Originally Posted by
Wiliest
This is where you are getting confused. Like I have been saying, in order to have an intelligent discussion you have to clearly define your terms, if you don't, then concepts start to mesh together instead of having a clear starting and ending point.
You keep referring back to the laymen's definition of what "war" means. The problem is that the game of utopia defines the word "war" in a completely different manner. A common real world example of this would be the laymen's definition of "theory" and the scientist's definition of "theory". The laymen defines "theory" as an educated guess, a hunch, something that they "think" is true or would happen, but have no proof, and often no way to test the validity of their "theory". A "theory" to a scientist is something that is very well documented with loads of evidence to support it, it is basically proven, holding the same weight as a scientific law, a theory is simply broader in scope than a scientific law, which can often be boiled down to a single equation. Definitions change based on context, words can have more than one meaning.
Diplomacy has nothing to do with war in the sense that it is the complete opposite of warring. Its a strategy developed by the players, not an inherent mechanic of the game, and is often done to avoid the mechanic of warring itself. They are connected concepts, yes, but they are entirely separate. This is an important distinction to make because we can take it a step further, Diplomacy is a strategy often employed to avoid serious conflict altogether, it does not have to be tied to the mechanic of warring. Diplomacy is often used to get out of long hostile situations that benefit neither kingdom, for example.
Your 3 points made above are all valid, but they are events caused by the strategy of the players, and are completely separate from the war stance itself. Connected to it, yes, but completely separate.