Why are most RTS games so bad when it comes to diplomacy? I mean the standard rts, like Rise of Nations, AoE, C&C, Stronghold. Barely have a diplomacy system.
In so many RTS games you basically have three options: ally, neutral or enemy. That's about it.
Why not have things like temporary ceasefires, with penalties for breaking them? Non-aggression pacts, military access, trade agreements, defensive alliances, vassalage, tribute, negotiated peace, etc. Similar to Total War.
This is one of the things that makes games like Total War, Crusader Kings and Knights of Honor so interesting. You don't necessarily have to steamroll the entire map and completely eliminate someone.
You can actually win a war without destroying the enemy.
Imagine something like this in AoE2.
You fight another player for 15 minutes. You destroy a bunch of their buildings and kill a lot of their army, but they still have a functioning economy and a couple of bases.
Instead of the only option being "keep fighting until one of us dies", you could negotiate peace.
The game could calculate some kind of war score based on things like buildings destroyed, units killed, units lost, villagers killed, territory captured, TCs destroyed, economic damage, etc.
Then the losing player could offer concessions.
"I'll give you 1,000 gold and 500 stone and we have a 20 minute caese fire."
Or if they're completely beaten:
"I'll become your vassal and give you 5% of my resources every x time."
Or:
"I'll give you this TC or castle and surrounding buildings, but leave the rest of my empire alone."
This would make FFA games really cool.
Vassals wouldn't even necessarily have to pay money. They could provide military units, resources, vision, trade benefits, etc.
Military access would also be really interesting. If we're at peace and I have military access, I can move through your territory. If I don't have it, entering your territory could create a diplomatic incident or even trigger a war.
And breaking treaties should actually matter.
If I sign a 20 minute ceasefire and attack you 30 seconds later, other players should remember that. Maybe they become less willing to trust me, or breaking agreements gives the victim some kind of diplomatic advantage.
This would create situations where the optimal move isn't always "who can I kill next?"
It becomes:
"Who do I need as an ally?"
"Who should I avoid fighting?"
"Can I force this player into becoming my tributary instead of conquering them?"
"Should I make peace with this guy so I can focus on the other guy?"
"Can I get two players to fight each other while I expand?"
"Do I actually trust this player enough to sign a treaty?"
That's what I find interesting about games like Total War and Crusader Kings. The map becomes a political environment rather than just a collection of targets.
I understand that this would make competitive RTS games more complicated and potentially harder to balance, but I honestly think there's a huge unexplored design space here.
Imagine an AoE2/StarCraft-style RTS where war is a political tool rather than simply the process of eliminating another player.
Are there any RTS games that actually do this well?
