The problem with argumenting that diplomacy of the three is most important is that is does not represent anything substansial in itself. Ultimately one's fellow co-gamers will tire of promises unless they see money/military action. A CoT will always be a tasty target regardless of one's diplomatic policies. In my opinion diplomacy is shaped more by the geopolitical situation, with players altering these conditions for international relationships to various degrees of success.
That being said, diplomacy is still an important tool for any country. Even a country such as Russia will benefit to obtain support against any neighbour that it fights. That Russia doesn't have as a big threat of extinction like Austria because of less successful economic/military/diplomatic play is an entirely different issue and shouldn't be confused with the utility of diplomacy.
Myself I'd rank economic/administrative skill highest, while military skills and diplomatic skills are of about the same importance one step below. The reason is the both latter depend on the former to succeed in many cases. However please note it takes time from game start to apply economic skill and shape the played country. Thus at the early stage of any campaign diplomacy and military skills actually matter more. It's in the long run economic skill matters.
Edit: That's why a below-average economic player like me tend to like to play (and do better) during the 16th and 17th centuries than during the 18th.
Trade sucks...
That being said, diplomacy is still an important tool for any country. Even a country such as Russia will benefit to obtain support against any neighbour that it fights. That Russia doesn't have as a big threat of extinction like Austria because of less successful economic/military/diplomatic play is an entirely different issue and shouldn't be confused with the utility of diplomacy.
Myself I'd rank economic/administrative skill highest, while military skills and diplomatic skills are of about the same importance one step below. The reason is the both latter depend on the former to succeed in many cases. However please note it takes time from game start to apply economic skill and shape the played country. Thus at the early stage of any campaign diplomacy and military skills actually matter more. It's in the long run economic skill matters.
Edit: That's why a below-average economic player like me tend to like to play (and do better) during the 16th and 17th centuries than during the 18th.
Trade sucks...
Last edited: