I think that in diplo games there should be different goal of the game. Making someone PE can be part of the game but the game itself should not allow people to break rules that game host want to involve.
Goals of the game could be different (one, obviously, is to be last one, like in any FFA game) - from alliance win to forcing opponents to surrender (surrender would not mean end of the game of the player, just he will be forced to either pay indemnities to other side or to stay away from conflicts with the side who forced him to surrender and have economy diminished, or whatever is similar to war games), or to conclude games if some other goals are fulfilled like taking enemy capitals (which should be designated, for instance), making catastrophic defeat (i.e. 50% of all availabe units lost in one battle, thus forcing surrender), etc.
I would like to see expeditionary forces - one player can have own units in friendly (for free) or neutral (paying upkeep) territories, but limiting to certain size or number of units. Owner of the army should have full control over such units and can cooperate with owner of the land who can still have own units there.
For alliance case, there should be in-game team chat open (so, whenever an alliance is concluded, players can have full conversation with alliance members, during the time alliance exists). Once it is broken, in-game chat for that alliance should be suspended until alliance is declared again.
I am aware that above "demands" are not in the spirit of this game, but, it would make diplo games more playable.
However, for what I see in Fizzer's announcements, this is big step forward to diplo games.
Edited 4/3/2019 06:51:41