I'm thinking about how the diplomatic model would look in my ideal Vicky-like game. Firstly, you'd have a lot more options, due to a more sophisticated economic model - in fact, my ideal game would need a supercomputer to run it. But let's assume you have a supercomputer for playing games on. Then, when an important treaty is suggested (defined as, say, transfer of territories or other shifts in the strategic balance), the treaty is sent to the non-involved Great Powers for consideration. (I won't worry at the moment about how Great Powers are defined, or how many there are.) The GPs may either support it, declare neutrality, or oppose it. The ball now goes back to the original negotiators. They may ratify the treaty, or denounce it. If both parties ratify it, well and good - the Powers cannot very well interfere in internal affairs of sovereign countries without a good reason. If one party denounces it, while the other ratifies it, then the Powers that supported the treaty declare war on the denouncer, while the opposing Powers declare war on the ratifier. Interesting, to say the least. The war then continues. The question is, what should I do if both parties denounce the treaty? Clearly, the war continues, but the supporting Powers cannot very well declare war on both parties. Should I keep track of the number of peace attempts that have been made, and after a certain number declare peace anyway, with occupied territories annexed - something like the West Bank? Should I just assume that the parties will reach an accommodation eventually? Should the Great Powers step in and dictate the peace - and if so, which GPs, and how the devil could one code an AI for it? (And what if the parties to the war are themselves GPs?) I'd like your opinions.