It's always the same fight: gameplay vs. roleplay. From a roleplay perspective, it makes sense: USA, China and Russia have a big influence in diplomatic affairs, but that's not because they work toward international cooperation, but rather because they have a big military (or a big economy). If USA were really for international cooperation, they would have participate in the League of Nations, they would a ratified the Climate Accords and, most of all, they would have embrace the metric system and abandon retard units. But, despite the fact that USA are not for international cooperation (well, they're not completely against neither) and they do not really play the diplomatic game, USA are ones who have the most diplomatic and political power. The only to fight them, perhaps, are France (first consular network in the world) and it's because it's a long history and tradition to maintain everybody under French hegemony. Why does Iceland, Nepal or Nauru are quiet on the international scene? Because despite a strong diplomacy, they do not have a strong economy or military, and thus are considered like pretty nothing. But for a gameplay perspective, this system is wrong. Each Victory should reward a specific gameplay. I know you can win others victories by conquest: raze heathen cities to make, by comparison, your religion predominant; steal cities with wonders, national parks, seaside resorts and great works; destroy cities with spaceports; and of course, the DomV. But the Diplomatic Victory should be about all BUT conquest (even if it makes sense in a RP perspective). It should rewards players that are not only peaceful but helpful about others: emergencies, climate change, protecting city-states, make alliances... Because we all know it should be gameplay before roleplay. Why Canada cannot be the target of a surprise war? Why Maori will never have any written history despite discovering writing? Why nobody but Phoenician can move their capital to better fit in their empire? All GP reason before RP reasons. And it should be the same for Diplomatic Favors. Because conquering everybody to steal their diplomatic favors is the antithesis of what DipV is aiming for. A possible compromise could be that the winner of the war could decide to destroy all or a part of the DF of the loser. It can allow for conqueror to slow down possible people aiming for DipV but not give them a real advantage at it.