I can imagine a newcomer might be a little bemused by the title. Ubik, did you perhaps mean "The Intangibility of Diplomacy?" Seems like a bit of an odd title, as neatly ranking all of the nations in order seems to make diplomacy more tangible. But Lord knows, it's really not that big of a deal.
If anything, my only worry is that the objective list makes the rank too 'tangible'. What the team is trying to quantify, here, is subjective, I think, and might benefit from being formulated for each nation based on (a) the objective measures as already described, (b) the geographic proximity of the target nation to the nation's population centres and (c) the cultural preferences of the assessing country (e.g. monarcies value military might, merchant republics value trade strength, etc.).